Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
All of the available evidence seems to say so.
Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest levels of one or more branches of government. " - https://clinecenter.illinois.edu/projec … roject-cdp
In this case, the "incumbent executive" would be the newly elected President, Joe Biden. To you sharpshooters, it matters not that Biden had not been sworn in yet, he was the duly elected president.
The person organizing the coups is the then current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. Fast forward to the election and Trump did lose and he started implementing his plan to overthrow the will of the people.
There are several good timelines on Trump's efforts to remain president and throw Biden out of office. This is just one:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics … ndex.html.
It should be noted that Trump is still trying to overturn the election.Here is a little more on how Trump and his minions tried to weaponize DOJ to overturn the election results.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/politics … index.htmlAt this point, it would seem all once again an "if come". At best we are at a wait-and-see juncture. In my personal view, nothing will come of any of the investigations but fodder for media, and some very disappointed Trump haters.
I don’t remember you putting so much effort in when Hillary was whining about a stolen election.
Why is that, do you think?Maybe because she conceded the day after the election, didn't call her supporters to the Capitol and gleefully watch them violently storm the halls of Congress.
And since Russian interference was proven, as was members of the Trump Campaign conspiring with Russian Intelligence, the case of a stolen election actually has some validity.
Why on Earth so many Americans accepted Russians chosen candidate still baffles me.Me too, it is a mystery.
To this day, Trump supporters and minions spout the Putin party propaganda line (they are called Republican talking points) almost verbatim. What is their affinity with everything communist and Russian? (Oh, I think I know, they want autocracy not democracy)Russian interference was not ‘proven’. I doubt the Russians did any more than our government does to influence opinion during foreign elections. I saw no evidence that they swayed voters or tampered with our voting. There was clear evidence of tampering by Hillary and the DNC with the fake and bogus dossier they floated that disrupted our republic for years.
Nor did she concede the election. I believe she is still whining about having lost it unfairly.
And, honestly? I find the civil disruption pushed by the left, before and after the election (which is still ongoing) to have been much more destructive to our cohesiveness as a society.
I’m sorry but you’ve already pushed a lie about January 6th in a prior conversation so you lack any credibility on this topic. Your feces claims were ridiculous. I have far left family members I shared that claim with and each of them rolled their eyes and complained about both sides making up bs stories.Here is the Senate Report confirming Russian Interference. It's actually titled Active Measures and Interference:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit … olume1.pdf
"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.
Hilary did not concede? What reality are you living in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ
Ummm, the feces claim was not mine, but thanks for being confused about who said what at this site. Please go back and look at that thread so you can be clear about who made that claim so you can make accurate accusations from now on. But just to show you where those claims might have originated, here are a few links:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rioters-l … s-capitol/
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi … story.html
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national … r-BB1cAQXK
https://www.revolt.tv/news/2021/1/8/222 … eared-poop
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … pitol.html
https://www.ibtimes.sg/dna-test-poop-sm … gins-54777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RJSRpa8Q08
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2105149/tr … -building/"Russian interference was not ‘proven’. " - Obviously a far-right false talking point. In addition to what Valeant wrote, you should read this:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/fi … 6/download
"There was clear evidence of tampering by Hillary and the DNC with the fake and bogus dossier they floated that disrupted our republic for years." - What proof, lol? Nobody even looked because this is nothing more than another Republican/Putin lie. As to the Steele dossier, the person who first "floated" was, if memory serves, Sen McCain - a Republican.
Pertinent facts about the dossier that Trump minions prefer to ignore in there bogus attempt to change the narrative:
1. The dossier "is an unfinished 35-page compilation of raw intelligence"
2. The dossier was leaked (contrary to the commenters claim)
3. "The dossier's 17 reports allege that Trump campaign members and Russian operatives had conspired to co-operate in Russia's election interference to benefit Trump." - While Mueller didn't have quite enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy, he did prove what we commonly think of as collusion (I think Mueller was wrong regarding Paul Manafort, I think there was more than enough evidence to prove "conspiracy")
4. "It also alleges that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy, including sharing negative information about Clinton with the Trump campaign." - This was TRUE
5. "The draft dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, noting that it was unverified"
6. The Steele Dossier began with Republicans - "In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates."
7. It seems like Steele didn't even know the Democrats had taken over the Republican effort for quite a while. "DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS."
8. "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated in particular its main allegations that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians.
9. "Contrary to a conspiracy theory promoted by Trump, Fox News, and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into "whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,"
10. "It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page in terms of establishing FISA's low bar for probable cause" - And that was ALL it did, contrary to all of the lies put out by Trump and his minions and defenders
All of that was easy to find, you just needed to look rather than believe Republican/Putin propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
"I find the civil disruption pushed by the left, before and after the election (which is still ongoing) to have been much more destructive to our cohesiveness as a society." - first, it wasn't the "left" pushing anything, it was the killing of unarmed blacks that did the "pushing" and second, it is sad you don't recognize that
"I’m sorry but you’ve already pushed a lie about January 6th in a prior conversation" - What Lie?? That it didn't happen or that the police are lying about getting beat up?The Russian dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. They were the only ones that have been proven to be using Russian contacts to compose lies about Trump. This is a fact and has been well proven via the Muller report.
"The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians and journalists, is officially debunked, according to a review of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page investigative report.
Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates."
https://apnews.com/article/technology-j … d92b775d98
SORRY FOR THE LONG LIST --- BUT ONCE AND FOR ALL HERE ARE MUELLER"S FINDING'S --- The facts as Mueller reported
Here are 12 of Mr. Steele’s 2016 conspiracy charges that were in the dossier, as compared with Mueller's factual findings.
Mr. Steele: There was an “extensive conspiracy between Trump campaign team and Kremlin” and a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them and Russian leadership.”
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he wrote.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump and his team set up a hacking operation in the U.S. Mr. Trump funded hacking teams overseas along with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. The Mueller investigation found no such illegal activities.
Mr. Steele: The supposed U.S. hacking operation was funded by the Russian Embassy in Washington. It skimmed cash off pension payments to emigres. The Trump team was involved.
Mr. Mueller: No such evidence was presented.
Mr. Steele: Former campaign manager Paul Manafort and volunteer adviser Carter Page worked as a team to liaison with the Kremlin on election interference.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” the report said.
For Manafort, the Mueller report cited his sharing of internal polling with his longtime employee in Ukraine, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI believes is tied to Russian intelligence.
“The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts,” the report states.
Mr. Steele: The Trump campaign received a regular flow of anti-Democratic Party intelligence from the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller: Not true.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump exchanged information with Russian intelligence for eight years.
Mr. Mueller: Not true.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump knew of and supported WikiLeaks’ alliance with Moscow, which fed stolen Democratic Party emails to the anti-secrecy group. It released them in huge batches during the campaign.
Mr. Mueller: Weeks before the election, evidence pointed to the Kremlin as the hacker. There is no evidence that Mr. Trump supported the illegal activity.
Mr. Steele: The Kremlin told Mr. Trump it had incriminating evidence on him but would not use it.
Mr. Mueller: No evidence of conspiracy.
Mr. Steele: Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen secretly traveled to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Putin cronies to devise a cover-up of the conspiracy and pay off hackers. This is one of Mr. Steele’s most sensational charges.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false,” the special counsel wrote.
Mr. Steele: Carter Page, while on a public trip to Moscow in July 2016 to deliver a commencement speech, met with two powerful Putin associates. Mr. Page agreed to a huge bribe in exchange for lifting U.S. economic sanctions on Russian businesses and figures.
Mr. Mueller: Investigators couldn’t determine everything Mr. Page, an energy investor, did during the trip. Mr. Page repeatedly has denied the Steele tale. He wasn’t charged. Mr. Mueller cleared him of any election conspiracy.
Mr. Steele: Russian intelligence has material on Mr. Trump’s sex escapades in The Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow during the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant, which he co-owned with NBCUniversal.
Mr. Mueller: His report contains no evidence. Rumored tapes of the encounter with prostitutes are “fake,” Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a U.S.-based businessman, told the FBI. Mr. Rtskhiladze was an early player in the Trump Organization’s 2015-16 bid to build a Moscow hotel.
Mr. Steele: Russian entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev, owner of the web-hosting service firm XBT, hacked Democratic Party computers under pressure from Russian intelligence. Mr. Gubarev categorically denies the charge and has sued Mr. Steele in London.
Mr. Mueller: His report depicts Russian military intelligence officers as the lone hackers, working out of boiler rooms at a Moscow headquarters. There is no mention of Mr. Gubarev.
These are the facts as Mueller discovered in a twp year investigation.
There was no evidence that Trump conspired with Russia to win the election. Mueller did find Russia did interfere with the election but were non-related to conspiring with the GOP or Trump.
It is disheartening to see many still spread conspiracy theories and make claims that Trump worked with Russian's to try to win the election. There is only one person that did that --- Hillary Clinton she bought and paid for the information that was reportedly from Russians.
It always amazes me how Democrats can make accusations against someone, as Hillary did, of exactly what they tried to perpetrate. More amazing they can sell it to some of the public."The Russian dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. " - Since you appear to be confused about this, let's reprise a couple of facts:
6. The Steele Dossier began with Republicans - "In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates."
7. It seems like Steele didn't even know the Democrats had taken over the Republican effort for quite a while. "DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS."
So much for that false narrative.
I just noticed the source of your information - a right-wing opinion piece from a right-wing newspaper, Washington Times. So there is no telling if the author reported the right context.
Here are a few examples of what IS TRUE from the raw intelligence:
... that there was an extensive and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership",[170] with information willingly exchanged in both directions.[171] That this co-operation was "sanctioned at the 'highest level' and involved Russian diplomatic staff based in the US" - While Mueller couldn't delope enough evidence to convince him he could win a conspiracy conviction in court, he definitely laid out lots of examples of what we term collusion (keep in mind Mueller ALSO SAID much information was kept hidden from his team).
"...That the Trump campaign used "moles within DNC as well as hackers in the US and Russia" - Not Dispproven
".. that Trump associates had established "an intelligence exchange [with the Kremlin] for at least 8 years". That Trump and his team had delivered "intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs and their families", as requested by Putin." - Apparently verified - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
".. that a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was "to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country" - Mueller and others verified this
"... that Putin aimed to spread "discord and disunity" within the United States and between Western allies, whom he saw as a threat to Russia's interests." - Mueller and others verified this
"... that "TRUMP was viewed as divisive in disrupting the whole US political system; anti-Establishment; and a pragmatist with whom they could do business." That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected." - Common Knowledge
"... that Putin feared and hated Hillary Clinton." - Not sure about the "feared" part, but the "hated" part is obvious
"... that Putin's interference operation had an "objective of weakening CLINTON and bolstering TRUMP"." - That was one of Mueller's major findings"The Russian dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC." - is false. Testimony says that Hillary and the DNC didn't even know about it to start with. Give me the quote in Mueller's report that says they did. If you can't, concede you are wrong.
So biden should not raise a heel against Putin?!
Because HIllary never "whined" about a stolen election. She conceded right away like any honorable and ethical person would and not put democracy at risk like Trump is doing.
More about the attempted coup by Trump prior to the Jan 6 insurrection. This is a statement from Sen Blumingthal after listening to testimny from former acting AG Rosen on Saturday.
"Blumenthal said he “was struck by how close the country came to total catastrophe” after listening to the entire closed-door testimony of Rosen Saturday."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/07/politics … index.htmlAnalysis by Stephen Collison of the latest revelations about Trump's on-going coup attempt.
It starts out with "A burst of new disclosures exposing the extraordinary efforts by ex-President Donald Trump to steal power after his election defeat constitute a grave warning about the future and his potential bid to recapture the White House.
The audacity of the former President’s attempts to subvert the law by weaponizing the Justice Department not only underscores how close the United States came to a full blown constitutional crisis this year. It also emphasizes that any attempt by Trump to use a war chest already worth $100 million to try to recapture the White House in 2024 would represent a mortal threat to democracy and the rule of law from a leader who was undeterred even by his own first impeachment."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/politics … index.htmlTrump never had any evidence the election was "rigged" and still doesn't have any such evidence - as demonstrated by his lawyers' inability to verify any fraud claims in court. Yet, he attempt to force the Justice Department to overturn the election. Bill Barr has stated so and Jeffrey Rosen has testified to that.
What is clear now is the former President Trump needs to be in jail for treason and that anyone who could possibly still support the man is a traitor to this country, more interested in worshipping a demagogue than the country's Constitution."Trump never had any evidence the election was "rigged" and still doesn't have any such evidence " - Didn't you know Trump never lies and his word is gospel? LOL.
This is mostly-irrelevant to the conversation, but I had to comment because it made me laugh. I misread this question as:
"Did Trump really try to impregnate a cop?"
I was like, "Uh, probably," but then I realized I misread the title, lmao!Well Gee, Trump was wrong again - he wasn't installed as president today as he and his supporters tried to scare us with. That said, he is still stoking the flames and inciting his more violent supplicants to stage another attack - at least that is what DHS believes.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/13/politics … index.htmlThey also rebuked Reeder for claiming in an April FBI interview that the riot was "a plan to allow people in" so the media could "demonize the Trump people" -- a conspiracy theory that 55% of Republicans believe is true, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that was conducted in April.
Isn't it absolutely amazing that 55% of supposedly intelligent Republicans believe this conspiracy theory BS.
Not sure how to break the news --- So I will let Reuters do it -- "WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials." https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclus … 021-08-20/
"FBI finds no evidence Capitol riot was coordinated
Dozens of followers of far-right militias have been charged with conspiracy from the January 6 riots, but the FBI doesn’t believe they had a plan once they entered the US Capitol"
"The FBI has reportedly found no evidence that far-right allies of Donald Trump conspired to overturn the presidential election during the January 6 assault on the US Capitol, according to law enforcement officers briefed on the investigation." https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-finds-no-evi … 03169.html
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup? It appears the FBI does not think so...
It just was not fair for some to accuse President Trump of participating in any form of planning of the Jan 6 riot.I don't think anybody ever claimed there was one or two central figures that sat down and actively planned the riot. As the article says, there were a few groups who did organize and plan to enter the capitol - many of those are facing conspiracy charges now.
But that is not what implementing a coup means. Trump knows how to rile people up. Trump knows they were primed to riot because he set the stage. Trump sent them to the Capitol with a specific purpose - to stop the vote count. They did that. That is a coup."The person organizing the coups is the then current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. Fast forward to the election and Trump did lose and he started implementing his plan to overthrow the will of the people."
Need I quote some of what you claimed in the weeks after the Jan riot?
Come on... You were very much accusatory of Trump, and the people that entered the Capitol. Conspiracies as a rule don't pan out. As all the Trump accusations, from his Taxes to Russia Russia --- none turned out to be factual.Your quote is correct. And to the extent that Trump set the stage and pulled the trigger, he "organized" it. He didn't the inflammatory lying. He assembled his "troops" in Washington DC. He sent them to the Capitol with the words to "Fight for America". And that is what they did.
Now, were there formal strategy sessions by Trump or any others to lay out the tactics and plan the minute to minute moves, I seriously doubt it. It is THAT level of planning that the FBI found little evidence of.I would have to say that liberal cities "set the stage" with months of demonstrating that rioting is not only all right but the right thing to do. Of course, the rioters in DC didn't do near the damage that was done elsewhere, but maybe they weren't very experienced at burning and looting, either. Or maybe they just had an agenda (demand a fair election) and stuck to it rather than simply destroy under the guise of demanding an end to law enforcement.
Of course I also understand that you will disagree that months of watching thousands upon thousands of people burning cities with no response (except to refuse any help) played no part in "setting the stage". But it is my opinion, along with millions of others, that watching that disgraceful display of anarchy DID have an effect beyond burned out buildings and livelihoods destroyed.Your so-called liberals cities didn't lie to Trump supporters about not losing the election, now did they. They protested cops killing blacks.
You are again making things up. There were never "thousands upon thousands of people burning cities" - that is simply a lie. If you had said tens to a hundred CRIMINALS burning cities, then you might have something.
Saying "with no response" is another lie - plain and simple.
I'll use one of your tactics - Did you talk to each of those millions of people you reference?
And once again you show you are not capable of understanding the difference between some buildings in a city and the seat of American Democracy. SAD.Unfortunately our Capital building is no longer the seat of American Democracy. It used to be, but the American form of democracy requires people working together and compromising with each other to guide and run the nation. That concept has died, with every year making it more and more obvious that the "leaders" of our nation are not interested in working with each other and not interested in either the needs of the nation or its people. Thus that building is no longer the "seat of American Democracy"; it is only the place where professional lifelong politicians use Democracy to pad their own pockets and build their power. SAD.
You want the real "seat of American Democracy"? It is in the towns and cities of the country. It is in the police precinct buildings from which Democratic based laws are enforced. It is in the courtrooms in those same towns and cities. It is even in at least some of the state capitals where laws are enacted. But it is no longer in Washington DC, where no one cares about American Democracy any more.Yes, it is SAD, but I am not ready to give up. Here is what has come (or is coming out) of that 100% dysfunctional gov't you describe.
Yes, many are small, but then so are most bills passed out of Congress, but there are big ones as well.
HR 1448 - Puppies Assisting Wounded Service Members (PAWS)
HR 3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
HR 1868 - Suspension of Medicare Sequestration
SJ Res 13 - Methane capture
SJ Res 14 - Protect borrowers from predatory lenders
SJ Res 15 - Makes it easier to file for workplace discrimination
S 957 - Dispose Unused Medications and Prescription Opioids Act
S 1910 - Major Medical Facility Authorization Act of 2021
HR 3325 - to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police
HR 3237 - Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021
HR 2630 - Extending Temporary Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act
HR 2523 - THRIVE Act
S 475 - Juneteenth National Independence Day Act
And many more. So you can see, Congress hasn't been sitting on its hand entirely. Most just haven't made the right-wing propaganda outlets yet (or the MSN for that matter).And while they give puppies to people our southern border is a sieve and they welcome thousands into the country while infected with COVID. They refuse to consider the badly needed infrastructure bill to repair our failing infrastructure until they ALSO get a $3T wish list spending bill we cannot afford. As far as I know they STILL aren't enforcing the laws by deporting illegal aliens from the interior.
But you're right - they ARE good at discussing and even passing the small stuff that makes them look good. Like giving puppies to vets. Things that will buy them votes.
While the biggest problems go unaddressed for decades, like 20 million illegal aliens within our borders and bridges failing all across the country.So our wounded vets aren't worth the effort to you. I guess I am not surprised by that view since that is the same one Trump holds.
Since we need those 20 million illegal aliens within our borders to keep our economy running, why not just make them all citizens? Your problem solved?
In any case, your point was that Congress has done absolutely, 100% nothing, thereby giving up the moniker of the seat of democracy. I simply pointed out that while they are indeed doing a very poor job, they are still doing some of what they were sent there to do and therefore keep the Seat of Democracy title."So our wounded vets aren't worth the effort to you."
Figured that would be your response - I won't discuss it again except to note that puppies to vets does nothing for the country; that it is individuals that have the need.
"Since we need those 20 million illegal aliens within our borders to keep our economy running, why not just make them all citizens?"
We did. Several times. And the problem just got bigger, along with the costs of supporting them.
"In any case, your point was that Congress has done absolutely, 100% nothing, thereby giving up the moniker of the seat of democracy."
Oh no! Not at all! The point was that Capital Hill no longer addresses the needs of the country - that such things are left to state/local governments while Congress works at keeping their jobs. And, of course, shoveling money about. It's all opinion, of course, but I find that Capital Hill actually does very little any more - too concerned about their power and their pocketbook. The things that actually need doing are done by states or don't get done at all.
(The state of Idaho, for instance, sent police to help at the border since Biden refuses to control it and the states there are in dire straits from the invasion. Meanwhile Congress cancels funding for physical barriers and welcomes border crossers if they can just get by the skeleton force of Border Patrol.)By saying what you said, you imply that it is not a good thing for Congress to help the disabled vets. That you would rather Congress do nothing regarding their health and welfare. That is basically what you are saying.
"And the problem just got bigger" - What problem? I don't see a problem other than conservatives riling everybody up about it.
"along with the costs of supporting them." - I provided you proof many times over that there is a net benefit for having illegals here. It would be even more of a benefit it we eliminated the huge expense of trying to deport them, which only hurts our economy.
"The things that actually need doing are done by states or don't get done at all. " - Well given the sad state of economics in most Red states, I would have to say they are not getting anything do either - other than trying to help kids catch Covid or make it harder for people to vote.
Most Blue states, on the other hand, aren't doing that badly."By saying what you said, you imply that it is not a good thing for Congress to help the disabled vets."
YOU might make that claim, but it certainly is not one I would make. It is fine and good that Congress helps the disabled vets, but (as I made abundantly clear) it has nothing to do with the needs of the country.
"I provided you proof many times over that there is a net benefit for having illegals here."
No - you made the claim but simply left out most of the costs when comparing benefits to costs. That is NOT proof that it is cheaper to feed, clothe, house, police and educate them.
"Well given the sad state of economics in most Red states..."
Yeah. That's why the state of Idaho just returned many millions of tax dollars to taxpayers; because their economics is so bad. And why California, among other blue states, is on the verge of bankruptcy; because their economics is so good."No - you made the claim but simply left out most of the costs when comparing benefits to costs." - NOT TRUE, the studies I provided for you looked at ALL of the costs and benefits.
Now, lets check out your Idaho claim. Hmmm, they rank 48th out of 50 states plus D.C.in GDP per capita
How about Red vs Blue states:
- Out of the top 10 states, 8 are blue and 2 are red.
- Out of the bottom 10 states, 2 are blue and 8 are red.
I think my claim stands."Hmmm, they rank 48th out of 50 states plus D.C.in GDP per capita"
Perhaps you are more concerned with the wealth of the average citizen than the "economic health" of the state government? I was speaking of how well the state handles its resources (money) - were you speaking of how rich the residents are instead?
We may have a mis-communication, a misunderstanding of the topic itself here.Oh, give me a break, your comment is absurd. I thought you understood economics, lol.
I understand that Idaho is economically healthy while California is on the brink of bankruptcy.
I also understand that it costs far less to live in Idaho than it does in California, meaning a much lower average salary (making per capita GDP) does not need to be astronomical as it does in other states (basic economics). Unfortunately, that is changing with a deluge of Californians "immigrating" to the cheaper state.Then why does Idaho have such a pitiful GDP compared to California? And sense you obviously need reminding, GDP is one of the best indicators of economic health because it measures the total output in goods and services. And in that measure, Idaho is almost last.
OR...GDP measures the cost of living via the wages paid.
If a home costs 1,000,000 in LA and 200,000 in Idaho, and the wages reflect those figures, then GDP is way up in California even though both states afford the people a house. Just a simple example, but the rest of it follows through, from groceries to utilities to household appliances. I recently gave up buying a car in California, for example, because the state demanded I pay their 9.5%+ sales tax rather than my own 6% - the extra is reflected in the state's GDP but NOT in what the people can purchase.
But again, I was speaking of the economic health of the state government, not the wealth of the people. California is skirting bankruptcy while Idaho is giving excess taxes back to the people - it seems obvious that Idaho is in much better shape economically, as a state entity, than California is. You appear to be speaking of the wealth of the people, but neglect to consider cost of living in an effort to "prove" that liberal states, with extreme cost of living to match their extreme wages, is somehow better off.There is a theoretical connection between wages and GDP, but it is not direct as you try to imply. In addition to wages, rent, interest, and profit figure in as well. It is the sum of those that equal the National Income version of GDP. Because of those additional factors, wages and GDP are not directly connected.
The complete formula is Consumption + Investment + Gov't Spending + Net Exports = Depreciation, Indirect Business Taxes (e.g. sales taxes) + Wages + Rent + Interest + Profit.
Then the reason you divide by population is to each state (or nation) on an even footing and allow for comparisons. Because wages is just one of six factors, you obviously cannot talk about wages in isolation - it will lead to wrong conclusions.
And no, I am not talking about the wealth of the people. To be clear, I am talking about GDP (actually, it is GSP) as a broad measure of a states economic strength. Or, to phrase it differently
"GDP is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced domestically in a single year and is the single most important measure of macroeconomic performance. "
BTW, California has the 4th strongest economy of the 50 states. It is not "skirting" bankruptcy. That is just one of those conservative urban myths you buy into."In addition to wages, rent, interest, and profit figure in as well."
Of course it is! Equally "of course" is that if wages are low, so will we rent, interest (dollars, not percentage) and profit. Without high wages none of those can be high either.
Consider that if you cut in half all the prices and all the incomes the GDP will be cut in half as well. (This does ignore exports, of course, and that WILL change the numbers some). If you remove just the entertainment industry (Hollywood and it's spin-offs), with its high dollar income and profits, housing and other products will fall precipitously. Then take away the electronics field and it will drop again. You have also taken away a great deal of the wealth of California, which is what I was trying to point out.
California, as a collection of people, is certainly not skirting bankruptcy - Hollywood alone would nearly take care of that. But the state government just as certainly is. The payout is far too great for the income in spite of having enormous taxes.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/9-most-b … on-bandlerThe Daily Wire is a far-right outlet whose own source, Mercatus Center, doesn't support its hyperbolic headline. Even by their measure, California is not "skirting" bankruptcy. In fact, 1) California is running a surplus, 2) California's has more cash on-hand than short-term debt, 3) its revenues exceed its expenses, and 4) its long-term debt is LESS than its total assets.
I went and looked for other state rankings. None showed California anywhere near bankruptcy. In fact, several of ranked California above Idaho.
None show Idaho even close to California relative to economic output or growth, which was my original claim.
GMU is my alma mater and is a libertarian oriented college which I didn't know when I attended. But since my masters is in Operations Research, I suppose it doesn't make much difference.*waves white flag* OK! OK! I give! California is the epitome of a well run state! I'd hate to pay their tax rates, but it is the best in the country!
(Would you please explain how great the state is to the hordes that are flooding Idaho now that it's common to work from home? I presume that other states feel the same; Idaho isn't the only place the departing population is moving to.)Idaho is a beautiful state for sure. But that said, not everybody is staying there. One of my employees who just semi-retired just moved to Ohio.
BTW, don't you ever get tired of hitting one extreme or the other?I don't know about "beautiful"; when I moved here from Virginia 22 years ago I missed the vegetation of the coastal state. Still do, for that matter, although I don't miss the humidity and the bugs.
Of course some move out - that goes without saying. But the state IS seeing a massive influx of people; the town I live in was the fastest growing in the country for several years and is still growing too fast to keep up with. The main street outside my subdivision, a two lane country road just a few years ago is now a 4 lane parking lot and won't attempt a left turn onto it.
6 Weeks Later and Trump is STILL trying to overturn the election. He recently sent a letter to the GA SOS demanding that he decertify the GA election results. (Which is being included in both the GA and House investigations of Trump's illegal activities)
Then there is this where it appears Trump came closer to succeeding with his coup attempt than we thought. Newly discovered emails describe the extent of his effort.
"New bombshells show Trump's coup threat was real and hasn't passed
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/politics … index.html
One ironic quote puts a floor on Trump during the days after his defeat (keep in mind, this from people who don't believe Trump was trying to execute a coup)
And skeptics of the coup terminology also suggested that Trump's efforts were little more than madcap and incompetent political theater.
And then there is this from Trump lawyer on how VP Pence can overthrow the election.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics … index.htmlA bombshell IMO would be some sort of factual proof that leads to an arrest. Not a bunch of he said she said. New evidence of a coup??? Really, any dated when the insurrection was to take place? Any instruction in regard to anything? Any instructions of any kind? Quoting your CNN article
"Trump had blueprints that the Republicans tried to use to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's clear and genuine victory, in the form of a memo that laid out a plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to thwart Biden's Electoral College triumph. The memo was reported in the new book "Peril," by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, and was later obtained by CNN.
Trump's own campaign staff knew that outlandish claims of fraud made by the then-President's lawyers were utterly false, according to a report in The New York Times. But they did nothing to stop his dangerous allegations.
Trump sent a letter full of false information to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to start the process of decertifying the 2020 election.
"Peril" also contains a passage that shows Trump cared little for truth, what voters decided in November or bedrock constitutional values -- but agonized about his reputation and mused that accepting defeat would brand him as one of history's losers."
Your comment "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest levels of one or more branches of government. "
Do you have any form of evidence of an "organized effort on Trump's part to plan a coup? Not words he said at a rally that you add your own context, but a coordinated Plan...
Your comment -- "The person organizing the coups is the then-current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. "
"False claims" are in any respect well-set out plan or instructions to commit a Government coup.
Perhaps it's time to return to the unraveling Russia conspiracy you felt was 100% true. John Durham has indicted a second co-conspirator that participated in the Hillary Clinton Russian Hoax. This is current and worth discussing. Here is the Sussmann indictment... It's well-written and factual.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics … index.html"A bombshell IMO would be some sort of factual proof that leads to an arrest. " - And why do you qualify that with "leads to an arrest"? Is the proof not valid if there is not arrest? If so, why? You definitely have factual proof in the emails.
Do you not agree that Trump was trying to remove the lawful executive (Biden) by overturning a fair and free and certified (by the States) election? If you don't think so, then exactly what do you think Trump has been up to since June of 2020??
Since Trump had
1) been prepping his base with his Bid Lie since June getting them ready to revolt in case he lost, and
2) then he and his minions then driving home the Big Lie in the two months after he lost the election and
3) then crafting his plans for Pence not to certify the election, and
4) then calling his troops to Washington D.C. on the day of the certification vote, and
5) then inflaming the mob that showed up with hate and violence filled rhetoric (always being care to say one or two peaceful things in there for his supporters to trot out and say SEE), and
6) then sending them marching to the Capitol to SAVE AMERICA (a march he promised to join but characteristically lied about doing), and
7) then not reacting when word of the horrific violence taking place at the Capitol reached him.
To me, that is a slam dunk prosecution that any juror with half a brain could follow leading to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since there was no so-called "Hillary Clinton Russian Hoax" that statement cannot in any way be true. Now if you had said the truth which is a Republican-driven investigation into the Trump campaigns Russian connections (of which there were many), then at least you started from a true premise.
As to the laughable indictment of Sussmann:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-cou … l-sussmann
EXCERPTS:
Durham had, beyond that one case (a low level FBI lawyer) issued no findings or reports and had charged nobody with anything. He had merely existed and, by existing, allowed expectations and conspiracy theories to swirl around him.
And
But now Durham has spoken on his own. He has indicted a cybersecurity lawyer named Michael Sussmann for allegedly making a single false statement in a conversation in 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. The allegedly false statement concerned not Trump or Russia, but whom Sussmann represented when he brought Baker some information about an alleged electronic connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
WOW, Explosive!
The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. Very far removed. In fact, it doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but portrays the FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside political operatives. It describes the FBI as diligently running down the leads it had been fed by these operatives and then, well, dropping the matter when it learned they had no merit.
Sussmann has pled not guilty and I bet will win.
Well, as expected the SHAM Arizona Republican so-called "audit" (part of Trump's coup attempt) found that Biden beat Trump. In fact, if you can believe the "audit", Biden GAINED 99 votes while Trump LOST over 200!! LOL.
Now Texas (where Trump won) and Pennsylvania will waste a lot of taxpayer's money to come to the same conclusion.
I would say "what a farce" if it weren't so damaging to American democracy.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics … index.htmlSuch old news, most have long moved on from the 2020 election. We have had a new president for 8 months. And it is very clear at this point the majority of American's are having buyers remorse. Polls are worsening daily.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, sponsored by The ANTIFA by Jack Posobiec, for Friday shows that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.
The latest figures include 23% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 47% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -24. (see trends)
Fivethirtyeight this morning 49.2 disapproval -- 45.4 approval.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
Maybe you might want to keep a closer eye on your guy, and his grifter of a son.
And all the revelations that are being reported on the Durham investigation.
So, odd you can ignore all of the current news. Seem's like you only worry about the past, not the present.ALL the Revelations? Come on, give me a break. He has had zero, none, nada, zilch "revelations" about anything. Even the one, singular, unique guilty plea wasn't a "revelation", it was already known.
Durham has been a huge waste of money and resources and a stain on his good reputation.As was Mueller... I consider Durham connecting the Clinton Campaign and the very attorney that represented that campagn planted one of the firsts Lies or seeds of Hillary Russia grift very very relevant. It would seem you are willing to ignore evidence, as you did with all the Steel dodier. and the railroading of Fylnn and Carter Page. The puzzle is coming together nicely. Not sure what else Durham has, but hopefully he traps Hillary, she is a slipper rat, and always has been.
So you think not telling the FBI who he represented is relevant? What is it relevant to? Sorry, but you are clearly tilting at windmills here and making mountain out of tiny little ant hills.
As to Mueller, I just chalk that up to your unreasonable belief that Trump or his campaign or his administration can't be guilty of anything even though many have been indicted and found or pleaded guilty. I am sorry to say, it is that blindness to reality which makes most of us take anything you say with a shaker of salt.
What "railroading"?? Flynn pleaded guilty and he was guilty of much more. And I have to repeat myself again about the dossier - a lot of it was verified and none of it was disproved! The rest falls in that gray area of maybe true, maybe not
Since Durham has found nothing, I suspect his "investigation" will be closed. Remember, a few of his staff quit from being pressured to find something wrong when their was no evidence.
I am still hoping Congress or DOJ will indict Trump on the many cases of Obstruction of Justice that Mueller provided lots of evidence for."So you think not telling the FBI who he represented is relevant? What is it relevant to? Sorry, but you are clearly tilting at windmills here and making mountain out of tiny little ant hills."
I think Sussmann was sent to do a job --- lie, which he did. You seem to forget or I will give you the benefit of the doubt --- what he told the FBI was proven to be untrue.
"Special counsel John Durham charged lawyer Michael Sussman over a statement during a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting between Sussmann and the then-FBI general counsel, James Baker, at which Sussman told Baker about suspicions relating to alleged secret communications between the Trump campaign and Russia. The suspicions were later determined to be unfounded."
"In fact, Sussmann acted on behalf of specific clients, namely a U.S. Technology Industry Executive, a U.S. Internet Company, and the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … n-n1279353
His lie misled an FBI investigation, that held no truth and slandered the President. right before the election. Did not work, but Clinton gave it her all.
It's been reported (leaked) that Durham Durham at this point is requesting indictments on Perkins Coie.
This past week Sussmann resigned from his law firm, Perkins Coie.
The full list of Mueller indictments and plea deals
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.
2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.
3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide, and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statement charge and one conspiracy charge. He was sentenced to 45 days in prison and 3 years of probation.
4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. -- Charges were dropped
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.
36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush-money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story. He was convicted on all counts after a November 2019 trial.
Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.
None of these changes have led to any charges against Trump. This is just factual.
Not sure how you can know what Durham has found in his lengthy investigation, the report has not been presented. He did indict Sussmann due to being up against the statute of limitations on charging him.
Then there was this ugly Clinton ploy --- that Durham uncovered. You may call this nothing, but it more than proves what lengths Clinton would go to smear Trump. Let's not forget the ridiculous Steel fake dossier.
"Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI lawyer who altered an email during the Russia investigation that was used to justify the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, was sentenced to one-year probation on Friday.
Clinesmith, who worked for the FBI for four years, pleaded guilty last summer to falsifying the communication during the early stages of the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to the Trump campaign.
The document was altered to show that Page was "not a source" for the CIA, even though the original message from the CIA indicated otherwise. The CIA had earlier told investigators in a memo that Page was an "operational contact" for the agency from 2008 to 2013 and provided information about his contacts with Russian intelligence officers."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 072865001/
All her dishonest BS and minions doing her dirty work got her zip... She lost.
So, let's wait to see what Durham has. Hopefully, he will provide more facts that will tell the entire ugly grift Clinton tried to pull. He has certainly given us two of her flunkies. I think there will be more. I want justice, and for her to live out her life knowing the truth was outed and showed her for the grifter she has been all her life. I mean Trump has been exonerated, but Hillery, her deeds need to be documented for history's sake.'I think Sussmann was sent to do a job --- lie, which he did. " - What makes you think so? What was he sent to lie about? What else, besides the low level FBI lawyer, has Durham found?
So now you are claiming Durham is seeking indictments on Sussmann's former employer Perkin Coie. Funny. In fact, this is what you are grasping at straws about "But now they’ve finally found their culprit (Sussmann)! A lawyer who maybe, kind of, might have worked with the Clinton campaign told the FBI about a cybersecurity issue and didn’t say he was doing so on behalf of the campaign." WOW, what a bombshell revelation!! - NOT
"His lie misled an FBI investigation, " - Exactly how did it do that since they already knew who Sussmann represented? Mountains out of tiny ant hills, I say.
"None of these changes have led to any charges against Trump." - Of course they didn't - I thought you knew Trump couldn't be charged by Mueller. Could THAT be a reason Trump wasn't charged? Maybe now that you know this, you might change your implication. And thanks for making my case about Mueller's important work.
How long must we wait for Durham to come up with anything? Another two years. BTW, the ONLY "grifter" is Trump. "Flunkies" - you certainly have a way of exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness, lol.
The ONLY think Trump, personally, was so-called "exonerated" (a word that Mueller didn't use in the positive sense) from was conspiring with the Russians. Trump's campaign was exonerated from nothing and several were indicted and convicted for wrong doing (which I bet if you did a count, a majority of Trump's close associates have been) FURTHER, Mueller provided clear evidence that Trump is personally guilty of obstruction of justice.
BTW, I never really thought Trump, himself, had conversations with the Russians. But, his campaign certainly colluded with them - Mueller presented a lot of evidence showing that. I do think Trump and Roger Stone conspired to get the Wikileak purloined information released. Since it was the Russians who provided Wikileaks that information, you do have that connection between Trump and Russia.
Hillary Clinton, IMO, was one of the most dedicated, hard working, honest (as a politician can be) public servant that has come around in a long time. You hate her while you love the most vile, corrupt, dishonest (even by political standards) con man to ever hold office.
A last point. I would hope you agree that when a people lose confidence in their nations election system, then democracy has been subverted/destroyed. If so, then why don't you see that Trump is doing (actual has done) just that by convincing a substantial portion of Americans that the free and fair 2020 election was a fraud? You do know he is lying about that don't you? I certainly hope so.I shared my thoughts on the subject, and I clearly feel Durham connecting the two he indited show good proof of Clinton's scam. And the two he indited had good parts in planting the Russia/Trump scandal, that got half the country to believe a lie. That's my opinion. I will wait to see if Durham has any more revelations in his report.
I always knew the Trump/Russia crap was a Clinton grift, it had their MO all over it. Hillary's reputation is there for all to research. I found her dishonest and power-hungry. She was and always was a grifter always in the middle of a scandal.
I never had a problem with the election process, still don't. To each their own... I think there was minor fraud as there is in all elections. I accepted the new president.You still haven't said how you can reach that conclusion (especially since Clinton wasn't running a scam). The low-lever FBI lawyer had nothing to do with Clinton and I serious doubt anybody in the Clinton campaign even knew who Sussmann was.
Hillary has never, ever been a grifter. That is what Trump is good at and to deflect from that reality, you project his personality on to Clinton.
"I never had a problem with the election process, still don't. " - Yes, you have said that and I believe you. Yet, because you won't criticize Trump for his Big Lie and agree that it has destabilized American democracy seems to take the oomph out of your claim. You need to realize that by not pushing back on Trump's Big Lie that drags you in as being part of problem
"Hillary's reputation is there for all to research. I found her dishonest and power-hungry. " - Then I suggest you do that research using reputable sources. How you can claim that Hillary is dishonest and power-hungry and not say the same about Trump is beyond my comprehension."The low-lever FBI lawyer had nothing to do with Clinton and I seriously doubt anybody in the Clinton campaign even knew who Sussmann was."
Think again --- read the indictment. They hired Sussmann. He communicated with the DNC as well as the Clinton campaign. The indictment tells all in a rather short document. Very clear evidence of the Clinton campaign's Russian grift.
Quote -- "29. SUSSMANN billed his meeting with the FBI General Counsel to the Clinton campaign with the billing description, "work and communications regarding the confidential project." Source legal Indictment https://www.justice.gov/sco/pressreleas … 1/download
You can read the facts yourself. And you should before assuming anything of who knew what and when they knew it, and how this bunch concocted a cheat ploy to start such a vile lie. But vile is a word that truly is a great description of Hillary.
Hillary is not a grifter -- that's your opinion, her history shows her knee-deep in crooked deals.
I would think my stating that I supported the election results should make it clear I don't support the claim the election was rigged.
Choosing and supporting a president is no longer easy in America. I supported Trump due to feeling he was doing a good job. I have also said, I wish at this point he was still the president due to his ability to problem solve.
Trump paid for a big part of his campaign, he never took a paycheck, he let his children run his business. I never found him to be power-hungry. I found him wanting to succeed, to me that is a good thing.
In regard to Hillary Clinton, not willing to list all her grifts you know them as well as I do.
More Trumplican rhetoric to instigate a coup. Bannon hides his violent ideas by saying his "shock troops" are bureaucrats and are only to attack after a Trumplican takes over the White House. He knows the proud boys, oath keepers, and 3%ers won't wait.
https://news.yahoo.com/steve-bannon-dou … 54820.htmlIt's very well known that Bannon as a rule offers radical opinions. He has a following. I don't ascribe to his ideologies. Although, I think he has many that do follow him and buy into his agenda.
I hope Trump stays away from him, I feel Bannon is radical, and Trump would lose support if he leans into radical BS.I am glad you reject Bannon but unfortunately for you, it looks like Trump is in bed with Bannon again.
I see The Woose, Pense, has joined the anti-democracy crowd by whitewashing the attempted murder of himself.
I notice that Trump has finally admitted he did a terrible job with his slogan Make America Great - Again meaning he blew it the first time.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics … index.htmlHe can use "Make America Great Once Again" which showed he had it pretty great and can do it again. Although it may not fit well on a hat. I will be up for a button.
The definition of a coup - Senate Judiciary Committee issues sweeping report detailing how Trump and a top DOJ lawyer attempted to overturn 2020 election
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics … index.htmlHere is the minorities report -- So much different from The Dem's Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• President Trump listened to his advisors, including high-level DOJ officials and WhiteHouse Counsel, and followed their recommendations.1
• President Trump twice rejected sending Jeffrey Clark’s, the Acting Assistant AttorneyGeneral of the Civil Division, a draft letter recommending to some states with reported voter irregularities that they hold a legislative session to choose different electors.2
• Clark told Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen regarding his draft letter, [t]hese are my ideas,” not the President’s.3
• President Trump accepted Rosen’s recommendations that DOJ not file a draft complaint against some states based on reported voter irregularities and “didn’t resist it or deliver an ultimatum or try to overrule [DOJ].”4
• Donoghue testified that President Trump had “no impact” on DOJ investigative actions relating to the election.5
• President Trump twice rejected firing Rosen.6
• President Trump did not fire anyone at the DOJ or FBI relating to his frustration that more wasn’t done to investigate election-related allegations.7
• President Trump considered Richard Donoghue as Acting Attorney General, Principal Deputy Attorney General, and Rosen’s deputy when Bill Barr resigned.8
• President Trump told Rosen that he did not expect the DOJ to overturn the election.9
• Witnesses testified that they were not pressured by President Trump or the White House to take action with respect to investigating certain election fraud claims.10
• Notes of a phone call between Rosen, Donoghue, and President Trump show that the President expressed concerns centered on “legitimate complaints and reports of crimes” relating to election allegations.11
• Witnesses testified that President Trump’s outreach to DOJ officials focused on making sure they were “aware” of election fraud allegations and that they were doing their job to investigate them, rather than issuing orders to take certain action.12
• President Trump expressed concerns related to the U.S. electoral system writ large rather than concerns about his campaign or himself personally.13
Always nice to see both sides, especially in a Congressional investigation.You mean you are taking the side of the Republicans who whitewash the insurrection? Who say all those injured police "invited" the rioters into the Capitol? Who believe many of those who invaded the Capitol weren't intent on killing politicians? Is it those Republicans who you chose to believe over the real facts? Alrighty then.
"Donoghue testified that President Trump had “no impact” on DOJ investigative actions relating to the election." - That is true - BECAUSE DOJ stood up to Trump's attempts to overthrow the election.
"President Trump did not fire anyone at the DOJ or FBI relating to his frustration that more wasn’t done to investigate election-related allegations.7" = ROFL again. He didn't fire them because Cipollone and a host of DOJ big wigs threatened to resign if Trump carried through with his threat. That would look very bad and Trump hates to look bad. That is why he dropped the idea.
"President Trump told Rosen that he did not expect the DOJ to overturn the election." - I suppose that could be true since Trump told Rosen to "Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me. Why would DOJ need to do it Trump was going to do it himself??
"Witnesses testified that they were not pressured by President Trump " - REALLY? Then why did Cipollone and a host of DOJ officials threaten to resign if they didn't feel pressured? Why did Cipollone say this thing Trump wanted to do was a "murder-suicide pact"? Why would they do/say that if there was no pressure?
"... centered on “legitimate complaints and reports of crimes ...” relating to election" - Which "legitimate" ones do you think they were referring to given there were NO legitimate complaints. Even Giuliani just testified that he had no basis for all of the lies he told about election fraud, LOL
"President Trump expressed concerns related to the U.S. electoral system writ large rather than concerns about his campaign or himself personally.13" - I take it they have been ignoring his rallies where he says exactly the opposite. LOL
"Witnesses testified that President Trump’s outreach to DOJ officials focused on making sure they were “aware” of election fraud allegations and that they were doing their job to investigate them, rather than issuing orders to take certain action.12" - Yep, he did that 9 times! Once where we said to Rosen - "Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me, That certainly sounds like he was just making Rosen "aware", ROFL.The TDS (Trump Demagogue Syndrome) is certainly strong with that one.
It makes no difference to these so-called Republicans that Trump AND THEM have almost brought American democracy to an end. It will only take a slight push now to send America into tyranny and a Trump dictatorship. He is already surrounded by America's equivalents to Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, Speer, Hess, etc. The brown shirts are the Proud Boys, 3%ers, Oath Keepers and the like of today. The acquiescent, brainwashed masses in the 1930s are the same type of brainwashed masses who acquiesce today - who say things such as it is a lie that the unvaccinated make up over 90% of the Covid cases and deaths.
The similarities are frighteningly striking.
Your very first sentence shows you applied a false context to my post...
"You mean you are taking the side of the Republicans who whitewash the insurrection? "
Where did I share my opinion on the report? Did I in any respect offer my opinion of the report?
Here is what I said --- Here is the minorities report -- So much different from The Dem's Report. Always nice to see both sides, especially in a Congressional investigation.
Then you once again go on a Trump rampage. All your opinion... I am not willing to speculate anything that occurred on Jan 6th.
The investigation produced much of nothing. Waste of time and money.You presented Grassley's minority report which was a whitewash of the truth. I rest my case.
There is no speculation about the 6th, it was all caught on video.All caught on video...except the part where Trump encouraged a violent riot inside the capital building. Indeed, video caught him doing the exact opposite.
But hey, that isn't important, is it? It's still an "insurrection", fomented by Trump, right? Even though the video shows the opposite - we can just ignore that tiny detail, right?"All caught on video..." - Yes, even that was caught on video. There was much footage from the crowd where you could hear Trump inciting them and them reacting angrily to his "fighting" words. So, no, the video does not show the "exact opposite", That video will used, I am sure, in his trial.
I, too, am pretty sure it will be used at any trial of Trump over causing a riot. By the defense.
20 times he yells at the mob to FIGHT, TO SAVE AMERICA BY FIGHTING. ONE time he quietly suggests they be peaceful. You do the math.
People who live in Trump's fantasy world latch on to the single comment and ignore the 20 exhortations to fight.
People who live in the real world heard the 20 commands to fight and understand what the one "peaceful" comment was for - to give him an out.
Something like that would be part of my closing argument - along with playing to the jury the 20 times Trump told his mob to GO FIGHT and closing with video of the insurrectionists attacking and maiming the police.Better indict nearly all the Democrats in congress, then, for they have surely fought to get Trump removed from politics. Put Pelosi at the top of the list, for she exhorted the entire House to fight Trumps every move.
Are you in one piece, Wilderness? You stretched the truth so far on that one that you might have snapped with the tension.
Pelosi didn't send her representatives to invade the White House now did she? False equivalency big time. (but you knew that).Really? You're maintaining that the Democrats did not fight to remove Trump? After two failed impeachment efforts and years of witch hunt "investigation" they didn't fight, and fight hard?
You're the one that claimed calling to fight was wrong, not I. You just don't like it when the terminology means something other than violence, that's all - that might mean that Trump didn't call for violence when he said fight and it is necessary to believe that he did in order to denigrate him.Can you spell FALSE EQUIVALENCY? Because that is what you are doing, every thinking person knows it.
You're right - every thinking person can recognize the difference between a legal fight and the violence, destruction of the fight of those rioters. Just as they can recognize the difference between Trump's request to fight and the fight that those idiots used in their riot. Every thinking person without a strong bias to turn Trump's words into "incitement to riot" or "insurrection", anyway.
You are not going to win this Wilderness. There is way too much video evidence and statements by the very people he incited to prove you wrong.
And when the prosecution prades witness after witness in front of the jury, each one saying that they were following Trump's call to be there that day and following Trump's inciting words that caused them to storm the Capitol, there is no question in my mind the jury will FINALLY hold Trump accountable.We'll see, won't we? If the prosecution manages to stack the box with jurists that have a bias against Trump, and don't care about the truth, they will certainly convict (wouldn't you?). If not, then reasonable, thinking people will not hold Trump responsible for people doing the exact opposite of what he requested. Your opinion that you can read his mind and know what his secret code is notwithstanding, it takes a huge assumption to decide he meant the crowd to vandalize the building rather than do what he plainly asked for.
Did Trump speak or email, or have any form of one on one contact with any of the people? Trump's not in any respect responsible for anyone else's actions but his own. I hate to burst your bubble, but yes, there was a handful indicted for crimes that occurred at the Jan riot., Trump is not one of them. One needs to be charged before being convicted of a crime.
Plus most of the 650 that were arrested obtained Plea Bargains, and a few will have their day in court with a trial by the judge, no jury at all... Some that committed violence have already had their day in court and goy prison time. So, I would not hold your breath waiting for fo any form of a jury trial or Trump being arrested... I would think by now, you would have learned that conspiracies you have bought into just don't go anywhere because Trump has not done anything to be arrested for.
Oct 11, 2021 --- https://www.lawfareblog.com/are-jan-6-p … oo-lenientUnfortunately if you repeat something often enough one can convict in the court of public opinion. Thus the unending repetitions that Trump is guilty even though he is not. Presumably the same objective as always; keep Trump out of the White House and prevent his objectives contrary to the liberal philosophy from happening. Damage to the country is, as always, secondary to the maintenance of power.
That is true --- But, I say But, don't you think if one has been fooled so so often they would wake up? Trump is going to be indited -- Trump is going to be arrested --- Trump has to be stopped--- Trump Trump Trump Trump... Now, some seem to be holding onto a dream he will be arrested for planning an insurrection.
I mean come on... this kind of behavior is just very unusual, is it not?All we are trying to do is Save America. You are not.
And that would be your opinion... Polls say differently. More American's are very disillusioned with Biden on all counts. That included his policies. You are at this point in the minority. So, maybe not so fair to point the finger at me.
Actually, only the far-right Rasmussen and Trafalgar Group have Biden with a majority of those disapproving of him as of last week. YouGov, Morning Consult, Ipsos, and Redfield & Wilton Strategies all are either even or have Biden with the majority of approval now.
The Democrats stood their ground on the debt ceiling issue where everyone could see McConnell and the GOP were actively trying to sabotage the country in much the same way they have done so in regards to basic safety measures that could have helped prevent and then save American lives during a pandemic.
Every time we hear someone on the right make the dumb claim about Democratic policies ruining America, we just have to laugh when the GOP policies actually lead to death, debt, and freezing any government functionality.October 06, 2021 Left leaning polling --- " More than half of Americans say 55 - 42 percent that the Biden administration is not competent in running the government."
"Americans Give President Biden Lowest Marks Across The Board, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Say The Biden Administration Is Not Competent"
"HANDLING OF ISSUES
Biden received negative scores in the double digits on all but one key issue when Americans were asked about his handling of ...
the response to the coronavirus: 48 percent approve, while 50 percent disapprove;
the economy: 39 percent approve, while 55 percent disapprove;
his job as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
taxes: 37 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove;
foreign policy: 34 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
immigration issues: 25 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove;
the situation at the Mexican border: 23 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove."
cares about average Americans: 49 percent say yes, while 48 percent say no, compared to 58 - 37 percent yes in April;
is honest: 44 percent say yes, while 50 percent say no, compared to 51 - 42 percent yes in April;
has good leadership skills: 41 percent say yes, while 56 percent say no, compared to 52 - 44 percent yes in April.
More than half of Americans say 55 - 42 percent that the Biden administration is not compRoughly 3 in 10 Americans (28 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing by withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan, while 50 percent think the U.S. should have withdrawn some troops from Afghanistan but not all troops, and 15 percent think the U.S. should not have withdrawn any troops from Afghanistan.
SATISFACTION & THE ECONOMY
Roughly one-quarter of Americans (28 percent) say they are either very satisfied (5 percent) or somewhat satisfied (23 percent) with the way things are going in the nation today. Close to three-quarters (72 percent) of Americans say they are either somewhat dissatisfied (24 percent) or very dissatisfied (48 percent) with the way things are going in the nation today. Those levels are largely unchanged from September.
Roughly one-quarter of Americans (29 percent) describe the economy as excellent (2 percent) or good (27 percent), while 69 percent describe it as not so good (35 percent) or poor (34 percent).
COVID-19
Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of Americans say they either have received a COVID-19 vaccine or plan to, while 20 percent say they don't plan to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. This is largely unchanged from a September survey.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3824
So, not sure any of us when we hear about Democratic policies ruining America, should laugh ... As a Republican, I shutter, and have come to realize Biden is ruining America, and he is doing it at record speed.
The only thing that is laughable is the handful that continues to defend this president's mistakes and his lack of abilities to govern.As always, you lean on one poll that fits all the narratives you believe. Quinnipiac is right online with Trafalgar and Rasmussen, while four other polls have things more level. One that has a sample size of just 1,326 Americans.
Anyone can find one poll that fits their own biases. Like I noted, there are plenty that now have his numbers rising as the Democratic party showed they were willing to set aside petty politics for the good of the country on the debt ceiling. Once the infrastructure bill and social safety net bills get passed, he will get another bump in the polls.
So you go ahead and continue to deny how dangerous the GOP policies of autocracy, death, and debt are for the nation. When you need to put Trump up again as your party's nominee, the 81 million of us that see him as the greatest threat to the nation will rise up again and send him back to his own false realities again.Quinnipiac is among the more credible non-partisan polls. FiveThirtyEight rates them as an A-minus pollster.[1] It’s important to note that this rating is based on their Presidential polls, but presumably, they use similar methodologies in all their polls.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article … 603587.php
Send him back? If there was a redo of the election today... Trump would win with most likely one of the biggest majority in our history.
Biden has daily fires and has not put one out. I have never witnessed a president that was so over his head.A redo? People may not be happy with Biden's performance to date, but don't kid yourself that a president that ended his term with 62% of the country disapproving of him would be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office again. Especially when that person is touring the country living in an alternate reality that he believes he actually won in 2020 and helped organize and incite a domestic terror attack against our own Capitol.
You never witnessed a president that was so over his head? We all saw one from January 2017 until January 2021. $7.8 trillion in debt. 400,000 dead Americans. Allies completely alienated, even abandoned as what was done with the Kurds and Afghans. Hate crimes up, murders up, racial protests in near record numbers. Infrastructure - flip flopped like a fish, then scuttled completely by Trump's bruised ego. If ignoring the daily fires is what you prefer, Trump is your guy. Denies climate change, denies systemic racism, denies deficits exist.
Biden's fires - the border. Always been a fire, the only reason one can say Trump had it under control was that he failed to act on a deadly pandemic and no one wanted to come to one of the the worst countries in the world for responses. Inflation - much of that is due to damaged supply chains and the printing of nearly 30% of all US currency in 2020, all of which happened prior to his election. Murder rates - began under Trump and Biden has lowered the overall totals, even if some cities still remain at heightened levels. Afghanistan - plenty of culpability to go around there, but Biden made the tough call to get us out.
Seem you are predicting, and have your hopes up due to a bandaid proposed raising of the debt ceiling. Which has not as yet been voted on, and will be voted on I think later today.
I in no respect feel both bills will pass.. Maybe the infrastructure bill.
In regard to the polls, he is tanked in the majority. I will stick with Quinnipiac, they are highly rated.
No, that is my observations. Your reference to polls is a deflection because they are not measuring what I observed.
What I observe, and the polls do back me up on this, is that Trump and the Republicans are doing whatever they can to weaken or destroy American democracy - that is simply a fact (unless you think the Big Lie is the truth, then your position makes sense). They have to do that in order to be successful with their Big Lie and Slow Moving Coup
It makes sense then that those of us who oppose the coup attempt and the Big Lie are trying to save America. Because you support Trump, that means you are not." Your reference to polls is a deflection because they are not measuring what I observed."
Oh forgot your view is the only one that one should consider. I have derived part of my opinion due to several polls. Not willing to just go it alone as you do. I think it prudent to gather other options via polls. and as I said --- Polls at this point disagree with your view, you are in the minority. More American's are very disillusioned with Biden on all counts.
'What I observe, and the polls do back me up on this, is that Trump and the Republicans are doing whatever they can to weaken or destroy American democracy "
What polls did you view to give you this view?
"It makes sense then that those of us who oppose the coup attempt and the Big Lie are trying to save America. Because you support Trump, that means you are not."
Again your opinion --- I have supported Trump's job performance while president. At this point, he has not announced that he will even run. I can clearly tell you I will be supporting any Republican on the ticket in 2024. I am long done with Democrats. They have nothing whatsoever that meets my standards of what I envision for America in the future.
Kathryn, I will agree with you this far many are being complacent and ignoring what we see daily from this administration. However, the problems such as inflation showing up in all our budgets, Federal overreach in regard to dictating what our children's education consists of, and mandating the vaccine, and open borders -- are being noted and complained loudly about all I mentioned and more. It is my hope in 2022 we take back the Congress.
"Unfortunately if you repeat something often enough one can convict in the court of public opinion. " - Yes, that is true - just look at what Trump is doing - he is proof in the pudding
And yes, Trump is guilty, anybody that isn't under his spell can see that.After he is indicted. When will he be indicted? When the investigations are over and the prosecutors are ready.
He will not be indicted... He will not be charged with anything. He will once again have a bunch of nothing accusations aimed at him --- food for those that need it. One would think you would give up on your hopes of Trump being arrested.
"... form of one on one contact with any of the people?" - And why is "one-on-one" interaction needed? I don't understand.
"Trump's not in any respect responsible for anyone else's actions but his own. " - Unfortunately for you, the law does not agree with that. It recognizes that in certain circumstances, one person can illegally influence another to commit a crime. To wit: "the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully."
What are the elements of proof for incitement? (Brandenburg Test)
1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Personally, I think both of those elements can be proved in court. So you see, Trump can be responsible for other's behavior besides his own.
You have a strange perspective of size - a handful? Really?, LOL
Charged? Just wait, he will be.
There you go trying to mislead again. 92 (probably a few more by now) is NOT most btw.
Also, I could only find one article that said an insurrectionist has been sentenced to jail for a non-violent felony. So, nice try.
"Trump has not done anything to be arrested for." - Then why are so many jurisdictions investigating him? For the fun of it? You know the old saying, where there is smoke ...
And yes, I think the insurrectionists are being treated too leniently.I would think if someone is a mastermind and planning a riot or an insurrection one must step up --- be in some form of contact, give orders...
So, Did Trump speak or email, or have any form of one on one contact with any of the people?
What do you have in mind? How did he mastermind this riot? Was it all whistleblowing, some form of mind control? This conversation has taken such a ridiculous turn. Hey, I offered you a link, most all have been dealt with, a few got prison time most got plea bargains.
I would think by now, you would have learned that conspiracies you have bought into just don't go anywhere because Trump has not done anything to be arrested for."I would think if someone is a mastermind and planning a riot or an insurrection one must step up --- be in some form of contact, give orders..." - [i[Why is that necessary when Trump has his personal megaphone to speak to all of his mob at the same time? And how do you know others in his administration didn't do something like that? Isn't that what the Jan 6th commision is trying to find out?[/i]
The FBI and DOJ are conducting investigations into Jan 6th. They have not indicted Trump as of yet. The Congress has no power to charge and indite...
I in no way feel Trump in any fashion seeking or was asking anyone to commit violence. This is my view is rediculous.
Yes, I presented Senator Grassley's report he sat on the committee and reported his findings. Not sure why you dismiss them? I respect his findings. I can't believe you feel your opinion overrides anyone you disagree with, and you have the audacity to say -- 'I rest my case".
As I said the investigation produced nothing. And this was a waste of money. The FBI and DOJ are conducting investigations on the Jan 6 riot. I will stick with what they come up with --- they have indicted some citizens and they will have their day in court. Guess we will see where that goes. They have not indicted Trump unless I missed something. And they never will...
They have it all on video, every word... Like when the President said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,""Not sure why you dismiss them? " - I dismiss them because they are contrary to the facts. In order to support a Trump-apologist narrative, he (they) cherry-picked pieces of information, took them out of context, and just plain misrepresented the facts of the matter.
"They have it all on video, every word... " - [i]Yet you missed, or dismiss, the 20 times he used the "fight" or variations of "fight" during that same speech you so carefully listened to that inflamed is mob when put in context with other hot button words to make those listening to him even more angry. He knew exactly what he was doing - but yet you attempt whitewash and minimize what he did.
"The FBI and DOJ are conducting investigations on the Jan 6 riot." - [/i]What has that got to do with anything. They aren't investigating the same thing, their investigation is very focused on the insurrectionists and NOT what got them there. They are not investigating the root cause of the insurrection. That is what the Jan 6 Commission is all about.[/i]
Here is a great example of how Republicans and their apologists minimize the truth by changing the context:
In reference to this "innocent" statement from above - "President Trump told Rosen that he did not expect the DOJ to overturn the election."
Here is what Grassley was referring to - According to Rosen, Trump opened the meeting by saying, “One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election.” Over the course of the next three hours, the group had what Donoghue called “a wide-ranging conversation” focused on whether Trump should replace DOJ’s leadership,
Here is what that REALLY means, and it isn't Grassley and his believers fantasy version: Trump was CLEARLY being sarcastic when he said "One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election. Why do we know this, because they immediately started talking about replacing Rosen because he refused to do Trump's bidding in overturning the election.
This has nothing to do with Trump's slow moving coup, but I wanted to put it out here anyway as food for thought for parents whose school lack of Covid policies got their children sick or dead.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/11/us/wisco … index.htmlOthers on this forum would say "many" Republicans, others would exaggerate, like the headline does, and say "some" Republicans, but I will say Two in the news Republicans urge their fellow, unbrainwashed, brethren and sisteren to vote for moderate Democrats in 2022 in order to put a stop to [b]Trump's slow moving Coup".
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-off … 22-2021-10More damning information on Trump's Slow Moving Coup
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/12/politics … index.htmlEven more information on Trump's Slow Moving Coup
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics … index.htmlThis is a current problem that will affect Biden's presidency. And one that I am sure you would be interested in. You have exhibited an interest in crime that presidents' are involved in. This involves our current President. And certainly shows a possible crime. It is very promising that the FBI and DOJ will get to the bottom of these ongoing accusations about the president and his son Hunter Biden. I can't imagine if this story was about Trump and one of his children... This is what I was referring to the other day when I claimed one needs evidence, physical evidence, emails, one on one conversations, documents that can be used to convict one of a crime. So far I have not seen any evidence that Trump planned an insurrection. But, Biden and Hunter, there is now an ever-growing trail of documents that could be used as evidence to show possible money laundering between dad and son. I would assume you do not approve of this form of criminal activity. Or should we give Biden and Hunter the same benefit of the doubt as I offer Trump?
IN HOT WATER: New emails uncovered show Joe Biden shared a bank account with scandal-laden son Hunter Biden
Emails obtained by DailyMail.com from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop show that his business partner, Eric Schwerin, was working on Joe Biden’s tax returns and discussing the father and son paying each other’s bills.
Additionally, the emails show that Schwerin fielded book deal requests for Joe Biden, who was vice-president at the time and also managed the donation of Biden’s Senate papers to the University of Delaware.
Hunter Biden has claimed that he and his father shared a bank account and admitted last year that he was under federal investigation over his taxes.
Emails show that on April 9, 2010, Schwerin wrote to Hunter: "I was dealing all afternoon with JRB's taxes (but solved a big issue - so it was all worth it)."
On June 10 of the same year, Schwerin wrote, "Your Dad's Delaware tax refund check came today. I am depositing it in his account and writing a check in that amount back to you since he owes it to you. Don't think I need to run it by him, but if you want to go ahead. If not, I will deposit tomorrow."
It is unknown what specifically Joe Biden owed Hunter money for.
An expert on money laundering and criminal tax law told DailyMail.com that those entanglements could drag the current president into the FBI’s investigation.
"Whatever transaction you're looking at, if there's a connection to a family member or a friend, sure the answer is yes [they would be investigated]," the expert, a former federal prosecutor who requested not to be named, told DailyMail.com. "Obviously, if you're talking about the President of the United States, you'd better have a pretty damn good reason to talk to that person."
The FBI and IRS are reportedly also investigating Hunter Biden’s business relationships and the possibility that money laundering charges are in order.
Another expert, former U.S. Intelligence Officer and Treasury Special Agent John Cassara, told DailyMail.com that President Biden would already be in the crosshairs if not for the fact that he’s the president.
"The information available publicly is very worrisome, particularly in the areas of corruption," Cassara said. "They could go at this from all different avenues. Follow the corruption trail and then charge money laundering."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-bi … ter-reportWHAT "ongoing accusations about the president AND his son Hunter Biden."? - seems to me you are exaggerating again. Now if you had left it at Hunter, then you would have been believable. Not no, you had to stretch credibility by bringing the president into it.
You got all of that out of Fake Fox News and Fake Daily Mail? When you provide a creditable source, I will read it.
It simply amazes me how blind Trumpers are to what he is trying to do. SAD.You have a short memory... LOL, You have accused Trump and his children of numerous crimes. And you take about fake news... The emails are displayed. One would think Hunter would stop losing laptops.
Give me a legitimate source - CNN, CBS, BBC, NPR etc - that presents the story in the same way that Fox and Daily Mail do.
It would seem to be a true account due to the documents that Fox presented. These give very good evidence of the accusation. As of yet, I have heard no statements from anyone involved denying the emails are legitimate.
I suggest you read and view all the various emails that are posted on --- Very incriminating... Tapes, and videos as well as emails that were on Hunter's laptop...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … probe.html
ABC News --- https://wset.com/news/nation-world/emai … nk-account
Politico -- https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … ion-515583I looked into the claims about Hunter Biden brokering deals based on his father's name. There is smoke there.
As to the latest about sharing a bank account and setting up legal book deals, I think that is the latest fabricated 'scandal' from the far-right.I see smoke, and after reading the emails more smoke. But I trust the FBI will do a complete investigation and have all this leaked info. The article goes astray when it uses words like A former federal prosecutor.
At this point, he is also being investigated in Delaware for his taxes.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/1 … tor-499782
This will be an interesting story to watch. But at this point, Hunter has not been charged with anything at all.
Fox and Daily Mail (and Brietbart and OANN) are known to misrepresent facts and, in some cases, fabricate them. That is why I don't believe a word they say, they no credibility or veracity left.
I did read, however, the Politico article last night and found it interesting.
First, let me say that over time, I have come to believe Hunter Biden as the same problem Trump does with ethics and morality. They both walk on the shady side of the street. Also, both are under investigation for potentially criminal behavior and both may ultimately be held accountable. The only difference, at this point in time, is Hunter's crimes are less obvious than Trump's - that may change however.
Here is what I picked up out of the Politico article:
And it was unclear what to make of the alleged leak of material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, especially after social media companies moved to restrict access to the story and a bevy of former U.S. intelligence officials dismissed it as likely “Russian disinformation.”
Followed by -
That may be changing. Along with new evidence that at least some of the alleged laptop material is genuine
After all, concerns about money influencing politics have traditionally animated liberals more than conservatives.
Biden’s relatives have denied allegations of wrongdoing, and none have been accused of criminal misdeeds related to their business dealings. - which means, according to you, they are innocent as lambs in the driven snow, just as you claim Trump is. But like with Trump, I don't buy that. When there is a lot of smoke, there is almost certainly fire. Right now I don't know how much smoke there is with relatives of Biden, but there is a blinding amount of it surrounding Trump. That said, if the smoke thickens around Hunter or any of the other relatives, then they need to be indicted and prosecuted just like Trump should be.
That said, here is some of the Biden family smoke But in recent decades, members of the First Family, including Hunter Biden, have repeatedly entered into financial relationships with people who have an interest in influencing their powerful relative
More smoke [i[Several former business contacts have also accused Biden relatives of explicitly invoking their political clout to advance their business interests, charges that members of the family have denied. [/i]
and
And since 2007, several of their business associates have been convicted of federal fraud or corruption charges, though no members of the First Family have been implicated in those crimes. - Sort of reminds you have Trump, doesn't it (save the implicated part - Trump is implicated in some of the crimes his lawyer was convicted of)
Much more smoke was offered with this conclusion:
“Even though this administration isn’t corrupt on the same level as the previous administration, which seemed to embrace the corruption,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor and government ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis, “the public has reason to be concerned.”
Why are some Conservative lawmakers talking secession and civil war like they did back in the 1850s?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … dn-vpx.cnnI see that the DOJ finally agreed that Trump's firing of FBI agent Andrew McCabe (via his flunky Jeff Sessions) was wrong and unwarranted. McCabe has been exonerated, his record wiped clean, and '"reinstated" into the FBI so that he could properly retire.
That is what a REAL exoneration looks like and not the fake one the Right says Mueller gave Trump (even though he explicitly said he wasn't)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/14/politics … index.htmlAs part of the rancid atmosphere left by Trump's rhetoric we have his supporters driving school board members out of their elected jobs. Typical of Trumpers isn't it?
https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/202 … ation.html
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202110 … harassment
https://www.tampabay.com/news/education … -harassed/
Oh, then there is this: This very unChristian school tells vaccinated students to stay home. The parents should do the right thing and enroll their vaccinated kids in public schools and get out from under Christians who wish to do them harm.
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/healt … e26dbd0478
This is what Trump has done to AmericaNo, this is what you claim Trump has done to America.
In fact, this is what liberals have done to America with every increasing rules and "guidance" on how we must live to fit into their vision of the future; how to be a good, obedient, part of the vast nanny state we are becoming.
It is possible that Trump opened eyes as to just what, and how, liberals are accomplishing this, but in event it is liberals that are doing it, and this stupidity is purely backlash to that nanny state that requires all people to accept the same "guidance" from liberals that know so much better than we do how we should live.Well damn, I'm getting some popcorn.
GA :-OWhile eating that popcorn, we can all wonder why taking a vaccine to avoid dying from a deadly virus makes one part of the 'nanny' state.
Well, if we would just do what we were told we wouldn't have to wonder. Easy-peasy.
GAOr if people would use the brain God gave them to reason their way through issues rather than using it as a paperweight, we wouldn't be in this sorry state either.
Nope, no "claim" about it. All roads of America's current malaise lead to Trump. Before Trump, we never had the level of division in America as we do now, at least since the 1900s.
Oh your "nanny state" obsession is so much hogwash. America is so far from being a "nanny state" you can't even see the beginning of it. I know you are upset that Social Darwinism isn't the be all and end all in America, but that is not what we were founded on. We left England to get away from your kind of society, after all. That is why "provide for the General Welfare" is part of the reason we have a Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is your kind of "survival of the fittest" society even alluded to."All roads of America's current malaise lead to Trump."
Or course they do. Like the 20 million illegal aliens residing in our country, that Biden has declared can stay here in violation of our laws...all because of Trump.
Like the fiasco in Afghanistan...it is obvious that Trump started the war and that he bungled the withdrawal. Both without sitting in the White House.
Like the frozen congress, unable to pass the desperately needed infrastructure bill, without having to pass the biggest spending bill in the history of the world that Democrats demand as a prerequisite...Caused by Trump as a bystander.
Yep. All our problems caused by Trump.
"That is why "provide for the General Welfare" is part of the reason we have a Constitution."
You're absolutely right...as long as "general welfare" means some specific individuals but not everyone. While you obviously interpret it that way, I do not believe that is what the framers of our Constitution had in mind.You sure do live in your own alternate reality of misunderstanding the issues.
Passing a law to give a 5-year pathway to citizenship that includes background checks, paying taxes, and a few other requirements sounds like something that will actually help the economy.
I guess you missed the part where Trump made some decisions pertaining to the Afghanistan withdrawal before he left office. Some of those decisions clearly helped create the chaos that enveloped that country before we had finished our withdrawal. Try and convince anyone that it was a smart move to draw down the troops before we had evacuated our people.
Not sure I'd call a congress that is debating the issues while passing a bill that has a means to pay for itself frozen.
And if we're going by what the framers had in mind, women and black people shouldn't be voting. Time to evolve a bit from what the framers wanted to what is humane.The 20 million you refer to are not part of the American malaise. They are part of a good economy.
No Trump did not start the war but he DID take part in the withdrawal debacle. The ONLY way Biden could have avoided the outcome we saw was to put the troops Trump pulled out, back in to prevent the Afghan military from crumbling.
The Congress was JUST AS frozen under Trump."The 20 million you refer to are not part of the American malaise. They are part of a good economy."
Of course they are. You just keep telling yourself that. And then explain how magnificent it would be to take in another 300 million uneducated, unskilled people for the American public to care for. Just think of what an economy we would have! It would dwarf even China!
(At least it would for the year or so it would take for the country to go bankrupt trying to support all those people that cannot support themselves in this strange country.)
The one-man crime wave is under a new investigation. This time Weschester County is investigating Trump for illegally avoiding taxes.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/politics … index.html
I wonder if 2022 - 2024 will be spent watch Trump sit in the defendant's chair?"They" will be investigating Trump until the day he has either served his 8 years in the White House OR he makes a (believable) claim he will never run again.
Until then Democrats will "investigate" him for anything and everything their twisted, evil minds can come up with. It is, and always has been, about eliminating a political rival that threatens the power of the party.Spoken like a true sycophant oblivious to reality.
When do YOU think they will stop, given that Trump is free from prison and still might run? 20 years? 30?
Surely you don't think they will stop coming up with new "reasons" tomorrow!
There is a reason for that WIlderness. He will never stop doing things that need investigating. It is not in his DNA to be honest about anything.
Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger plus 7 other patriotic Republicans voted to hold Steve Bannon accountable for his crimes.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics … index.htmlHow ironic! TX Lt Gov Patrick promised pay up to $1,000,000 to anyone -i]"to incentivize, encourage and reward people to come forward and report voter fraud."[/i]
He just paid out his first $25,000 to PA Democrat who caught a Republican trying to vote twice.
To date, as far as I have heard, only Republicans have been caught trying to cheat.
Does that mean all of these voter suppression laws designed to eliminate Republican cheating might actually suppress the Republican vote?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics … index.htmlFacebook claims the Capitol protests were organized online. "We know this was organized online. We know that," she (Facebook's COO) said in an interview with Reuters. "We... took down QAnon, Proud Boys, Stop the Steal, anything that was talking about possible violence last week.
But internal Facebook (FB) documents reviewed by CNN suggest otherwise. The documents, including an internal post-mortem and one document showing in real time countermeasures Facebook employees were belatedly implementing, paint a picture of a company that was in fact fundamentally unprepared for how the Stop the Steal movement used its platform to organize, and that only truly swung into action after the movement had turned violent.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/business … index.htmlWe now know some of the things Trump is trying to hide from the American people in order to protect himself from criminal involvement in the Jan 6th insurrection.
An act prosecutors reminded us was the first successful impediment to the peaceful transfer of power in America since the Civil War - something Trumpers don't see as a necessity in a functioning democracy.
Keep in mind as you read this list, executive privilege doesn't extend covering up a crime.
In the more than 700 pages of documents Trump is attempting to hide are:
- Handwritten notes, draft documents, and daily logs his top advisers kept relating to Jan 6
- Memos from Meadows about Jan 6 call logs of Trump and Pence
- White House visitors' records
- Working papers from Meadows, the press secretary, and WH lawyer regarding Trump's efforts to undermine the 2020 election.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/30/politics … index.htmlJust another "hey look over here trump is causing trouble" Don't look at Biden and all the crisis he is in the middle of"... Another hold your breath "IF COME". Nothing to see here another grift Dem's investigation. For my money, all their crazy crap has them need deep.in failed accusation in regard to Trump. Most Americans are aware of this. I look at the Dem Party as a bunch of lackluster grifters. In the eyes of many American's they look very foolish promoting this kind of no there - there investigations. 2022 will show how disillusioned Americans are with the Democratic party. Gosh, it would seem they would change their course...
Let's face it if there were any incriminating documents they would have met a shredder. But you can keep hoping. Why do you continue to buy into --- accuse someone of a crime, then try to find a crime? This is unfair, and --unAmerican - But that's how I view the Democrats, unAmerican.It is sad to see you care so little about the safety of our democracy. Sad indeed. We have the first non-peaceful transfer of power since the Civil War and it rolls off your back as if it were, how does your side put it, a walk in the park.
All you do is deflect from the real problems America is facing by conjuring up this scary image of a country in sharp decline under Biden. But I look around me and I don't see the country falling apart. I don't see much of a problem at the border today, hell, it has been out of the news since that Haitian thing.
I do see that America has some issues, but nothing good legislation couldn't take care of.
- Voter suppression by Republicans is an issue that must be solved
- Physical infrastructure must be solved and as it stands now, probably will be
- Social infrastructure is a problem that must be solved and it seems like that is coming to fruition now (if only Jayapal would get out of the way - Right now she is the best friend the Republicans have)
- Climate change is an existential threat to America and world, just above the existential threat Trump poses to America That must be solved now or solving all of the others will be pointless.
- I see Biden solved another problem today that was left over by Trump - his destructive (to America) tariffs he placed on our allies.
"Why do you continue to buy into --- accuse someone of a crime, then try to find a crime?" - You Really don't get it do you? You appear to have been so fully consumed by the Big Lie that you now imply there was no crime was committed on Jan 6th, that there is zero evidence of a coup, of an insurrection. Well the evidence has been in your face since June 2020. The American way, since you have forgotten, is if you see evidence of a crime then you investigate it to find out who is involved (which is what the Committee is doing). If the evidence points to particular individuals, then you charge them.
Your position seems to be "I don't want Trump to be guilty, so leave my hero the hell alone". - THAT is unAmericanI care about democracy, I personally do not see this new administration respecting democracy in any respect. I in no respect did I condone the riot at the capitol or support the violence that occurred that day. I support the right to protest, be it the Capitol or the corner store.
In my view --The country is in sharp decline under Biden. I look around me and see the country falling apart. In regards to BBB Social infrastructure, you do not have any idea of what all is in the bill as of today that bill has not been presented to the public. So, I am not ready to support something I know nothing about... Sad to say that would be you.
I have said repeatedly, ( yet you continue to ignore it.) I did not and do not support the big lie... Period.
And you have made my point -- If there is evidence of a crime you charge the person. You don't ride the hell out of a person just because
you can...
As I have said time and time again --- let me know if Trump is charged. Then we will have something factual to discuss. I think what's sad is that you are so enthralled with Trump, constantly dwelling on media rhetoric about possible crimes he might have committed
My position is - I have no intention of accusing someone of a crime, then trying to find evidence of that crime? I consider that slander is a crime, and can be proved easily with the evidence of the untrue word spread needlessly to slander a person's character. I consider this purposeful slander dishonest, abhorrent. I am not, and never will go along with accusing or even insinuating someone committed a crime without actual evidence.
Like I said let me know when Trump is arrested.
The noose tightens a little bit more around Trump's neck (maybe the same one he wanted to put around Pence's) for his role in the Jan 6 coup as his records get nearer to being released to the House Select Committee.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/10/politics/ … index.html
Another insurrectionist will be sentenced next week, possibly to 4+ years for his part in Trump's coup.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/10/politics/ … index.htmlGosh, our jails will be full of our politicians. Hopefully, you are keeping up with all that Durham is doing. I think Hillary's bunch will take up an entire wing of a federal prison. I would think Biden may pardon the Clinton's, and Obama... But who really knows?
I think Durham will finally get to the bottom of the Clinton Hoax. And You will finally be able to see some real charges come out of the DOJ, and it won't be Trump. But you can hope. Although physical evidence is the key, which there is none in regards to Trump planning an insurrection. But the Russian hoax, Durham has a load of physical evidence and has indicted three lackeys, that will in no respect take a bullet for whoever masterminded the Russian hoax. Last I heard no one has been indicted for an insurrection? It is clear 691 people have been charged in the Capitol riot, but Trump is not one of them.
You can always hope.Clinton hoax? Like Manafort did not share internal polling data with Russian Intelligence. So many alternate realities for those on the right. So much whitewashing of treasonous action from their own political party.
Manafort? He has nothing to do with the Durham case. He has been charged and sentenced, old news. I do not seek to whitewash his crimes, our courts proceeded accordingly, and he was convicted. (Verdict. On August 21, their fourth day of deliberation, the jury found Manafort guilty ONLY 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges.) As you see he was not convicted of anything to do with sharing internal polling data with Russian Intelligence. The allegation of internal polling data with Russian Intelligence was never proven or was he charged with for sharing internal polling data with Russian Intelligence.)
The Durham investigation is current, and it certainly will be interesting to follow, and see what happens in our courts in regard to the three that have been indicted, and to see where this all goes. Hopefully, my comment to ESO gave any false information.Like I said, an attempted whitewashing. You call it a hoax, and then ignore the finding that Manafort, while Trump Campaign Chairman, was directly colluding with the Russians. This was found after he was sentenced for his other crimes.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/90351264 … ith-russia
No matter what the Durham investigation concludes, it will never change the facts that members of Trump's campaign were colluding with Russian Intelligence. Hence, not a hoax at all."Senate report concludes." The facts confirm Manafort was not charged with colluding with Russia. It matters little what a Senate commit concluded. It was not enough to charge Manafort with any Russian collusion. That is a serious claim, and if it could be proved, I am confident that Manafort would have been charged. If not by Barr then Garland. I have to consider fact's conspiracies are what keep us all divided. Trump has not as of yet been charged with any crimes, yet he is continually slandered by some claiming he committed crimes.
In the Durham case we have three arrests, let's see how it all played out. Both the DOJ, and the FBI are cooperating with Durham's investigation, and don't forget the Biden DOJ gave all three indictments. I would think there is some there - there. These three would not have been charged without evidence of crimes. At this point, it's a wait-and-see. However, I think Durham is unraveling a very big crime. Just my view.
Really? Which ones (Republican or Democrat) have been charged with treason? Or is that just yet another over the top exaggeration on your part?
(As Sharlee points out, Manafort was not convicted of anything but mundane tax fraud and the like: nothing approaching treason or any other "political" crime.)Did I say anyone was charged with treason or is that you just changing words again? Something you do so often that it remains why I do not wish to converse with you.
It does not surprise me that you would not see colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence elections as a treasonous action. I, personally, do. Nor do you apparently see an attack on our Capitol with the intent to stop the peaceful transfer of power as treasonous action, but I certainly do.
Your views are why I remain a single issue voter against any and all GOP that will try and whitewash those events as acceptable.Come on -- you did say this ---Clinton hoax? Like Manafort did not share internal polling data with Russian Intelligence. So many alternate realities for those on the right. So much whitewashing of treasonous action from their own political party."
The context in my opinion points to you referring to Manafort.Yes - and then I noted this -
Did I say anyone was charged with treason or is that you just changing words again? Something you do so often that it remains why I do not wish to converse with you.
It does not surprise me that you would not see colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence elections as a treasonous action. I, personally, do. Nor do you apparently see an attack on our Capitol with the intent to stop the peaceful transfer of power as treasonous action, but I certainly do.
And above, your denial that Manafort did collude after a bipartisan group in the Senate proved it and reported it out publicly is you choosing to live in one of those alternate realities that allows you to ignore that your candidate's campaign did actually conspire with our enemies just to gain power.I just hope to keep to facts. In my view as a society, we are more apt to move away from facts. This is dangerous IMO, and one can see the results of this form of mindset is causing a huge divide in our society.
I did not find the Jan 6 riot treasonous, in any respect. I found it to be a bunch of people protesting the election, and ultimately causing havoc at the people's house.
"Gosh, our jails will be full of our politicians." - Yes, and most of them Trumpers
As to Durham, let's take a look at your exageration.
- One low-level FBI lawyer with no connection to Clinton or the Democratic party fudges an email. He pleaded guilty.
- Sussman, a cybersecurity lawyer, who may or may not have told the FBI he didn't represent Clinton was indicted for lying to the FBI about that. I know you have already convicted him in your mind, after reading the details of the issue, I seriously doubt he will be found guilty if it goes to trieal.
- Danchenco, a source for certain allegations in the Steele dossier (which was NOT used as a basis to OPEN the investigation into the Trump campaigns collusion with the Russians) is accused of lying to the FBI by saying he had not discussed the dossier with an unnamed U.S.-based public relations executive. He has pleaded Not Guilty as well.
BOY, that is heady stuff, especially when compared to the many indictments, guilty pleas, and guilty verdicts that Mueller obtained along with solid evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice.
To say you claim is a gross exaggeration, is a gross understatement, lol.Here are all that Meuller indited, none of which implicated Trump... Sorry about that but just the truth. Lots of conspiracy theories but no there -there. All a bunch of nothing.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … grand-jury
Durham has indited three people that are were high up in the Clinton Campaign. I feel he will lay out the entire crime this entire bunch committed to including Hillary Clinton. I am confident about my perdiction.
I have always claimed I have good faith in Durham, his reputation preseeds him. Plus, he would be nuts not to retire his career with a huge bang. He will go down in history for bringing the Clinton's into the full light. And it is way over due.
I liked this quote from an opinion piece about the TRUTH catching up with the greatest political con man in US history - Trump
"Altogether, the picture suggests that the realities of government are catching up to one of the most creative escape artists ever seen in American politics. The truth is out there. It's coming soon."Gosh, I hope you are not holding your breath... Do you realize how many years you have been completely obsessed with Trump?
Do you care about anything else of a political nature?Since he threatens the very democracy we live in and keeps America on verge of losing it - NO, because there is nothing more important to me than keeping it. I wish the same were true for you, but obviously not.
WOW. In my view, we have a president at this point that hopes to usher in marxism. Guess we have a different opinion of the vision we have for America. Thank God polls show the majority are not buying what Biden or whoever is pulling his strings is selling. Nothing can predict what people are feeling than a T-shirt --- Let's Go, Brandon!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … joe-merch/
And I am in full support of Democracy, no it's not the "new form of Democracy of your choice" which is at this point I truly believe is marxism.
Thank God Americans are now waking up and seeing the fraud the media and this new administration are dishing up. I have said for months --- I had faith they would.Trump is fighting to expose the corrupt Democratic party, and doing a great job at it. He is willing to fight them without any fear and is fighting to keep our democracy intact. I can't believe he is taking on this corrupt bunch, but I am thankful he is. I must smile, to see the discomfort he causes the crooks in Washington.
"TRUTH catching up with the greatest political con man in US history" -Dear that would be the Clinton's.
This insightful opinion piece on the collapse of #American #democracy as seen by someone from an authoritarian country is worth the read.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/12/opinions/ … index.htmlWhile not directly related to Trump's coup attempt, this exemplifies how he endangered your and every other American's life by lying about or downplaying the dangers of the pandemic.
Yet there are those that unfathomably still support him.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/politics … index.htmlWhy have more now died on Biden's time? Did not Trump leave him three vaccines? Why did other world leaders fail so badly in stopping the spread? Were they all inept as you choose to believe Trump is? How many more will die under Biden? He waited too long to take action... He has been in the WH since Jan 21. He is not able to solve any of America's problems and they are growing as he worries about BBB.
Which today it was reported Joe lied about only thoughts making over $400,000 would be paying more taxes. It turns out 30% of the Middle class will be affected, and those making over a million with get a huge break on taxes. He lied once again. Sounds like the "you can keep your doctor " lie. I for one am glad so many American's are stepping up and admitting Biden can't do the job. Polls get worse weekly, even after he got the infrastructure bill passed. Now economists feel this bill will cause more inflation. Like I said every day a problem with this guy.
And yes, I can see where Trump could win in 2024. So many at this point say if they could do it all over, Trump would win today.
Here are some articles about losing our democracy that, because of Trump's attempting to destroy it, had to be written:
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/08/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/11/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/13/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/08/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/10/opinions/ … index.html
Millions of brainwashed or apathetic Americans are helping Trump kill American democracy by actively supporting his efforts to do so or by sticking their head in the sand hoping he will go away (he won't until he has either succeeded in destroying democracy or he is in jail) or by pretending he is not the evil man he has proven to be.But the topic was "Millions of brainwashed or apathetic Americans", right?
Yes, so ironic, and really makes one realize how wonderful a gift of a clear mind can be.
CNN ratings speak loudly, one does not need to say much more.I wish Trumpers had a clear mind, but alas, they have proved over and over again that they don't.
Since you misread the ratings, your comment doesn't have any merit.
To do an honest job of it, you need to compared all of the mainstream news outlets and with all of the right-wing propaganda outlets. The MSN comes out far ahead.
What has CNN have to do with anything. Unlike Fox, Brietbart, and the rest, they don't fabricate anything. Anyway, I figured you deflect because you can't take the truth.
""It is so sad when things like this can happen, but so incredibly important to fight for the truth and justice. Only victory can restore one’s reputation."
— Former President Trump"
Though you might be interested in this... Trump gets 2 court wins: 'Apprentice' contestant's lawsuit dropped, Cohen case dismissed
Trump claimed he was 'totally vindicated' by Summer Zervos' decision to drop her case against him.
"Friday seemed a successful day in court for former President Donald Trump – with one lawsuit against him withdrawn by the complainant and another dismissed by a judge, according to reports.
In the first case, Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice," ended her 2017 lawsuit against Trump in which she accused the show’s former host of sexually assaulting her.
In the second case, a New York state judge dismissed a 2019 lawsuit brought by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, in which Cohen sought $1.9 million from Trump to cover legal expenses."
When one is innocent it is hard to prove guilt... Hopefully, Durham will expose the biggest accusations Trump has had to put up with. Hillery's crazy Russian Hoax.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … -dismissedIt is too bad Trump is such a liar, those are nice words, but I bet he felt ill when he said or wrote "truth and justice". When will you understand that all he does is lie to you.
Nobody knows why Zarvos dropped her suit, maybe Trump threatened her life, I wouldn't put it past him.
The Cohen case was dismissed on a technicality. Trump is well known for not paying people. That is why he can't find good lawyers to represent him.
This is what Trump and his White Nationalist Army is all about - and it is very scary the level of organization they have.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/us/unite … index.htmlSeems like they found another case of virtually non-existent voter fraud in the 2020 election. As expected, it was a Republican who did it.
Too bad all these voter suppression laws by Republicans aren't going after the REAL bad guys - other Republicans.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics … index.htmlI furthering Trump's attempted coup, Minority Leader McCarthy stands up in the House to deliver a pack of lies about the infrastructure bill. (It is the fact that he is lying which is furthering Trump's on-goingeffort to destabilize or destroy democracy)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/politics … index.htmlTrump did not attempt a coup, no one attempted a coup and there is no on-going effort to destabilize the democracy. Not by anyone on the right, that I can tell.
I realize the left loves to change the definition of words to suit their fancy but a coup is a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. No one seized power. No one attempted to seize power.
A group of people participated in a protest. One that did not involve burning down businesses or looting them. The lies that have been perpetuated by the left concerning that demonstration are staggering.The lying is you trying to deny the actions Trump and his cronies used to undermine a legitimate election beginning in October when he started claiming some votes would be fraudulent. The illegal calls to elections officials trying to overturn the legal results. The calls to the DOJ trying to get them to fabricate the outcome. And then organizing his followers to be in the Capitol on January 6 when Congress was to certify the election.
Were you so upset when HIllary spent 4 years denying she lost? Probably not. Were you as upset when Stacy Abrams claimed she really won an election? Doubtful. They all whine when they lose. Did anyone overturn legal results? Not that I'm aware of. Did Barr do anything that remotely resembled an attempt to fabricate an outcome? Not that I am aware of.
So, you are grossly overstating. Par for the course.Hillary conceded the next day, and then election interference and Manafort collusion was proven as she noted. In what world is it appropriate to run the election you're a candidate in as Brian Kemp did?
And you remain in denial to anything illicit Trump does. The Georgia calls are clear election tampering.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … terference
https://www.chicagotribune.com/election … story.html
And apparently your far-right media does not report on the DOJ corruption that was after Barr had resigned for upholding democracy:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/3 … ion-501775
And this one really lays out the false reality Trump lives in when trying to undermine our elections:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article … eline.html"Were you so upset when Hillary delusional you are. As Valeant said, Hillary conceded the next day, something your boy has failed to do at all so far. Have you bought into Trump's Big Lie which he is using as a foundation for his coup attempt?
As to Stacy Abrams, you made up another fabrication. She conceded the election as well, although she did say she thought Kemp cheated.
Rather than deflect to something that is not true you might address what is "overstated" about 1) Trump's illegal calls, 2) Trump's attempt to get DOJ to fabricate the outcome (fortunately, there were still a couple of people there who had the spine to stand up to Trump's bullying), and 3) to legally call his army to DC on Jan 6, but illegally incite them to riot and send them on their way to the capitol to create mayhem.
You are grossly overstating. Par for the course.[/i]
"here is no on-going effort to destabilize the democracy" - Do I interpret that correctly to say you buy into Trump's Big Lie, which is the foundation of his on-going coup attempt. You must if you claim there is no on-going attempt.
Your critique of the word "coup" is called "sharpshooting" and is an attempt to deflect from the real issue. Everybody knows what is meant by the word "coup". It describes Trump's attempt to 1) stop gov't from functioning, in this case certifying Biden's win and 2) overturn the results of a free and fair election. "Coup" does fit for Jan 6 as does the word "insurrection". Try returning to the issue at hand.
"A group of people participated in a protest." - BOY, are all in with the "walk in the park" crowd, aren't you? Truly delusional!
Glad to see this happening - Trump lawyers paying the price for spreading the democracy-destabilizing Big Lie
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/politics … index.htmlIsn't it so SAD that 78,000,000+ American citizens (I have a hard time calling them just American) think what this Boebert woman said is cool and righteous? It is the same group that don't think too many people are dying from gun violence and from Covid. It is the same group who endangers their own kids, family, friends, and strangers by not getting vaccinated.
In what world do those characteristics live up to the American ideals?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … dn-vpx.cnnMore to cement the case against Trump's insurrection -
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics … index.htmlWait. This Rodriguez heard Trump call for help in enforcing voting laws, went far beyond what was asked - including participating in a violent riot - and is sorry he did so.
And that's what you think will help to "cement the case against Trump's insurrection"? You're grasping, Eso, as you always do when it comes to Trump. Had Rodriguez indicated Trump was speaking in the secret code he is accused of, and produced a copy of the translation he received from Trump, you might have a case. But to do what was specifically denied by Trump, and then indicate sorrow that he did so, bolsters Trump's case, not yours.You betcha. A few federal judges think so as well saying those who spoke on Jan 6 need to be held accountable.
It makes little difference that Trump denied something - he is a serial liar after all and not to be believed in anything he says.
It sounds like you would want all of the inciting a riot convictions overturned because the judges and juries didn't know what they were doing, lol.Again, wait. A "few judges" are going public with an opinion on what could very well be the trial of the century without have heard a single argument? What kind of faux "judge" are you listening to, anyway?
Whether judges have their equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath or not, they DO have an ethical responsibility to promote fair trials, and giving their weighted opinion (supposedly from their experience) is NOT ethical. It is intended to influence a jury, nothing more.
Trumps denial concerned his statements made that day about marching peacefully rather than calling for a riot. He "denied" the riot by asking for something else instead and by NOT asking for violence. Of course, that's where the "secret code" that you claim he used (without a shred of evidence) comes into play."A "few judges" are going public with an opinion on what could very well be the trial of the century without have heard a single argument?" - So now you think judges, along with all other non-Trumpers, can't read or hear and be able to form opinions based on what is known. You don't need a trial to know that 1 + 1 = 2 or 10?
"What kind of faux "judge" are you listening to, anyway?" - I forgot, you don't read or listen to real news. But to help you out, it is the patriotic, real American judges trying the insurrectionists.
" they DO have an ethical responsibility to promote fair trials, " - Oh come on. Virtually every judge out there issues opinions about the world around them. And how is saying those that instigated the insurrection need to be held accountable an unreasonable thing to say? Now, if they had said Trump is Guilty, then you might have a point.
" He "denied" the riot by asking for something else instead and by NOT asking for violence. " - Oh, give me another break! How can you focus on one sentence (one to give him cover if he needed it) out of 70+ minutes of otherwise inflammatory speech designed to and was successful at riling up the crowd to fever pitch, falsely believing America was under attack? Oh, I know how, you will defend Trump beyond all reason for some unknown, fanciful reason. I liken Trump's speech to the one famously given by Patton before sending his troops off to fight and die."Oh, give me another break! How can you focus on one sentence (one to give him cover if he needed it) out of 70+ minutes of otherwise inflammatory speech..."
Please - point to one sentence, just one, where Trump asked the crowd to hang a legislator. Or even physically break into the Capital. Or taze a single cop. Or even to break a single window at the Capital. anything where Trump specifically asked for any form of violence (not your "interpretation" of his "secret code", but an actual request for violence.
Can't do it? Then you should quit repeating that he DID ask for violence, simply as a matter of honesty and integrity.And there we go again with Wilderness changing what was said and then claiming you said something that only he heard.
What Eso said: 'How can you focus on one sentence (one to give him cover if he needed it) out of 70+ minutes of otherwise inflammatory speech designed to and was successful at riling up the crowd to fever pitch, falsely believing America was under attack?'
What Wilderness claims Eso said: '...you should quit repeating that he DID ask for violence.'
Eso did not claim Trump asked for violence. The claim is that Trump's speech incited people to violence - which many, including those two federal judges and in the days following the attack, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy both also confirmed as views - can plainly see.You are just being obtuse again. You know as well as I do that the law doesn't require such specific threats like that - that is why it is called "inciting". It is clear to most people that the words he did use would have the likely outcome that actually happened. That is all that is needed to be proved.
Let alone he was pushing the baseless narrative that Congress was certifying a decision that was 'stolen' from them.
No - it is clear to you, seen through your own bias and hatred of the man that he said those things. Most people heard what he said rather than what you think he meant.
And yet so many of those arrested heard what Trump and the 12 other speakers were saying and claim they thought he meant to fight by storming the Capitol and 'stopping the steal' that was taking place inside.
Doesn't the testimony of those who were incited and committed the actual violence mean more than what any of us think? In multiple claims in the courts, defense attorneys have noted their clients were convinced by Trump and his dozen minions' words to attack the Capitol.
Quite literally, the definition of being incited.
And judges are agreeing with that argument.Like the one in the link that testified he heard Trump ask people to come to DC and was very sorry he participated in the riot. Again, no indication he ever heard, or thought, that Trump asked for violence.
I don't doubt for a single instance that defense attorneys are trying to shift the blame to someone else. Are you?
"And judges are agreeing with that argument."
And then what? The judges set the rioters free because they were incited to riot? What kind of judge fails to hold a rioter responsible for their own actions?
(Perhaps I shouldn't ask that - the ninth court is pretty famous for extremely liberal decisions and certainly liberal cities don't hold rioters responsible. Why would a judge?)Exactly what judges are NOT holding the insurrectionists responsible?
And of course your claim that cities didn't hold rioters responsible is a complete fabrication that you are so famous for. (and yes, I realize your "what aboutism" is simply a deflection from the real problem - an attack on our system of government.You got it right! The rioters are responsible...while you claim judges are holding Trump responsible.
You're also right - I will always attack a "government", even a city one, that allows and encourages the burning of cities. Unfortunately, many of us do not.Talk about fantasy worlds, I just visited the main page and came across this article:
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … surrection
It's so filled with lies I had to write to Hubpages and ask if there were limits to the delusional articles they are willing to allow. The writer still claims that there was massive election fraud and that Ashli Babbitt was murdered.Could you supply a quote where the author "claims that there was massive election fraud and that Ashli Babbitt was murdered."
I skimmed through the article and could not locate these accusations. In fact, the article seemed to be well researched. I would have liked to see a few listed sources. One must also note it is an opinion-oriented article.
He has a right to write his opinion does he not?
I would be interested in the two quotes in regard to -- "claims that there was massive election fraud and that Ashli Babbitt was murdered."They are in there if you look closer than a skim.
And once your writings begin to foment violent acts, such as the election lie has already done or claiming an exonerated police officer is a murderer, then many social media sites have found those themes to not be appropriate to be published on their platforms.
Perhaps Hubpages differs than sites such as Twitter or Facebook who have suspended many for such vileness. And if so, perhaps it's time to shine a spotlight on this site as a promoter of hate.I will read it in full.
Read it... Oh my, this writer uses a selection of facts mixed with his opinion. His word choice, quality, and tone of description, certainly convey a particular f attitude. All of these variables convey a certain attitude or more over his point of view toward the given subject.
In my view, this writer exudes self-opinionatedness. He is steadfast to an opinion, and the course of his piece is to give his very steadfast view and use persuasion to give his reader something to think about. He certainly goes into building his article from the first paragraph on into a "gotcha ". I mean he would bait a conservative as well as a liberal with his opening and kept me reading to the end --- where yes, he offers his steadfast unbendable opinion. Is it bias? It depends on the person that is reading its perception. He did lay out his case and backed up how he came to his position.
Did I agree with all of what he shared? No, just bits and pieces. And yes he took liberties with words, that I would not. He used the word murder in regard to Ashli Babbitt's death. However, later in the article, he gave a synopsis of what occurred when she was killed. Was it murder? I certainly don't know what was in the officers' mind went he shot Babbett. He was a black man, and I think the author did make a solid point if Ashli was black, and the officer white, we would have been having an entirely different conversation. The shouting was investigated and dropped. It left many open to having questions about her death. This writer, clearly felt she was murdered... Does he have a right to his opinion? As many feel she was not, do they have a right to their opinion?
In my opinion, the officer panic out of fear and took a shot. Nothing more.When you watch the video you see the officer protecting elected officials from a violent woman forcing her way into their chambers. The police in general used a lot of restraint, maybe because the rioters were white. I remember thinking as I watched the assault on our government that if the insurrectionists were black, there would be a pile of bodies laying on the Capitol grounds.
He made his murder claim twice in that steaming pile of horsepoo. Despite the officer already being cleared as Ashli Babbitt was deemed a credible threat.
As I said, an investigation was done, no charges came out of it. It seems he does believe she was murdered. I don't find it a problem, he did add a long scenario of what happened that led up to the shooting. To cover is opinion. I don't feel these kinds of accusations are ever warranted.
I don't feel she was murdered. I think it was a bad situation, and after doing lots of reading on what happened, I feel the officer did feel threatened, and he had no way of knowing other officers were on the other side of that large door with Babbitt.
We both know there are many that do believe Babbitt was killed unnecessarily. I will admit if I felt threatened in a riot situation, I would shoot maybe out of fear or sheer panic. Fear and panic are such strong emotions. Both trigger fight or flight reactions.
I did read the article. The closest I could find to " <the author> claims that there was massive election fraud..." was "Afterward, thousands strolled down to the Capitol to protest election fraud."
Saying that thousands protested election fraud is NOT the same (not even close) to the author claiming massive election fraud. Unless you, too, claim massive election fraud? Because I'm pretty sure you've claimed the rioters were there to protest voter fraud, just as the author did.
Perhaps you should read it again."strolled", Watkins is clearly showing he is living in a fantasy world.
Sure. As was pointed out, it IS an opinion piece, and the intent was to show that the wild, outrageous claims by Democrats only happen when they can blame Republicans. Which he did very well - I haven't heard any of those other things reported in comparison to the Capital riot.
Have you? Or you just hear, as I did, that it was the worst thing in history - an outright, baseless lie given what has gone down in the past.Opinions still need to be based on truth to be credible.
Clearly Watkins is not credible and needs to be ignored. My opinion is that the moon is made of green cheese. That is not credible and nobody should put any faith in my opinions if I stick to it once proven wrong.
Watkins description of the insurrection, his opinion, defies the evidence and logic. Because of that, his whole analysis goes out the window.
You may have "heard" those things. I saw those things. Also, for you to be credible, you should have followed up "worst thing in history" with "since ...". Otherwise, we mark you down as being hyperbolic again and making something up so that you can argue it.
Perhaps you should learn to read better. Much, much better.
'It was right to be furious about the Hunter Biden laptop story being censored until after the 2020 election, along with the truth about the Biden family's corruption via payoffs and bribes by China. Add to that the lying about the origin of the virus and the taking away of all our liberties during masking and lockdowns, crushing small businesses and churches. Then the massive election fraud topped it off.'
And we're back to haggling over words you cannot process. This, again, is where I stop trying to debate you when you try and twist a clear statement into something completely different than what was actually written.
Opinion is one thing, but lies, misinformation, and disinformation is something else again.
How else should I interpret your statement "Exactly what judges are NOT holding the insurrectionists responsible?"?
Did you mean the judges are not holding the rioters responsible for their own actions? Because I seem to recall several indictments and some convictions as well..."Did you mean the judges are not holding the rioters responsible for their own actions" - What are you talking about? That makes no sense
" I will always attack a "government", even a city one, that allows and encourages the burning of cities." ME TOO...
The problem is, his statement is a lie and you bought into it.
You are SO right, they heard what he said, got angry like he wanted, and went to storm the Capitol.
1. They are assembled by him
2. They were enraged by him (you can clearly hear that in the videos)
3. They were sent to the Capitol by him to "Stop the Steal"
And a 1000+ of them attacked the Capitol as a foreseeable result and caused an insurrection.
How does the song go? Simple as 1, 2, 3.No, you can hear him enraging them. No one else does - just asking they peacefully march and speak to legislators.
No, you foresaw the future...and warned no one. Not even the capital police or FBI foresaw what would come to happen. Of course hindsight is 20-20, especially when you can change Trump's words to match the event.And everyone else who heard it - the anger in the voices and the words they used was unmistakable. Every time Trump exhorted them to Stop the Steal, they got angrier and angrier. Only you can mistake beating up cops as walking in the park.
As to the Capitol Police and FBI not knowing - again you are wrong. For example - "A January 3 memo from the Capitol Police intelligence division, parts of which were obtained by the Post, highlights the threat of violence by supporters of President Donald Trump in striking detail — and only adds to confusion about how the attack occurred anyway."
Just because their internal communication skills were lacking doesn't mean people in authority didn't have sufficient information to be worried - they did. Besides, who would have thunk that the President of United States would incite an insurrection?"Only you can mistake beating up cops as walking in the park." And only you can mistake a request to march peacefully for a request to riot and murder. Fair enough.
Why do you keep making things up? I know, because you don't have facts and truth to back up your wild claims.
Justice Department prosecutors say they have evidence that an alleged rioter who brought a gun to the US Capitol on January 6 was targeting both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. - Yep, just a normal visitors' day and walk in the park!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/politics … index.htmlIn normal times when it is an employers labor market (which is most of the time) separations are driven by layoffs. In times like these, they are driven by "quits". Right now, the "quits" are more than three times higher than "fires". This means people, regardless of what they say in the polls, feel the economy is strong enough to risk quitting and finding another job.
The jobs report "jobs added" number is the difference between the number of hires (many of which are people who quit) and the number of "fires". I am guessing those who are forecasting are getting the number of "quits" wrong. After all, why would somebody give up a job when, as conservatives want you to believe, the economy sucks? Maybe because people really think the economy is good.
As a side note, the 4.2% suggests strongly that everyone who wants a job in America, has a job.
Finally, the participation rate finally ticked up, again suggesting an improving economy.
Thank you President Biden.Just guessing, but I really doubt that people are thinking "Hey - the economy is great so I'll look for a job I like better".
Instead I would imagine the process to be something like "There are job ads everywhere and nobody can find workers. I can quit, easily find something else at a higher wage". After all the news about high inflation that may well be a part of the thinking as well: "I better find something paying better or I'm going to be hungry with all this inflation". Fear rather than happiness with the good economy is likely driving many to look for something better. Or just greed, take your pick.Your guess would be wrong then. 1) That is what is being reported by economists surveys, 2) what else explains the number of "quits" being 3 times higher than layoffs, and 3) and why aren't quits so much higher in a poor economy?
I find it ironic that conservatives main deride people in low wage jobs not simply quitting and finding a higher paying job. Now you are calling them greedy.
" This means people, regardless of what they say in the polls, feel the economy is strong enough to risk quitting and finding another job."
How in the hell do you come up with such a matter-of-fact statement? I do know you believe what you say is the bottom line,
the last word... But this statement takes the cake.
There are "likely" many variables that "may" be a reason to quit one's job.
One reason could be they are at present getting free cash per child... One reason they decided to stay on unemployment until it ran out...
One reason, they hated their job to begin with.
I would bet not many would even feel our economy is "doing so well"... Not sure if you realize we are in a period of growing inflation."How in the hell do you come up with such a matter-of-fact statement? " - Because I read what is reported, analyzed, and not opinion by reliable news outlets.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021 … their-jobs
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ … signation/Not sure if you realize we are in a period of growing inflation....
...When looking at year-over-year comparisons and trying to normalize the ridiculously low inflation that we had during the height of the pandemic by then comparing it to the once-in-a-lifetime recovery.
Some of us aren't panicking over this as we understand that these are not normal years to be comparing to historical trends."One reason could be they are at present getting free cash per child... One reason they decided to stay on unemployment until it ran out..." - That is just a conservative trope and, while there are a few exceptions, has been proven NOT to be true. But, I suspect you keep on pushing this piece of misinformation even though you have nothing to back it up
"One reason, they hated their job to begin with." - Yes, that is one of the reasons people quit. Is it not reasonable to think that the economy must be relatively strong before a person who hates their job has the confidence they can find another job before they quit?
Not sure you realized inflation is relatively not that bad, right now. Even as I right, oil prices are sinking (down 22%) which should put the brakes on inflation growing any more.
Another topic: There has been some analysis out that suggests that if SCOTUS takes away a woman's control over her own body, which seems likely right now, that the blowback from Americans, especially women, will kill any chance the Republicans to take back the House and Senate. Do you agree?I am for keeping Roe as is. Unfortunately at this point, our society has the need for abortion. My thoughts are vast on this subject.
I don't think the media has this right, I think Roe will be used as precedent and left alone.
If it is tossed out, I am not sure how it would play in 2022 with women.
I think women's views are complicated on the subject of abortion, maybe another 50 -50 split. Plus, women seem to be concerned with many things right now. So, it will depend on what the current party does in many areas - economy, education, crime, and immigration. Women these days are very diverse in what concerns them the most.All true, except the 50-50 (unless men are more pro-choice than women are, lol) Roughly 19% of Americans say a woman should not have the right to choose. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
My personal view on it is that as a personal choice for my wife and I, I oppose abortion and favor adoption instead. That said, I may get overruled. BUT, I also believe that I do not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body until the time of viability.
My gut tells me Republicans are in deep doo-doo it Roe is reversed.
BTW - This is where I got my 22% decline in oil prices - https://www.rigzone.com/news/commodity/Good website, I saved it.
The “political attack” on fossil fuels as of recent, could have added or removed the incentive for investment in the oil sector. Even despite its lingering importance of oil. I read that that 84% of the world’s energy demand last year was met by fossil fuels.
So, the issue for me is not the oil price at this moment, the issue is the pandemic, and will the price of oil go higher in a truely fully reopened world? Few are investing in oil right now. However, the world is still consuming fossil fuels. So oil could certainly go much higher, and that can definitely escalate inflation. Some analysts are predicting oil rising to $150.00 a barrel in 2022.
I think the only thing that’s could knock the oil price down would be lockdowns in America. I truely feel the new variant scare is why oil corrected itself a bit last week. The price fell on the very news of this new scare.
Lot's of variables to consider, it will be interesting to see if analysts are correct in regard to the price per barrel rising to $150.00.I think it will be a very long time before the world is "fully opened". So long as there are anti-vaxers, and covid deniers (yep there are many of those still hanging around), and the pandemic remains politicized, then Covid will never become noise in the background. If America and the world do a much, much better job of getting people vaccinated, variants will keep popping up each year. Sooner or later, one will come around that will defeat what we have done so far and put us back to square one.
I am now pessimistic that America will ever reach heard immunity because of the political resistance to getting vaccinated. If we do, it will be a very long time from now If that becomes true, then today, with all of its pandemic related problems, will be the new normal.Hopefully in the next few weeks, we will see at least 80% of American's vaccinated, add in the citizens that did catch COVID and lived -- about 49,959,112 so far. We will have a pretty good herd. Hopefully, it will be big enough to decrease the infection of mutations. That's where a problem could occur. I am very anxious to hear more about the latest strain. Hopefully, this virus will denture in a way that eradicates its virulence. I can't see it going away altogether, most viruses don't. We still have strains from H1N1 from 2009. it has well denatured itself to a lesser type of flu. I hope the world will come together to vaccinate counties that just don't have the resources to run a vaccination plan.
"The White House announced on Monday that 70 percent of adults in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and that 80 percent of adults have received at least their first shot." https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 … -partiallyWe are not quite at 60% right now. Is vaccinations surging that much? For the Delta variant, I have heard we will need upwards of 95%
I think The Hill story has it wrong. It was from Nov 1 and this was from four days ago.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … is-winter/
The 60% number is buried in the middle of the announcement. I think whoever The Hill was quoting mistook 60% for 80%I took this source as competent due to the person offering it.
"The White House announced on Monday that 70 percent of adults in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and that 80 percent of adults have received at least their first shot.
Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, disclosed the statistics during a press briefing Monday morning, saying that the U.S. has “hit two important milestones.”
Cyrus Shahpar, the White House COVID-19 data director, said in a tweet that more than 935,000 doses were administered in the past day, including 240,000 initial shots and 571,000 additional doses and boosters."
I would think the CDC would be the best place to obtain the stats on how many are vaccinated in the US. It seems most information offers, as you said 60%. I just thought this Cyrus Shahpar, the White House COVID-19 data director, should have the real number. That is his job.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 … -partiallyDeleted
So, it would appear we have the CDC offering different stats than the White House. So, who are we to believe? Would you have a link to where you found your status?
"The White House announced on Monday that 70 percent of adults in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and that 80 percent of adults have received at least their first shot.
Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, disclosed the statistics during a press briefing Monday morning, saying that the U.S. has “hit two important milestones.”
Or is the CDC not capable of compiling data?
I really dislike this kind of deception. In the link, one can see the video, and tweets in regards to the stats. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 … -partially
Here is another source from the White House that covered that remark... Transcript from Press Briefing by White House COVID-19 Response Team and Public Health Officials Date Nov 1, 2021
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … icials-65/
"We’re making important progress on both fronts. In fact, today, we hit two important milestones: 80 percent of adults now have at least their first shot, and 70 percent of adults are now fully vaccinated; 8 out of 10 adults with at least one shot, 7 out of 10 adults fully vaccinated."Deleted
Well the CDC offers a very described well laid out picture of all one would need to know about who got what.
Should have figured the White House pushed numbers that suited an agenda.
Thank you for the link, I will save it due to it updates daily."Should have figured the White House pushed numbers that suited an agenda." - Or made a mistake a month ago. Talking about making a mountain out of a ant hill.
Well it is two for 60%, the CDC and the most current WH number or Nov 1 report from The Hill - the Monday they are referring to.
.
It is also clear that somebody got it wrong since you can't have more people with two shots than those with at least one shot. Further, this is old news and has since been corrected, or does that not count in these partisan times?
Yeah, I trust The Hill, but everybody mistakes, including, apparently, Mr. Shahpar.
As Trump attempts to overthrow Biden, Biden faces a trio of anti-democratic challenges, all just as dangerous as the other: Russia, China, and Trump.as this analysis investigated.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/07/politics … index.htmlCNN ? Not sure if you have kept up with the faulty reputation they have earned. Warner Media will be taking over the first of the year and has indicated they will provide a more solid news platform. No more bias BS hopefully.
"John Malone says WarnerMedia-Discovery getting rid of CNN would be the ‘coward’s way out’" "There’s a place for CNN in the proposed $43 billion combination of WarnerMedia and Discovery, billionaire media mogul John Malone told CNBC
“A coward’s way out would be to sell [CNN] or spin it off and then sell it,” said the cable TV pioneer and longtime chairman of Liberty Media."
“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” said the cable TV pioneer and longtime chairman of Liberty Media, which is a major shareholder in Discovery. “I do believe good journalism could have a role in this future portfolio that Discovery-TimeWarner’s going to represent.”
Source -- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/john-ma … out.html#:
So, they will have a second chance, hope they don't blow it... It will naturally be a big shock to devotees systems, but the change in platform is well needed.
At any rate, Biden should stop the blame game. His troubles come to form his own weak way of Governing, and the disrespect he has earned due to his lack of problem-solving. Blaming others just confirms his weak character in my view. Russia and China just see they can take advantage of such a weak president. I would think Iran also realizes this as a plus.
You have seen polls on Bidens foreign policies --- Feb 2021
"President Joe Biden begins his term with a majority of Americans having confidence in his ability to handle international affairs. In a new Pew Research Center survey, 60% of U.S. adults have confidence in Biden on foreign policy" source https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … rm-begins/
Today his polls show he is at 38% approve 59% disapprove of his job in regard to foreign policy. source -- https://news.gallup.com/poll/357545/bid … water.aspx
Another poll I follow has steadily shown Global Leaders
approval of Biden. falling weekly. he is now underwater.
source --- https://morningconsult.com/global-leader-approval/
Biden needs to stop playing the blame game and start down a path of solving problems, not just talking about solving problems... Words are cheap."CNN ? Not sure if you have kept up with the faulty reputation they have earned." - You do know you are actually referring to Fake Fox News. CNN's reputation is doing just fine. For example, they got rid of Chris Cuomo of basically lying to them - noble thing to do. Yet what does Fox do with much, much worse liars like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingram, Maria Bariromo, Jeanine Pirro, to name just a few. Everyone should have been fired long ago.
The latest (8/21) "trust" poll, has MSNBC at 90%, followed by Fox at 89%, and then BBC, ABC at 88%, and CNN at 87%.
The previous poll (2/21). however, changed things up a bit. The most trusted news source was MSNBC at 93%, CNN at 92%, BBC at 90%, ABC at 88%, PBS at 87%, and Fox at 86%
Then a year ago it was CNN, BBC, Fox, MSNBC, ABC at 90%.
So, do you want to reconsider your trashing of CNN's reputation.
You probably need to read up of the AT&T spin off of WarnerMedia which will merge with Discovery. CNN is going nowhere and doesn't need to become "a more solid news platform" - it already is a very solid platform. It is the conservative channels that are very shaky and need a LOT of help.
If Malone says that about CNN, I can't imagine what he would do to Fox. That said, here is what the new owner of CNN says: The prospect of CNN ownership "is something we take so much pride in," Zaslav told Harlow. "So we'll invest in it and try to continue to do what you guys are doing, which is tell great stories and be a great news brand."
And just WHO is Bide, our very strong president, blaming? Trump did it ALL the time, but I haven't really heard Biden blame anybody. He may be pointing out the truth, but telling the truth is not blaming, is it.
"not just talking about solving problems... " - As I just proven, that is delusional talk
What I have noticed is the more outrageous the LIE, the more Trumpers love it. It is amazing how for so many American citizens have sunk. Perdue has already gotten into the Trump muck, lying about Kemp.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics … index.htmlAnyone who even mutters that lie is an automatic disqualification for elected office in my mind.
Question to people like GA, who seems to be able to see through some of that bullcrap, is whether he would support someone who chooses that alternate reality still because their other policy agendas align or whether they would abstain or even vote across the aisle to preserve democracy.Good Question!
For example, will Georgia non-Trump Republicans vote for Perdue (who also supports the Big Lie) after a series of lies like this one he recently uttered on Fake Fox News' Russian mouthpiece Sean Hannity's show?
"Over my dead body will we ever do what Kemp did, and that is turn our elections over to Stacey Abrams,"
Trump? Last I knew Biden is president. A bit of current news that affects us all, the poor taking the real brunt of Boden's poor Governing
US economy
US inflation rate rose 6.8% in 2021, the highest increase since 1982 -- For six months in a row price increases were seen across many sectors, including gas, food, and housing.
"The US inflation rate rose 6.8% over the last year, the highest increase since 1982, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning.
Inflation rose 0.8% in November after rising 0.9% in October. Price increases were seen across many sectors, including gas, food, and housing. This is the sixth month in a row the US is seeing price increases.
Ahead of Friday’s data release, Joe Biden released a statement saying that the inflation numbers “does not reflect today’s reality”. REALLY JOE? He is not living in reality, and citizens are not any longer willing to buy into his Emperor with no clothes non-sensible statements. The writing is on the wall, and they see cash leaking out of their budgets at an astronomic rate.
“It does not reflect the expected price decreases in the weeks and months ahead, such as in the auto market,” Biden said in the statement. RELLY BIDEN?
Again words that hold no common sense. He really seems to think his words will fix all, while all falls apart due to we have no one in that White House Governing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59573145
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … since-1982
IMO -- Time for Biden to toss in the towel, he is quickly ruining the country on all levels. Congress needs to act, and act now. He is stumbling around in a daze, reading promoters, and even adding the footnote at the end of the speech "End of message"... He has no business in the office of the presidency. We put the country in danger with this man in office.Knew this was coming. Comparing year-over-year inflation to a once in a lifetime pandemic year and seeing that as an issue is stupid.
Once Biden fixes the supply chains that broke under Trump's disaster pandemic response, inflation will normalize. Until then, we get to listen to your monthly misguided blame game.You had to know this was coming -- LOL
Yes, we had a once in a lifetime pandemic, IMO the minute Biden walked into that office, and decided COVID was his only Trump card, we were in trouble. He lacked the common sense to get the country back to work, not pay them to stay home... We were dealt a bad hand, but we needed to buck up and do our very best at living with a pandemic. He played the wrong card, and now he is playing the blame game.
The supply chain has made only slight progress and will take a very long time to be back to what could be considered normal. Trump supplied the country with vaccines, all Biden needed to do was pull the country together to take the vaccine. His message was too confusing, people don't trust him or his COVID team. Hey, I always have said the biggest mistake Trump ever made was Fauchi... I smart president would have replaced him the minute the public lost trust in him. His Trump card COVID no longer is worthy of playing. he needs to solve problems! I pray he realizes he is president --- he needs to solve problems, not create them. he needs to stop listening to whoever is whispering in his ear, with all their BS --- and Govern.
I do blame Biden totally, and I will continue to offer polls, not my voice but the voice of the majority. I realize he is your guy, but I don't care for the way your guy is running America into the ground. I hope your guy makes a turn about and starts doing better... He has time to do just that. At this point, he scares me big time.Trump does get credit for the vaccines. He also gets dinged for undermining the scientists charged with giving the information and hiding from his supporters the fact that he got vaccinated in secret.
Then he ran a campaign to undermine Biden's legitimacy by saying that the election was stolen. And yet, you blame Biden for people not trusting him? You must be blind to causation.
And that blindness extends to all the things Biden has accomplished. He has been solving problems and passing legislation. Just because you are ignorant to it and listen mostly to the right-wing echo chamber you live in, does not make it true.
We all know you will offer polls, just try and see all the polling. You do tend to latch onto the most negative while ignoring the more moderate ones that favor Biden.
The fear you feel is the programming they feed you. Instead, study the history of how democratic policies have made the country better. Clinton - balanced budget, great economy. Obama - stabilized the economy after Bush, then economic and record job growth."Then he ran..." - "Is Running, lol
That is true - it is demonstrable that America, under liberal rule fared much better than under conservative rule. (I have to put it in those terms because of the Great Flip back in the 40s and 50s.)
"He lacked the common sense to get the country back to work," - Sorry, that, of course, is truly FALSE. Unemployment down to 4.8% and almost 6 million jobs added to the economy. You want to try the TRUTH this time?
"not pay them to stay home..." - Again, FALSE. Just more conservative liesOnce again IMO this is due to unemployment ran out, people returning to work... No more no less, does make a nice stat but just shows people realizing it's time to get back to work. what I said was --- He lacked the common sense to get the country back to work, not pay them to stay home...
IMO he paid them to stay home. Again my opinion. You frequently call or refer to me as a liar, this is uncalled for and shows a lack
of social skills. Most of your posts are very much your opinion, we don't in any respect agree on most subjects or the way you handle a
conversation.Deleted
I think you're absolutely correct that it wasn't just the federal unemployment, or extended state unemployment, that is keeping people home. Fear of COVID is likely a big reason, the ready access to a new, perhaps better, job is in there, as is the hope that a better salary might come along if they just wait a little longer.
But I think the massive giveaways also play a big part. The stimulus checks, the money to parents of children, the assurance that rent does not need to be paid - all of these things are a part of it, too, and a big part.Where do "the studies" put the giveaways as reasons people didn't go back to work when jobs opened? 50% of the reason? 70%?
Do the studies show that without any form of financial help people would have still stayed home and starved, lost their homes, cars, etc. or would they have gone to work? Unless this is true (people would rather starve than work) then I'd have to say that the giveaways were a "big" part of staying home. As in 80%+.Minor. It gave the other reasons you mentioned as having more weight. And to get as absurd as your reasoning, maybe people chose to stay home to starve to death rather than going to work to die of Covid.
Or they chose to stay home to starve to death as opposed to going to work leaving their kids to fend for themselves. Come on, get real, get serious.No, you get real.
Certainly child care was, and is, a reason to stay home. I did mention fear of COVID as well, along with a couple of others.
But when you pooh pooh the fact that people don't need to work to get along as a reason not to work, you aren't living in reality. Precious few people will work if they don't need to - if the "free" money they get will provide them a comfortable lifestyle. When people are taking home more money by staying home (and a great many did - don't forget that it wasn't the high end white collar that lost their job, it was the bottom end blue collar worker) it is inconceivable that you think they would voluntarily go back to work.
You didn't link to any of those studies, so there is no way to know if they were only considering federal unemployment or whether they looked at all the assistance, from unemployment to free rent to aid to families with children to the plethora of welfare programs available to those that lost their jobs.When did I poo-poo anything, you are making that up. I simply stated that the studies show that it was a minor factor in why people stayed home, and it was. That was proven when those Republican governors cut off unemployment early and hardly anyone went back to work. There was no statistically significant increase in jobs after those governors decided it was best to put more misery into their citizens lives.
I have linked to those studies several times before, but you ignored them, so why bother doing it again?We provide links to studies. Many stop talking about the issues we disproved for a week or two. Then they return back to their original claims like we forgot that we already debunked them. This happens a lot in here.
And do I not admit when you have put forth your facts when I find I am flat wrong? I too but forth information that is undisputable.
Wes, I have read similar studies. All those governors who did that was hurt people unnecessarily.
Deleted
Good point on the retirees. I hadn't thought of that, but I'd bet there an awful lot of people that retired in reality if not on paper (that way they can continue to draw unemployment), and have no intention of ever going back.
Same thing happened, I think, in the recession a few years back. Lots of people drawing unemployment for extended periods of time, but without any intention of every working again.How did I get fixated on the words "wes" and "was" and misusing them, lol.
"Retired" - hadn't thought of that.Deleted
Yes, Trump's assault on immigration could easily be a factor. It will also be a factor in keeping our mid to long-term economic growth at a low level because population growth rate + productivity growth rate approximates GDP growth rate over the medium to long-term.
Non-immigrant Americans haven't replaced themselves for awhile now meaning that without immigration, America's population would actually be declining, and with it GDP (Wilderness has argued that means nothing and is probably a good thing, because declining population means increasing GDP per capita. The problem is, that logic doesn't work.)
Bottom line is America needs all the immigrants we can get (which studies show that by-and-large, they are more productive, more motivated, and less criminal than native-born Americans are while at the same time adding more to the economy than they use.
I noted that Arkansaw 4.4% in June and record show by end of Oct 3.7% it appears unemployment dropped steadily in Arkansaw from June to Oct. Actually, the majority of the 25 states that cut the unemployment benefits early did much better than those that did not cut benefits.
Here in Michigan, we did not discontinue extended unemployment on Sept 4, in June we were at 5.1% we are now above 6% unemployment and growing. We are hoping now that the unemployment has been cut we will see people return to work.
In my view states that had a high count of infections from COVID were more fearful to return to normal. Michigan had a Governor that had the strictest of mitigations and made much of the population fearful. We unfortunately had and have some of the highest infection rates when compared to other states. At this point, our hospitals need the Federal government's help to obtain more vents as well as the medical staff."Actually, the majority of the 25 states that cut the unemployment benefits early did much better than those that did not cut benefits." - [b]Actually, the studies I have posted before that were ignored came to the opposite conclusion - there was no statistical difference between the two. Here, I'll post it again and hope you read it this time[/i]
This is from July - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/cuts-to … finds.html
This is from Aug that says largely the same thing - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/23/ending- … -says.html
This is later still, from Sept, same story - https://slate.com/business/2021/09/unem … iring.html
I say again, cutting off benefits had little impact, certainly not what the Right touted, but there is no doubt it made life much harder for the citizens of their states.You might try blaming the REAL culprits - Republicans. The Republican legislature who sued Whitmer to stop her from protecting Michiganders; the Republican Justices who ruled against Whitmer, and the Republican electorate who refuse to get vaccinated?
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ … 970811002/
At this point in time, roughly 1,200 a day, 36,000 a month, 144,000 a quarter, or 576,000 mostly Republicans or right-leaning independents are dying from Covid. Hey, but who is counting? Certainly not conservatives.
What is Michigan's share of that? 10%! Will 57,000 dead Michigan voters impact the 2022 election? Maybe, that is the margin of victory in many of your elections.
"Trump? Last I knew Biden is president. " - What has that got to do with anything. Besides, Trump needs to be talked about because he is a clear and present danger to our democracy! It is a shame you can't see that.
Inflations, many economists are saying it has reached its peak, I believe it.
"“does not reflect today’s reality”. REALLY JOE? " - Yes, really. The latest numbers do not reflect the decreases in energy prices. - So, who is not living in reality?
It is Trump who had no business being in the presidency, he is nutso and everything you accuse Biden of, but you can't see it. Instead, you can't see it. Nor can you see that Biden is really helping America out of the Dark Ages Trump put us in.
Biden can't be ruining a country that Trump already destroyed.'Biden can't be ruining a country that Trump already destroyed.'
Good luck getting Sharlee to acknowledge that statement."What has that got to do with anything. Besides, Trump needs to be talked about because he is a clear and present danger to our democracy! It is a shame you can't see that."
This would be your opinion. I don't agree, I find ruminating on Trump is very much odd.
Inflation all I can do is offer my opinion, it is getting worse, (I offered stats in the last comment) and will be around for a couple more years.
"The US inflation rate rose 6.8% over the last year, the highest increase since 1982, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning.
. "The latest numbers do not reflect the decreases in energy prices. - So, who is not living in reality?"
Sorry, these are the very numbers that came out yesterday... UNless you don't want to believe the stats?
Inflation rose 0.8% in November after rising 0.9% in October. Price increases were seen across many sectors, including gas, food, and housing. This is the sixth month in a row the US is seeing price increases.
Great News. Appeals Court hand Trump another expected defeat saying Trump is not the president and has no recourse to executive privilege if the REAL president doesn't assert it.
Only two steps left to getting one step closer to bringing the justice America deserves. With luck and God willing, the full appeals court will turn the appeal of this latest loss down and the Supreme Court does likewise given there is absolutely no rational Trump can use to hide the facts.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/politics … index.htmlTrump, the hero and pope-like figure to some of you, is totally nutso. Here is is latest.
Trump accuses Netanyahu of disloyalty for congratulating Biden after 2020 win: 'F**k him',
This is what 75 million Americans love about this egomaniac:
[i["There was no one who did more for Netanyahu than me. There was no one who did for Israel more than I did. And the first person to run to greet Joe Biden was Netanyahu. And not only did he congratulate him -- he did it in a video. [/i] - the video was the kicker.
And Trump keeps trying to overturn the 2020 election with his B[g Lie that the same 75 million Americans have been brainwashed into believing. SAD
Yep, pure presidential material for 2024, lol.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics … index.htmlDeleted
Absotutely!!
I would, however, modify two phrases you used: "tried" to "still trying" and "decides to run" to "wins".Just one republican budding in here --- I voted both times for Trump. I in no respect supported what is called "Big Lie". I liked how he Governed, his job performance, I felt the country was safe under Trump, I liked the economy and the direction he was taking the promising Obama economy, I liked his immigration policies, I enjoyed feeling I had a president that was ready and willing to pull out of long time wars I never approved of, I liked his vision with making the US energy independent ( Because although the climate needs tending we are not any longer energy-independent but now just using the same amounts of energy, but buying it from other countries, where we have no say in how they harvest oil and get it to market crossed our oceans... ) In my view, this is a poor way to say we are offering a solution to preparing our climate. We have one atmosphere... We have oceans that no matter where oil leaks, it is still a leak... Shell games are for the unintelligent in my view.
In summation, I hope Trump does not run in 2024. I do hope whoever runs respects that Trump's policies are what half the country enjoyed, and incorporates them in their own agenda. At any rate, I will be voting Republican, out of pure fear, and the realization that in my view offer nothing that resembles the America I have come to love, and prefer.Half the country enjoyed? Trump's approval rate never reached half and was closer to about 40%.
Trump was the most unstable president we ever had, governing by whim or whatever served his own purposes. His immigration policy, specifically the child separation policy, was deemed a human rights violation and will end up costing the country billions due to the harm it caused those families. He is the Joe Arpaio of presidential immigration policy.
While the cutting of regulations and taxes did improve upon the economy in some respects, that came at a cost in national debt. Saddling future generations with trillions to make himself look good in the immediate is not something to brag about.
And those economic gains get to be viewed through the lens of a man who ignored the warnings about the Wuhan Lab that were given to him in 2018. Ignored warnings that did lead to a pandemic that erased many of his gains and left him with a net negative job creation over four year and $7.8 trillion wracked up onto the national debt - a four-year record.
A president who does not read briefings, thinks his own inexperienced opinion is better than all others due to his narcissism, and one who ignores science did not make the majority of America feel very safe at all."Trump was the most unstable president we ever had, governing by whim or whatever served his own purposes."
He made decisions quickly, and problems never became worse due to being indecisive. Not ever words or 90-day committees...
Biden is using the same cages Obama but and used... We have over 100 thousand unaccompanied children in America due to Biden's poor immigration stance. These children came with no parents to be separated from. He invited them to come. Trump left 500 children in America's care due to separation at the border. These children were children whose parents would not take them back when contacted, some had false information in regard to who their parents were. Odd you would bring up abandon children, these children sent in alone were sent by their parents.
I am not in any respect being drawn back into the timeline of what Trump knew when, and what he was told by Fauchi and others in CDC and WHO. That is where I put the blame, the Scientist he relied on for information... All there have timelines available, as well as all of Fauchi's and when he said what. I feel I took my facts from good sources. Timelines did not lie. Media did... I feel very confident my opinion was formed by facts, not talk jocks.
How in the world could you bring up the deficit? This is laughable... Do you know the cash Biden has in 10 months? Not sure how deep a hole you hope to dig for yourself, but in my view, you are in over your head.
Trump held more briefings than I have ever witnessed any president having.
"and one who ignores science did not make the majority of America feel very safe at all."
I must say this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard in a long time. A statement that clearly can't be backed up by any proof...
This man from the first case of COVID took it upon himself to form a team of scientists. The same team Biden has relied on ... Both the task force and Operation warp speed that's the very teams Biden used. Then God... or we would be in so much more trouble than we find ourselves with so many more dead, so many more infected...
It was Fauchi that gave his sarcastic giggle when he talked about Trump's prediction to have a vaccine within 8 to 12 months... We have three vaccines in 8 months, and Fauchi wearing an egg on his simply liberal face...
Facts are hard to take are they not?Your ignorance of basic facts makes you the last person to lecture someone on the topic. Proof of Trump ignoring science, it's all over the place if you'd care to open your eyes.
Trump on Science:
This man from the first case of covid downplayed the severity, costing American lives. He lied to you, to all of us. It'll just go away on it's own one day was a great statement.
The science clearly said masks work, but there you have Trump railing against their usage.
And again, Trump's administration ignored the science when warned a year before the pandemic. That's how we got where we are today.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … rpt-474322There is nothing in my comment that is not factual. You can't dispute my facts so as always you become very defensive. If something in my comment is not factual, quote it. I will give sources as I am known to do. I don't spout off with statements that I can't back. I do offer some opinions, and as a rule, I can back those up as well. It would seem more ignorant to make an attempt to insult someone just because you can.
I will keep an eye open for any quotes you had a problem with.
I did look at your article out of politeness--- I certainly did not find any information that Trump himself was made aware of a problem virus in Wuhan in 2018. Not sure how one could hold him responsible for the discretion of his administration not notifying him.Facts? You can't even spell Fauci correctly.
It's not really the facts you listed but the numerous ones you left out. I listed multiple factual events of Trump ignoring the science and even decided to leave out the infamous disinfectant episode that many of his supporters misunderstood while injecting themselves with bleach.
And you can sit there and blame Biden for every fault the country has, but when I provide concrete facts that Trump's administration was warned about that Wuhan lab and did nothing, suddenly the man is not responsible? Your double standards are immense. Not that I blamed Trump in my claim, I blamed his inept administration for not seeing the dangers and then losing our access to China's labs via his trade war.Certainly spelled Fauci's name wrong...
-- your statement "and one who ignores science did not make the majority of America feel very safe at all."
I offered an appropriate reply in regard to your comment. I offered my thoughts as to why I found your comment not factual. I offered the fact it was Trump that turned to the scientist very quickly and formed the task force that was pretty much all Scientists and doctors. I might add he listened to them, and supported their suggestions in closing the country, as well as their list of suggested mitigations. He closed travel from China, Biden said that Trump had a “record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering.” And now he did the same... He is a hypocrite.
The country pretty much a majority of the country anyway, did their part as Trump's task force asked. Even though there were many flip-flops along the way.
I completely realize you dwelled on Trump's words, that's your right. I could have cared less what he said at that point, I wanted action, I saw action. There is a difference, I don't like feckless speeches, I needed problems solved. And I feel he did good job-solving problems as they came up. he did so well getting out of PPE, and vent, and pop-up hospitals. He gets things done, he is not a "Let me get up a committed, I will get back to ya.,," That's your guy. I am very thankful he was in the White House during this crisis. I can not even imagine what would have gone down under Biden. I can see how ineffective he is in solving any problems, let alone a true crisis. Thus far we have more cases and more deaths in Joe's short time in office. Biden claimed " I’m never going to raise the white flag and surrender. We’re going to beat this virus. We’re going to get it under control, I promise you." He claimed to have a three-step plan... I have seen zip. He was going to increase tracing... Just never got around to it. You hang your hat on all of Joe's words... He sure does offer up words, and nothing else.
Why even compare Trump to Biden? Trump is gone, up need to be bragging up your guy, I mean he says all the right words. LOL But just does zip. For me, I love defending Trump, because he fatally had accomplishments. Yes, his words were really crap. But his deeds are pretty dam good in my book.
And you dare bring up stupid statements Trump made. This is laughable. Do you need a list of stupid crazy Biden statements?Deleted
" I like that he has pledged to make unity and compromise central to his time in office." - Yes, he has made a little progress toward that, but whether he is largely successful or not depends on the other party's willingness to be bi-partisan. He is certainly trying but he is meeting tons of entrenched resistance.
Don't you mean it depends on how willing the other party is to simply swallow, hook, line and sinker, whatever Biden or Democrats shove at them?
I haven't seen any compromise or unity from either one - just disgust that opponents won't cheerfully accept anything and everything Democrats push for.
As always seems to come down to, "compromise" means "Do what I want you to or you aren't compromising".Deleted
I would have agreed...were it not that "infrastructure" in the bill often means big spending for specific party programs that have nothing at all to do with infrastructure.
So "compromise" here means if you will give me my dream projects you can repair the failing infrastructure of the nation. Yes, it was bi-partisan and yes there was compromise. But I'm really sick of bills chock full of pork that have nothing to do with the bill itself because that's the only way to get it passed. Put it into something truly needed and refuse to give that need unless a "compromise" accepts the pork.Deleted
I'm sure there are lots of people in other states that, if they realize what Cassidy did, will be a little ticked off that they are being required to pay for what residents of Louisiana want but don't want to pay for.
That's a pet peeve of mine - that so much of what states spend is going through the feds, to be split up as Congress wishes. Far better (for both states and the country) if states pay their own way and do without if they don't wish to. Our tax burden would certainly fall precipitously if the wish list of 50 states were not being funded out of the pocketbooks of other people rather than state residents. It's one thing to help out in an emergency (presuming it was not caused by the state in need) - it's another to simply fill the wish lists of others, with zero benefit to the one footing the bill.
No, we are NOT the same in wishing that our senators and representatives would bill people across the country for what we want but are too cheap to pay for. Some of us don't see that procedure as fair, reasonable or beneficial to the nation.Remember, that any Republican, like Cassidy, who works across the aisle is called a RINO today, lol.
Hmmm, let's see if you speak the truth with "means big spending for specific party programs that have nothing at all to do with infrastructure."
In looking at the bill I found the following for the new spending:
- $110 billion for roads, bridges, and major infrastructure projects
- $40 billion bridge repair and replacement
- $16 billion for very large/college projects
- $11 billion for transportation safety
- $1 billion for community upgrade
- $39 billion for rail and transit
- $11 billion for grants for intercity rail
- $66 billion for passenger and rail improvement
- $65 billion for broadband upgrade
- $17 billion for airports, ports, and waterways
- $8 billion for electric vehicles
- $55 billion to upgrade water system infrastructure
- $65 billion to upgrade the electric grid
- $50 billion to making systems more resilient
Which of those are the "party spending" you were referring to?Deleted
"Trying to take some credit." - I was sitting with a young Democrat helping man a voter registration booth today - he said exactly the same things.
Is there a reason you cherry picked the bill, choosing only those things that really are repair of our failing infrastructure?
Was there a reason you left out the $174B for electric vehicles, which has nothing to do with infrastructure? The bill is the marquee of the Democratic climate change fight, which again has nothing to do with repairing failing infrastructure.
Was there a reason you left out $400B to improve access to care for the elderly, and to expand Medicaid? When did Medicaid become "infrastructure"?
Was there a reason to leave out the $100B for new schools? Again, when did schools become "infrastructure"?
Why did you leave out the $180B for R&D for semiconductors and computers, along with ideas for jobs in that will help global warming? When did semiconductors become "infrastructure" - are they part of the support columns for bridges?
Many of the "investments" come with rules that the country will pay the very highest prices for the work being done and making it easier for gig workers to unionize. How does this help re-build our infrastructure?
The bill will replace thousands of federal vehicles with EV's - how is that "infrastructure"?
$7.5B will go to buy EV school buses. How is this considered "infrastructure"?
$21B is earmarked to clean up superfund sites. Hardly "infrastructure", is it?
The bottom line is that a minority of the package goes towards our needs for infrastructure repair. The majority goes to Democrat wish lists, expanded broadband, rail and the like that, while nice, are not repairing anything at all. The only way a great deal of this boondoggle can be considered "infrastructure" is to expand the term to mean "anything Democrats want".What cherry picked? That is it for new expenditures. You must be looking at a different bill.
What $175 billion for electric vehicles? I only found $8 billion ( 7.5 actually) And you do realize, don't you, that this is 2021 and not 1921. Things and definitions change even if you don't like it.
What $400 billion for the elderly? I didn't see anything in their about Medicare. Which bill are you looking at?
What $100 billion for new schools. Didn't see that either, lol.
Didn't see the $21 billion for superfund sites as well. Exactly what ARE you looking at.
In any case, based on your objections, you appear to be against electric vehicles. cleaning up the environment, improving our schools, helping the elderly,
Why are you so HUNG UP on semantics?
https://whyy.org/articles/roads-transit … ture-bill/
We need to get back to the days of Sen Bob Dole (who I mostly opposed, but greatly respected)
Nope, I don't mean that, that is the Republican way. But I do mean they need to engage their brains and actually try to compromise - something that Trump will castigate them for if they do.
And yet...Democrats have offered nothing, and accepted very nearly nothing, in the way of compromise. They have the power at the moment so have no need to compromise...and will not do so.
I for one hope the Republicans stand very strong against all of the new administration's agenda, especially BBB. We as Republicans better realize it's time to be heard, and push back with all they have.
Words do have consequences. But beyond the words are the actions of undermining the science. The inaction that his administration took in regards to the danger of the Wuhan lab - those were not words. The choice to shun mask wearing in defiance of his own CDC - not words. The choice to hold rallies and pack people into venues in defiance of social distancing guidelines given by the CDC during a pandemic that literally killed Herman Cain - not words, but reckless actions. The choice to undermine Fauci because he was seen as more popular and a threat to Trump's narcissism.
These are actions you omit. Then you have the gall to blame Biden for Trump supporters not trusting the government enough to get vaccinated while you sit there and ignore the messaging of a dangerous lunatic who told those same people that Biden was not duly elected. That he stole the presidency and did not concede defeat which is a necessary step in helping the losing side's followers turn their support to the next administration. And then he organized and incited an insurrection against his own government. Your complete lack of vision to see the causality of those actions as a reason why his supporters lag in vaccination rates and are extending this pandemic is why we have to keep reminding you how Trump's ACTIONS have undermined our democracy as well as the goal of ending this pandemic.
Your rose-colored glasses to all things Trump really just shows a level of ignorance that isn't much worth debating, to be honest. Your continued revisionist history to avoid the ugly parts of the Trump presidency gets old."The inaction that his administration took in regards to the danger of the Wuhan lab - those were not words"
Yes, whoever decided not to share the information should take the blame.
Not wearing the mask was his choice. A poor choice.
" The choice to undermine Fauci because he was seen as more popular and a threat to Trump's narcissism."
Let me remind you he could have fired Fauci. He kept him and I never heard him say a disparaging word about the man. he followed his advice to the end.
"why we have to keep reminding you how Trump's ACTIONS have undermined our democracy as well as the goal of ending this pandemic."
What you feel about Trump is your opinion. Not sure why you would feel that this opinion is felt by a majority here on this forum.
You should realize this statement is very presumptuous. I don't think you speak for others here on HP. Yes, maybe a few LOL.
My comments offer facts not just a view much of the time, I must say, you ramble as and don't really back up your views much of the time. You certainly don't respect other spaces to voice their opinions. You lash out with words like ignorance. You don't debate, you rarely answer questions that are posed. You just flip to another subject or seek to insult.
" Your continued revisionist history to avoid the ugly parts of the Trump presidency gets old."
This is laughable --- It is you that ruminates on Trump. One can't have a conversation with you where it does not turn to Trump. I think anyone here will agree with me on this matter.
I have not and don't intend to defend his accomplishments, and keep to the truth on where I found fault. You see, I am not on one path. I tell it how I see it, I don't care if one on the other end does not agree. I don't ever bend to contribute to any form of groupthink. Now that is what I find shows a true level of ignorance.
We all have opinions... I got news yours means nothing more than mine.You are not on one path? Bullcrap. Your single path is to blame Biden for everything under the sun while ignoring much of what he inherited from a president that oversaw the decimation, and topping that off by denying any progress being made under Biden's watch. Discussing the path that led us to these problems is relevant - just because you constantly wish to ignore the causes of these issues because you want to try and convince everyone that Biden is a bad leader because that is what your are brainwashed by your Fox News viewership to regurgitate. Well, sorry, many of us aren't buying your falsehoods about the origins of these problems.
So if you want to spew that false rhetoric on here, be prepared to hear opinions that disagree and call you out for all the things you omit from living in a far-right propaganda bubble.I live in here and know. I don't in any respect ruminate on the past. Not sure once again why you feel you speak for others here. I think most do very well expressing themselves without your help. And I would surmise some would not want you speaking for them.
Again I back my views as a rule with information. And I truely could care less about what you think of me. I think those that post here can see you handle yourself very poorly, and have few social skills when it comes to conversing. One only needs to read your comments to realize that. I will step away from this conversation with you. Sorry nit taking your hook."I don't in any respect ruminate on the past. " - Then you consign yourself to repeating mistakes.
I am very current with my post all of the time. You look at current news as mistakes that would be your problem. One can't even find one of your posts that does not pull one back into Trump's world. This is very evident, one only needs to browse a bit into any and all your comments. You should really take note of this.
We have a new president, he creates tons of news... You need to address current topics with current information. It's fine to dispute, but the compare game is getting so old. And with all that is going on you might ask
yourself --- "why am I still obsessed with Trump"?" You look at current news as mistakes " - ??
" One can't even find one of your posts that does not pull one back into Trump's world. " - That would be true. Why? As I said many times before, Trump needs to be front and center in every American's mind because he IS an existential threat to American democracy (something you don't deny which implies you go along with his efforts.)
BTW, Trump, and many of his supporters think he is still president. That Christmas event I mentioned earlier had a Trump paraphernalia booth with a sign way up in the sky proclaiming, falsely, Trump Won, lol. Now tell me he isn't a danger and should NOT be ignored
Sorry for not falling for your hook... Laughable. Not sure anyone here wants you speaking for them. You are falling back on the air, I doubt very much if the majority here support your views or the way you express them.
To note that others are also pushing back against your repeated and false views about Biden is not speaking for them. You've proven time and again when you post your forum topics you rely heavily on Fox News for the sourcing of your views on the country. Well, the Fox News view is one of hate for the opposing party, something you emulate here. If we wanted to listen to that garbage, we would just watch Fox News.
And I'm pretty sure there are many here that support that view, even if I'm more blunt in its delivery."And I'm pretty sure there are many here that support that view, even if I'm more blunt in its delivery."
Approximately as many as support the view that CNN, MSN, etc. are nothing but liberal rags from the far left.
It's sad when no matter what data is provided the reply is that the source is worthless when it isn't what is desired or doesn't match our own bias. When only sources with our own bias tell the truth.I guess you didn't know that the viewership of those channels cuts across all political ideologies. except Trumpers - they congregate almost exclusively with Fake Fox News and other far right propaganda outlets.
Fake Fox News, on the other, is viewed almost exclusively by Trumpers and conservatives with a few liberals sprinkled in.
I will support Sharlee to this extent - I don't see in her posts the "hate" and racism that comes through loud and clear from other Trumpers. I think she stays far away from that type of rhetoric.
[b]But,[b] I do object to and will keep highlighting the plainly false narratives she seems bent on trying to get people to believe.Please provide what you call my false narrative. I will be glad to defend my opinion if I have an idea of what you refer to. Your statement is vague, leading.
Are you referring to my opinions, my ideologies, or my reporting current news?
You do know we all have a right to our own beliefs, and views, do you not? Or do you feel you have the right to feel your views, your beliefs are just written in cement, more worthy of mine? I find this fascinating.
I would appreciate you dispute my facts, with facts not just your opinion. I certainly realize you do not want to see or read my post that points out current negative news in regard to Biden or his administration. That would be your problem. I have every right to post information. You certainly can dispute or disprove it with facts. However, your opinion is yours, and not actually factual much of the time.
I have derived reports from Fox, and I as a rule give a couple of sources to back a news report. Unfortunately, Fox does report the negative in regard to Biden, and I have noted lately so have most left-leaning networks started to report current Biden news. So I will be using many other sources now that other outlets have decided to report news, instead of filter it.
You do know it's your prerogative to report any of my comments to HP as well as my threads. I would be content with HP's opinion on my posts.
And, I have every confidence that others that post here can speak for themselves. I am respectful of others' opinions, and I do feel most here could at best agree with that.
The only one's pushing back would be you, and ECO. All others are respectful of how they converse. It is very much expected on a political forum people will disagree. It is also common to agree to disagree, or just respect that we all have the right to offer an opinion.
I have tried very hard to work around the specific way you at times converse. I am fully aware many think a keyboard is open grounds to insult others' thoughts, and opinions. But, I find it odd when one feels they speak for others on a forum. One thing I have learned in regard to this forum, the users are most of the time respectful, can be funny, snarky, interesting as well as intelligent. I really feel they are outgoing enough to speak for themselves. So, why don't you just try to cool it just a bit, and take note of others' conduct here?
Pass by my current news or better yet dispute the report without playing the comparison game. Comparing does not change the current guys mistake." and I have noted lately so have most left-leaning networks started to report current Biden news. " - News flash, they have been all along, and Biden is getting irritated by all of the over-the-top misleading, negative headlines to get you to read it. When you do, you find that whatever the subject was is not nearly as bad, or isn't bad at all. And that includes CNN.
But you didn't finish "I offered the fact it was Trump that turned to the scientist very quickly and formed the task force that was pretty much all Scientists and doctors." with "and then refused to listen to them, even contradicting and belittling them, while interfering with CDC guidance and bringing on a quack doctor to push his anti-Covid message". Why did you leave that "fact" out??
"I might add he listened to them, and supported their suggestions in closing the country, as well as their list of suggested mitigations. " - Yes, he [b]started out that way for the first month (if that long), but then went on a months long attack of those same scientists he said he believed - a FACT that you ignored
I'll tell you what would have gone down under Biden - 400,000 more people would be alive because Biden would have taken Covid seriously and not downplayed it. And that is not counting the number of people of died after Biden took office because of Trump's almost total failure to protect America. Further, because you will probably bring this up, most of those who have died after Biden took office lies primarily at the feet of Republicans who refuse to get vaccinated and become parties, IMO, to voluntary homicide. Said another way, if Republicans had gotten vaccinated at the same rate as Democrats did, 1) we would not have over 800,000 dead today and 2) we probably would be at herd immunity. But NO, these people choose to let themselves, their kids, their loved ones, their friends, and strangers die because of their selfishness.
"But just does zip. " - Why do you keep repeating this debunked lie?
"Trump is gone," - it sounds like you have tuned out the news
"I love defending Trump, because he fatally had accomplishments. " - Yes, many of his so-called accomplishments were fatal. They were fatal to immigrants, Kurds, but mostly Americans. It was TRUMP's plan that Biden stupidly followed that led to the debacle we saw in Afghanistan, a plan that would have led to much more misery, death, and heart-ache had Biden not extended the withdrawal date to when he did. Yes, go ahead and defend that masterpiece.
While your at defending Trump, defend his decision to downplay Covid, [i]one that he admitted to, which led to so many excess deaths. Defend his plan to abandon the Kurdish to their arch enemies, the Turks. Here are some other things Trump did you can defend:
1. The child separation policy (and don't say Obama did it to, he didn't as a matter of policy like Trump did)
2. Putting the world in greater danger by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord
3. Putting at least the Middle East, if not the world, in greater danger by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. They are NOW on the verge of building a nuclear weapon unless Biden is successful in stopping them.
4. His attack on the successful Affordable Care act, which, if it had worked, would have led to the misery and death of millions of Americans from whom he took medical coverage away.
5. His outright support of Racism
6. Enlisting foreign help to get elected in 2020 and his acceptance of Russian help for 2016.
7. His use of YOUR tax dollars to line his own pockets
8. His tax give-away to the rich which did nothing for the economy
9. His policy of lying at every opportunity
This is the SHORT LISTBlah Blah Blah --- stuck on Trump just where the left media wants you. Too bad there is a shi- storm of real current news going on in the Country. Maybe you have not heard we have a new body in the White House.
"stuck on Trump" - That is turning into your favorite go-to when those of us who really care about America talk about the most dangerous man in America right now. I get the feeling you don't care whether our democracy survives or not, so long as he becomes president again.
The inflation caused by broken supply chains during the pandemic, prior to Biden's election, continues to be the one broken record of shi-storm news. And once Biden fixes those, suddenly there will be some new 'crisis' fabricated by the right. Everything is a crisis when a democrat sits in the White House to right-wing media.
If he is in the current News, (which yes he often is) I am more than willing to converse about a news report. I think we both care very much about our democracy. We just have different opinions on how to keep it intact. As I have said so many times, I do hope Trump does not run in 202. I feel this way for so many reasons... The best reason, I feel if he would win it would permanently divide this country, and lead to increasing a very hateful division. So, hopefully, this is the last time I need to share my thoughts on the " if come" of trump running in 2024.
I want Trump to stay retired, I appreciated his agenda, his job performance, but I know we can do better.
Yes, real news, (which you prefer to ignore so you can continue your BDS attack) such as:
- Jobs have never been more secure
- Bosses have stopped firing people
- First time unemployment filings at historic lows (at least since 1967)
- Almost everybody who wants a job can find a job
- GDP at record highs
- Unemployment below the historic average
- Consumer spending at record highs
- The bi-partisan infrastructure bill will be adding more jobs to the economy and improving America's crumbling infrastructure shortly as it ramps up.
Why do you ignore all of these things? Because it makes Biden look good? I won't say he is the best president ever, but he beats the hell out of Trump and RINO Bush II (I sort of liked RINO Bush I). I'll even say RINO Reagan and RINO Nixon did reasonably good jobs. (I am using Trump's definition of RINO, btw).You present this list as if it is all great news. It isn't.
When employers no longer feel they can fire sub-standard employees, retaining them (often at excessive wages) it is good for neither the employer nor the consumer buying the product that employee produces.
GDP is at record highs ONLY because of the massive giveaway programs and because wages have increased. Both result in inflation, reducing or eliminating any real gain for most and producing a very real loss for millions.
What often looks very good sometimes isn't upon deeper examination.So you prefer a low GDP, I see. Of course that makes no sense to me.
Americans still after months left in Afghanistan... Need I say more?
And your point in the larger scheme of things?
Besides, old news has it that at the end of Oct, there were 89 Americans [b[ready to depart[/b] and another 248 that may or may not want to leave. 140 had left the week previously. I couldn't find any current report.
How come you won't focus on the good news rather than let your BDS influence your commentary?
" he did so well getting out of PPE, " - I am again forced to point out one of your false statements - Trump failed miserably at providing PPE! Miserably
You must have heard this from Trump and unfortunately believed yet another LIE - "We shipped hundreds of millions of masks, gloves and gowns to our frontline health care workers. To protect our nation’s seniors, we rushed supplies, testing kits, and personal — to nursing homes, we gave everything you can possibly give and we’re still giving it because we’re taking care of our senior citizens,"
Here is the TRUTH: "In the early days of the pandemic, the Trump administration did indeed procure millions of supplies, even flying personal protective equipment (PPE) in from overseas, with much fanfare and often exaggerated numbers.
But Trump (and you) fails to mention that the shortages of PPE and critical testing supplies are ongoing.
One in five U.S. nursing homes faced severe shortages of PPE this summer (2020), according to a study released in August. The American Medical Association decried the “persistent shortage” of N95 masks and other protective equipment yesterday."
I'll let you read the rest of the Truth here.
One in five U.S. nursing homes faced severe shortages of PPE this summer, according to a study released in August. The American Medical Association decried the “persistent shortage” of N95 masks and other protective equipment yesterday.Trump procured millions of supplies...but because he didn't provide enough for the next decade he was a complete, total, 100% failure in doing anything about the shortage of masks, etc.
Your bias and hatred is showing through, and completely twisting reality out of shape. You can't even be consistent paragraph to paragraph.
800,000 dead people from Covid. Trump is responsible for most of those. Since Delta, Republicans are responsible for most of the rest by not getting vaccinated.
"He made decisions quickly," - And as a result, made very poor ones almost 100% of the time.
"We have over 100 thousand unaccompanied children in America due to Biden's poor immigration stance. " - Sorry. !) Biden has roughly the same immigration stance as Trump, relative the border, just without the draconian implementation and 2) it is the Republican's fault that all of those people rushed the border because they kept lying that the border was open when, in fact, Biden [b]kept it closed[/b\
"This man from the first case of COVID took it upon himself to form a team of scientists. " - That was for show and we all know it because Trump ignored virtually everything they recommended and trusted quacks and shut down science. Hydrocloroquine, indeed! LOL
Deleted
"I'd like to see our country move away from the "my half" "your half" mentality."
Nice thought, but in my view not realistic... Who gives in? And mentally we have two sides due to very diverse different ideologies, and different ideas on which way we hope that America will progress. Ideologies are very far apart.
Where do you find even a glimmer of bipartisanship?
In my view -- Democracy and country will flourish if we keep to our Constitution, a document that gave us what we needed to keep our Democracy. I find it promising to see a few politicians from both parties are attempting to work together to get things done. These Representatives a hard to find. I must ask, you don't feel the few Dems that are bucking Bidens BBBare not being vilified? I have read much about how the two that are bucking the bill are being very much vilified, and tormented by citizens in general.
I am a glass-half-full kind of person also. But, I keep an open mind and don't dance around anything that I find negative. If it'd negative
outwardly negative, my head stays out of the sand.
Our Government was meant to be give and take. It is not at this point.
" If every four years the idea is to elect someone just to subvert and suppress the "other side," we are headed for a world of trouble."
Here is how I have always looked at this --- Every four years we have the ability to glean what we liked about an administration. We have the right to weigh what we thought was good or negative, we have the right to develop an idea of what was the best ideologies, which were the worse.
It's up to us to determine the best from the worst. We learn, we strive to see what America needs every 8 years... We do our best to research what candidate can fulfill the present needs.
In the last decade, we have seen president after president cancels out much of what the prior president did. It is something to really look at and consider that each president actually canceled on their predecessor. Some do well and one can see there was no vendetta to cast, some not so well... Some cut off our face to spite our nose.Along with your last paragraph, one of the things I see that is of great concern is the refusal to accept defeat, or even a well constructed compromise.
Examples are abortion and gun control. Pro-lifers have worked for decades to negate RvsW. If they can't do it via the law they will use whatever other weapons they can find. Defund Planned Parenthood, which does an enormous amount of good in this country. Go after doctors, nurses, even cab drivers that "assist" in getting an abortion. Never give up the fight no matter what compromise is reached - only the banning of all abortions is acceptable.
Same with gun controls; When SCOTUS declares for the second amendment, find another route to disarm the public. Make guns too expensive to buy or own. Make them ever harder to purchase. Hold gun manufacturers responsible for what people do with their own gun. Once more, the fight will not end until the public is disarmed.
This kind of attitude - Compromise only for today, tomorrow we will try a different method of getting what we actually want - is not acceptable. IMO."Democracy and country will flourish if we keep to our Constitution" - I agree. Too bad Trump and the Republicans didn't
Cancelling out. Yes, that is true. Trump cancelled out the good things Obama did and Biden had to cancel out all of the bad things Trump did.
I agree, that is why I almost always vote FOR something. Even though I know Trump would have destroyed America even further, I voted for Biden because I support his agenda (save for leaving Afghanistan).
"I in no respect supported what is called "Big Lie"." - If you want to vote for him a third time, you certainly do. But, if you won't vote for him because of the Big Lie then you have turned a corner.
"I felt the country was safe under Trump, " - That is truly an unbelievable statement! There is SO many facts to disprove that
" I liked the economy and the direction he was taking the promising Obama economy," - You do understand, don't you, that the "promising" Obama economy lasted SIX years before Trump continued what Obama started. Why do you keep changing history?
"I liked his immigration policies, " - You mean you supported taking children away from their parents as a detergent? Or forcing people seeking asylum to stay in squalid, dangerous conditions in Mexico, you think that was a good thing? Shame.
"I liked his vision with making the US energy independent " - LOL. Then you must LOVE Obama since HE is the one who made America energy independent, NOT Trump.
"we are not any longer energy-independent" - Yes, we still are
Fortunately, even more people will be voting for Biden for the same reason, out of total fear of how Republicans will destroy America.As I have said to you many times. I feel we are in a period where one needs to consider the pros and cons when choosing a candidate. Looking at who would best be able to do the job. In the case of Trump versus Biden, I took many hours looking for anything that would tell me that Biden could lead - I found nothing. I totally liked how Trump handles the job minus his personality. Very simply I feel one must be able to solve problems. I had no real choice but ITrump. This is my opinion, you seem to think yours is the last word. That does not float with me. I can respect your opinion, and not seek to criticize it. Your corner just is not my corner.
Again I felt safe under Trump, and have offered reasons many times, not willing to beat a dead horse. I certainly do not in any respect feel safe under Biden. And I am very sure the people he left in Afganastan don't either. He is a weak man, and he appears to have no Governing skills at all.
AS I claimed Trump took Obamas promising economy and made it better. That's how I see it. You are defensive without reason...
Again I supported Trump's immigration policies. All of them. Migrants knew of the policy when they walked in with their children, I would put all blame on the parent that put their child in danger, and separation. WE have legal means to come to America. That is the last word I have on this subject. You have your opinion on the subject it differs from mine.
Your energy comment in regard to Obama not even signifying an answer. That is plain out ridiculous And np we are not in any respect energy independent. However, believe whatever you please. In my view, your comment is once again ridiculous. Not sure how you would have the nerve to even write such a statement. Biden has been begging OPEC for oil, and oil before long will be at $100.00 per barrel. I'll get back to you when it does. So, be ready to blame Trump ---LOL
"Fortunately, even more people will be voting for Biden for the same reason, out of total fear of how Republicans will destroy America."
You have topped yourself with this one... Guess you ignore the polls and all the negativity that surrounds Biden. That's
your problem. The Dem voters are supporting him in low numbers. I think the stats show 77% at this point and falling weekly.
Isn't it so very sad that those who believe Trump's Big Lie want to perpetuate that lie by being the most enthusiastic to vote in 2022.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics … index.htmlJust went to man the Democratic Register to Vote Booth at the Ruby Red Starke, FL Christmas parade and what did I see high in the sky? The Big Lie in the form of a sign lying that Trump, lol, (I guess they are on Santa's naughty list for lying.) Below it was a booth hawking Trump paraphernalia.
We did have one lady who stopped by and confessed she was a secret Democrat. As she pointed her finger down her throat she admitted her husband was (point, point) a Trumper. When I asked her if she was registered to vote she said HELL yes she was and walked off with a smile.The Trump propaganda outlet Fake Fox News lost another journalist who TRIED to do an honest job - but they wouldn't let him; Chris Wallace. He just refused to turn into another Carlson or Hannity, who, whether they know it or not, are mouthpieces for our sworn enemy, Russia.
Chris moved on to a more honest network - CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/12/media/ch … index.htmlYou know what one of the most watched shows in Russia is? You guessed it, Fake Fox News.
"The person organizing the coups is the then current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. Fast forward to the election and Trump did lose and he started implementing his plan to overthrow the will of the people."
I assume this is your opinion? I have seen no evidence thus far to substantiate your claims. Or just say it's your opinion.
CNN format may well be overhauled in 2022 Not sure how your system will take a real news network.
"There’s a place for CNN in the proposed $43 billion combination of WarnerMedia and Discovery, billionaire media mogul John Malone told CNBC in a recorded interview that aired Thursday.
“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” said the cable TV pioneer and longtime chairman of Liberty Media, which is a major shareholder in Discovery. “I do believe good journalism could have a role in this future portfolio that Discovery-TimeWarner’s going to represent.”
Back in May, AT&T announced a deal to combine its content unit WarnerMedia with Discovery. Under the agreement, AT&T will unwind its $85 billion acquisition of TimeWarner, which closed just about three years ago and form a new and separate media company with Discovery. It will bring together AT&T-owned CNN, HBO and the Warner Bros. studio and Discovery’s channels, including Animal Planet, TLC and its namesake Discovery Channel. At the time of the announcement, the parties had said they hoped to close the transaction in the middle of next year."
Guess we will need to just wait to see what goes down.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/john-ma … y-out.htmlThen you haven't looked. At the moment, it is my opinion, but it is an informed opinion based on an overwhelming amount of evidence that is out in the public sphere. There is no telling what the committee has learned behind closed doors. Hell, even Meadow's book and emails/texts that have been made are so damning.
It's not an opinion to say Trump began undermining the election results prior to election. He began programming his supporters to believe that he could only lose if there was fraud.
Then he and his propaganda networks ran a media campaign to fabricate things they believed were fraud, but that were just their own uneducated misunderstandings about how elections are conducted.
When those misunderstandings were proven as falsehoods by the courts, they then tried to set aside reality and the laws to remain in power.How does one prove someone programmed a group?
Which "propaganda networks" does Trump own or operate?
Which "misunderstandings" were proven false in a court trial? As none of Trump's how were they "proven false" in courts that accepted no evidence or testimony?You read my mind. I was starting with one question. I would think he could have given an example of what this mysterious network fabricated in regard to fraud, and a court case to match the fabrication that was heard in court...
It's very apparent he believes all of this, and will not or can not just keep to facts when accusing Trump of all these many things. This is just not fair play at all. As I have said -- pick a crime, condemn him for the crime --- then try to dig up non-existing evidence.
This kind of thinking is so half-ass-backward. Not to mention unfair, and dangerous.I'm sorry you need this information spoon-fed to you, I always assume that after you claim to be so educated on these topics that you have heard about obvious cases like the Nevada man who claimed that someone voted using his dead wife's identity and how Republicans and Tucker Carlson all amplified his claims. Right up until it turns out his cheating, Republican butt got sentenced for the crime.
I could certainly list numerous other examples, but spoon-feeding you proof, proof that you don't accept and then forget with a few weeks as you fall back on your own disinformation, gets tiresome.Not spoon-fed. I don't buy into ridiculous if comes... You divert when cornered, that's what you do. The "Nevada man" I have no knowledge of that man, and as I have said many times, I don't watch Tucker. I am in no way educated in any form of conspiracy BS... Not sure how you would even get that idea. I do not follow conspiracy theories. Do you even read the subjects you post?
If you have examples maybe you could identify a name. LOL, Not a guy from here or there.
Obviously, you can't answer any of the questions with any real facts to back up what you have claimed.
A guy from Nevada, come on... And you forget, I excepted the election outcome and moved on. I have claimed many times if fraud occurred it would be of the run-of-the-mill kind we have every election, and the numbers would not in any way change the election. It seems you forget easily. I had hoped in the days after the election when so many people that worked the polls sighed affidavits that they witnessed fraud --- that they be respected and their complaints investigated quickly by Congress and put to rest. Certainly, this simple task could have put a sharp end to all the crap.Spoon-fed. It's a well known case and a simple google search would help you learn the details. But since that seems beyond your capabilities, here, have some real facts to make your claim that I cannot back up what I claim statement look like idiocy.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho … e-n1284011
And then to connect the dots, go search for Carlson's amplification of those claims and the Republicans who did the same. It's something I have done because these issues matter when showing the lies coming from the current GOP.
Here are many other links to sites clearly not in your media cocoon:
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc … ot-in-2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/23/us/v … evada.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ter-fraud/
https://nypost.com/2021/10/24/nevada-ma … -election/
https://apnews.com/article/las-vegas-vo … 44a8f1d665
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/20 … -election/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/cou … n-2478838/
Shocker that you take his to mean owns while it was meant as those in support of. Another example of you seeing words as how you want and not in the entirety of ways they can be used.
Your claim that courts did not accept evidence or testimony claim is always a massive lie. It's not even worth engaging you when you are this deluded. Especially when we've gone over all this before with you.
This is one of those great examples I noted earlier, where we have debunked your BS, and then you return to the same lies.Ah. If a TV station reports what the President says it means they support that President. Strange method of assigning their political ambitions, but perhaps it has merit.
So? Point to one case, brought by Trump, that made it into the courtroom for evidence and testimony. Can't? Then don't make false claims that a court "proved" anything at all.
Yes, there is BS here. And the same lies we've heard before - that the courts tried Trump's case and found it false.I guess to show your lies, I will have to spoon-feed you.
'In a wide-ranging federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign sued over alleged irregularities in the way ballots were counted throughout the state of Pennsylvania. They've argued that 14,000 votes should be thrown out. The campaign submitted a revised version of the lawsuit days later that retracted many of its original allegations. A judge threw out the case, saying Trump's lawyers presented the court "with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpaid in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence." An appeal of the case also failed.'
Seems pretty clear a judge reviewed the Trump Campaign's evidence and dismissed it, proving your claim to be horseshi*.
Trump made the claim that his election watchers were not permitted to see the counting multiple times. Then when he filed a court case:
'The campaign sued in yet another federal case to stop Philadelphia County from counting votes without Republicans present. The judge dismissed the case after Trump's lawyers said Republican election watchers were, in fact, present.'
Over in Nevada:
'The Trump campaign filed a different lawsuit in Carson City District Court alleging multiple irregularities that the campaign claimed, without providing specific evidence, would be enough to overturn the election results in Nevada and flip the state to Trump. It failed.'
In Arizona:
'The Trump campaign joined a lawsuit brought by two Republicans in Maricopa County claiming that a substantial number of GOP ballots were invalidated because voters used Sharpies to fill in their choices. There is no evidence that using Sharpies leads to issues with scanning ballots, and, in fact, officials have said using Sharpies is preferred. The Post also reported that the Maricopa County attorney's office said no ballots were rejected and that if they are, voters have an opportunity to cast another one. A Republican-aligned group abandoned the legal fight after Maricopa County officials challenged the factual basis for the lawsuit, and the Trump campaign lost the fight soon afterward.'
As you can see, many actual court cases that reviewed evidence of claims brought directly by Trump's campaign ended up ruling against him because of speculative evidence or just plain misunderstandings by the Trump campaign, like in Arizona, about how elections are run.
One judge basically called Trump and Pence racists too, but that's a whole different line of criticism:
'Trump and Pence personally sued Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in a state court seeking to overturn votes in two Wisconsin counties with large Black populations, both of which sided with Democrats. A judge threw out the case. When Trump appealed the case, another judge rejected it and said it "smacks of racism." An appeal to the Supreme Court also failed.'The fact is we were wondering what network fabricated a report about voter fraud? Did all networks not just report accusations of voter fraud, and follow up at times with the results of court cases trump initiated? That's pretty much what I remember. I don't remember the word accusation not being connected to the fraud complaints that the networks reported.
"One judge", "a judge" "One judge basically called Trump and Pence racists too" This is all just rambling without dates or names.'This is all just rambling without dates or names.'
To make that statement without searching for 'Trump/Pence Wisconsin suit against Biden/Harris' is stupidity. Again, I gave you everything you would need to investigate the statement for yourself. You claim to be this accomplished researcher, but then just dismiss information given to you without checking it out for yourself. Making that statement is just laziness on your part:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsi … 8b42e99e88
And you want to know what is meant by programming, here is a recent Morning Consult Poll done in the Mountain West area:
Voters in the Mountain West believe 51 percent to 38 percent that Biden was legitimately elected, the breakout of Republicans and Democrats tells a different story. A full 87 percent of Democrats say he was elected while only 26 percent of Republicans do. Nearly 50 percent of Republicans say that Biden was definitely not elected legitimately, and 71 percent believe the election was “rigged.”
74% of Republicans still believe the big lie. That's being programmed.Ya know what --- I know this will bust your bubble but all I have to say is Biden is the president for now. I don't care about all this conspiracy stuff. It just does not in any respect interest me. In fact, I think it is not healthy for those that ruminate on it. I am very sure 100% sure if congress finds proof of just about anything they can indite anyone including Trump we will hear about it. Until then I leave this conspiracy to you and ECO. I have no interest in investigating I will leave that up to Congress... Just as I will leave the FBI look into Hunter... I will leave all the investigations up to them.
And, I can't answer or be responsible for how beliefs what or do I care. Biden is living in the White House... Now we can take that to the bank.
You are being obtuse again. You know as well as I do that Fake Fox soc-called News (and the other propaganda outlets) actually "report" on very little - hell they have very few real journalists left working for them after Chris Wallace left yesterday. Instead, they opine, making up things as they go or regurgitating Russian propaganda.
You are sinking further into the quicksand of ridiculousness there, Wilderness. No, If a TV station reports what the President says it DOES NOT mean they support that President. To say otherwise is the definition of being obtuse,
BUT, If a TV station spends most of its air time being a mouthpiece for that President, as Fake Fox so-called News does, it DOES MEAN they support that President.
Wilderness loves to use semantics to sharpshoot and make non-sensical points.
It is clear he has never read the opinions in any of those 60-odd cases that were tossed in the trash.
You lay out all the times he made that claim in the media. Then you add the testimony of those that attacked the Capitol and claimed Trump motivated them to do it. Which are multiple cases at this point.
Then you lay out all the court cases that showed Trump's claims were lies, followed by him continuing to repeat those lies.
Pretty simple actually and what the January 6 committee, who have stated that Trump bears responsibility for the attack, as did Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy by the way, are in the process of proving. Not to mention multiple judges that came to that conclusion already also after hearing evidence during trials.What testimony? Has someone claimed Trump contacted them with a plan to riot at the Capitol? Does someone have some evidence of this? Does one have the right to believe or not believe what someone else is saying? How do you prove Trump brainwashed people? Do you not hear how foolish this all sounds. Perhaps it would be wise to just wait and see what this Congressional committee can prove. or will it just be more slanderous accusations against this man, that can't be proved? Not to be rude, but you might want to consider how long you have been promoting things that are not proven to be true.
It is easy for another politician to point a finger, and some did. It would be wonderful to have some proof of your accusations.
It's like you are putting a puzzle together that none of the pieces fit. And for four years this has been your thought --- "by the way, are in the process of proving."
You are surviving on if comes, that just never come...What testimony? Well, I guess it's not surprising that you're not following the convictions of the January 6 insurrectionists. Multiple claims have been made that Trump incited the crowd to violence. And given the numerous statements by members of Congress who also assign blame to Trump for the attack, even by Republican leadership, that can be submitted as proof.
When considering those things, and adding in who helped promote and organize the event, then direct the crowd to the Capitol after riling them up, it's very easy to formulate a conclusion about who did the programming about a stolen election and feeding an anger that should not have existed unless led to believe a wrong had been committed, when there was no proof that it actually had.
To say those statements sound foolish is, as usual, your omission of many factual statements to form a biased opinion to protect Trump and Trumpism, which we all know you to be devoutly tied to." Multiple claims have been made that Trump incited the crowd to violence"
Got a name? Got a date? Got anything? .
" And given the numerous statements by members of Congress who also assign blame to Trump for the attack, even by Republican leadership, that can be submitted as proof. "
Got a name? Got a statement with a name?
Who did Trump tell his plan to? Got a name?
It all sounds foolish without any facts... All of it.
I am devoted to common sense, not wanting to appear so unintelligent that I would accuse anyone without evidence.
Just read your posts they are truely not making any form of sense. None of this is a matter of fact. Hopefully, you realize that. If it's all opinion-oriented, I guess I could say, Ok let's wait to see what shakes out. But in my view, this stuff is pretty flimsy at best.
Odd you stick with that we... YikesSee, here is the difference between you and I. You make a claim, such as Hunter Biden is being investigated. I will go and look into it on my own and see if it's valid. In that case, I did agree there is cause to look into Hunter's actions.
You, on the other hand, can dismiss information readily available in the public domain which I assume you are aware of as a purportedly 'educated' person on the topic of politics.
Instead of checking into my claims, which as noted in a few others posts in this thread can be easily substantiated with multiple articles, you dismiss them out of pure laziness. Instead, requiring me to provide links of things many of us already knew since it's been widely reported about. As above, when I could supply no shortage of eight different links from both liberal and conservative news sites to back up something widely known.
Someone truly devoted to common sense would do some actual investigation before saying something sounds foolish.OMG it would be you that needs to back up your thoughts. I try very hard to back mine. Why post if you can't make your point clear with sources if need be?
Like I said, this should be information known to someone educated on politics. That McConnell and McCarthy both stood on the floor of Congress and said Trump bore responsibility for the attack was both public and well-reported. That you could not understand that's who I referenced, even after naming them in an earlier post and wanting 'names and dates,' only made yourself look foolish.
Deleted
Yes, thousands of claims have been made that Trump incited a riot - among them is yours. And, just like all the others, is completely without merit or proof. Same for the idiots of Congress that assign blame without have facts, or simply on the basis of politics.
Oh, it's easy to formulate a conclusion - any conclusion you want - just make up whatever story you would like and claim it is true.Deleted
Is there a reason that you didn't include the rest of his words? That the march had to be peaceful, that the "fight" was to talk to their congressmen and women?
Why did you not mention that little bit? Why do you claim they "took him at his word" as they did the exact opposite of what he asked for?Deleted
From your link giving his speech: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". Nothing there about killing people, nothing about breaking in; just to march peacefully and talk.
It is astounding that everyone in the country has been told Trump requested a peaceful march, but ignore it in favor of the media reports that he called for a violent insurrection and killing members of congress.Congrats on finding the one time he said 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,' very early in his speech.
The other 59 minutes of his speech was him telling his supporters to fight and lying that the election was stolen and that Biden was an illegitimately elected president.
One minute of peacefulness, fifty-nine of incitement. Wonder which message got through the most?OK - I found the one time he asked for a peaceful march.
Not it's your turn; find at least one time he asked to kill congressmen, or find one time he asked them to break in and destroy the capital. It's in your corner.Because saying that someone stole the presidency and they are a danger to the country could never drive people to violence.
As always, using Eso's quote - obtuse. Under the laws listed in these conversations, he doesn't need to say it as specifically as you just required in your post. Did you even bother to read what we've been discussing? If his speech led to the violence, that makes him guilty. There is plenty of evidence, as I've already listed, that confirms that the violence was based directly on his lies, that his campaign helped in the organization on the 'stop the steal' rally, and that people who committed the violence believed they were doing what Trump had asked them.Put more plainly, you can't. All you can do is supply your "interpretation" of what he said. With your "interpretation" of intent.
Unfortunately, your "interpretation" is rooted in bias and hate rather than reality.Put even more plainly, for what I'm asserting based on the laws we are discussing, I don't need to.
For whatever it is you assert, which is in no way what the laws demand, then you are happy in some alternate universe claiming the case is simply bias and hate. When it is, in fact, rooted in cause and effect. When you have this much misunderstanding of the discussion and the laws governing it, you are pointless to converse with, as usual.
I see you are trying to hang your hat on seven words out of a 70 minute speech filled with inflammatory lies and rhetoric. Since he only said it once in a 70 minute, lie-filled, inflammatory call to action. Reasonable people on a jury will know he was just paying lip service to "peacefully" anything. His army knew what he wanted because they acted on it.
Three court decisions, which I have provided already, said that is all that is needed to convict. If a crowd reacts violently to a speech that speaks to that (and sadly for you, that speech doesn't have to include specific threats.), then that is all that is need for conviction.
And the videos show clearly, with audio, the crowd getting more and more riled up the longer Trump incited them. A reasonable person can easily foresee that nothing good was going to happen.Are these considered "fighting words" as defined in Chaplenski vs New Hampshire (1942), where a unanimous court said this about "fighting words" - Justice Francis W. Murphy, writing for a unanimous court, held that certain written or spoken words are exempt from First Amendment protection when they [/u] instigate violent reactions by listeners[/u], when taken as a whole?
- The title of the rally - Save America
- The slogan of the rally, one used by Trump - Stop the Steal
- "All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by a bold and radical left Democrats ... We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved."
- "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about."
- "There's never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen."
And the CROWD chants "Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump."
- "And I would love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed the military, the Secret Service ... but I would love it if they could be allowed to come up with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them, please? "
- "We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that".
- "Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft. And there's never been anything like this. It's a pure theft in American history. Everybody knows it."
- "It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have to fight much harder."
- "And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."
- "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."
- His only reference to non-violence "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. "
- Followed by "Our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four year period."
- "Constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud, and fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."
- "If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way that they got there is illegal, when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information."
- " but I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can't have happened and we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."
And the very angry crowd (you can tell that from the video and audio) marches down to the Capitol and proceeds to destroy it.
If you separate the speech from the actions that IMMEDIATELY followed, the speech is protected. BUT, taken together, the speech crosses the line and becomes incitement to riot.
Except, again, you ignore the totality of public facts that people were able to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. Both are proof and both have merit in formulating the conclusion that Trump programmed his supporters for months with a lie - one that the election was stolen, riled them up just before the peaceful transfer of power by using the word fight 20 times while saying march peacefully once very early on in his speech (another obvious example of programming), and then directed them to the Capitol.
Taking into account the two-month build up of the constant lying about the election, the statements said on the day of January 6 in a rally his campaign helped organized based on those lies, and the statements of his supporters who were convinced Trump wanted them to stop Congress in order to save America, it is very easy to come to the conclusion Trump incited the riot.
"What testimony? Has someone claimed Trump contacted them with a plan to riot at the Capitol?" - And of course that (using the word plan) is being as obtuse as Wilderness is. What you lay out isn't part of the proof needed to prove Trump incited that insurrection.
"Does someone have some evidence of this?" - As I just said, you don't need that type of evidence. What you are talking about is conspiracy, which isn't being alleged vis-a-vis the insurrectionists. I t may be, however, in Trump's attempt to overthrow the election by other means. With what has come out lately, it seems to me Trump and Meadow's attempt to get state lawmakers to overturn the results in their states amounts to conspiracy"And of course that (using the word plan) is being as obtuse as Wilderness is. What you lay out isn't part of the proof needed to prove Trump incited that insurrection."
I beg to differ last I heard in a court of law one must have evidence to prove a crime. And that evidence can not be of hearsay or one reading in a motive. It would be like me saying --- let's say someone took a can of paint and painted graffiti on Trump tower.
and I stepped up and said ---I have gone back and forth with ECO and said he did it! He really did he put out sighs now for many months that he was going to do something.
You just can't accuse people of crimes without evidence that would stand up in court. One can't come in and say, I just know Trump wanted me to riot at the Capitol... This is just bizarre, and no it would in no respect stand up in court --- thank God. Your dislike for Trump is usurping your good common sense in my view. My gosh, would you want this kind of justice? Where one could be convicted on another thought? Would you really want this?
Fact -- Trump never minced words he felt and still promotes there was fraud in the election. He is hell-bent on keeping that very accusation alive.
It would seem if the DOJ could charge him with anything, I mean anything they would, they will... Thus far many are hellbent on a form of a witchhunt. This is not fair and dangerous to our Democracy. To form these kinds of conspiracies will do the nation no good. In the end, we all should be cooling our jets and see what plays out. If Trump broke the law he will be charged.
If he committed conspiracy and there is proof he will come to be charged and there will be a trial. Trump was impeached and acquitted of both articles of impeachment. Yet he was dragged through two impeachments and carries the stain of both. Do you think it may be time to move on, and just wait to see what occurs? What does all this blustering get in the end?
I have no information on Meadow's emails or his documents that would lead me to believe they were attempting to over through the election. It is obvious Trump di want a Congressional investigation or special counsel. in regards to the election outcome and did not get it. Perhaps if he did we could have put all this to rest. I do realize Barr was not on board with a special counsel, and I trusted his judgment. As I will trust our justice system to weed out a crime if Trump committed a crime. I have not seen any evidence of a crime myself. Only a media that is getting ratings with many accusations of crimes.
Bottom line evidence should come before charging one with a crime..., not the other way around.Deleted
You also have this statute which applies:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383Not one person arrested out of over 750 people has been charged with insurrection. So would this not mean the FBI and the DOJ did not feel any of these people aided Trump in an insurrection? Would not the people that did the deed need to be charged with insurrection before you appoint Trump as a leader of this insurrection?
It is very clear thus far no one has been charged with an insurrection. Not sure why you refer to the riot using that word. I assume this is your view.
Here is the link that lists who was arrested, and what they were charged with. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Do you have information on anyone being charged with insurrection that I may have missed?Has anyone been charged specifically with insurrection. No, I concede that. Does that mean that the government could not charge Trump as the one who programmed his followers and helped organize the rally to stop the peaceful transfer of power (stop the steal) as a future lesson to losing candidates? Definitely a possibility, especially when you see the details of the three cases below.
One of the three Oath Keepers charged with conspiracy:
Jessica Marie Watkins - Member of Oath Keepers. One of the three who were indicted for conspiracy for planning their activities, alongside Thomas Edward Caldwell and Donovan Crowl. Eight to ten members of the group entered the Capitol wearing paramilitary gear and moving "in an organized and practiced fashion", according to the indictment. The group communicated with portable devices, with one member allegedly receiving a Facebook message reading "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas."
Should be interesting to hear this guy's case:
Lonnie Leroy Coffman - 70-year-old resident of Falkville, Alabama.[56] He allegedly parked a pickup truck two blocks from the Capitol containing eleven homemade incendiary devices (described as "Mason jars filled with homemade napalm" intended to "stick to the target and continue to burn" in court filings),[76] an AR-15 style rifle, a shotgun, two pistols, a crossbow, a stun gun, and camo smoke canisters.[77][78][79] Court documents said that upon being stopped by police, the man "asked officers whether they had located the bombs", and prosecutors also "suggest[ed] an intent to provide [weapons] to others".[77] Authorities also found handwritten notes listing "purported contact information" for Ted Cruz (R), Fox News host Sean Hannity, and radio host Mark Levin, as well as a list of "bad guys" including Seventh Circuit judge David Hamilton and Rep. André Carson (D–IN), who was referred to as "one of two Muslims in the House".
And there's this winner:
Eric Gavelek Munchel - In a Jan. 24 court filing, federal prosecutors asserted that evidence showed that he engaged in "obstructing Congress, interstate travel in furtherance of rioting activity, sedition and other offenses."
That sedition is mentioned in court filings does lead one toward the ability to use the statute I listed as sedition and insurrection are nearly identical.
Criminal Sedition:
'Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.'
Rebellion or Insurrection:
'Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.'I totally know where you're coming from. I do remember the day Jan 6th and turning off the speech telling my husband Trump should let this go, and that he needed to move on. I was sick when I returned home that day and found a huge riot had occurred, and that people had died.
I can remember commenting to that effect right here on HP's.
In my view, many attended to make trouble. I am unsure thus far if people got together and planned the riot, if so I hope we get to the bottom of this form of plan. It sounds as if some did communicate with one another before the riot.
I have made an effort to keep an open mind, and not make accusations
about what happened on that day. I do feel if trump committed the crime of planning it is up to the DOJ to charge him if any evidence is found.
I think any and all that broke the law that day need to be charged and punished appropriately.
In regard to the speech, I don't feel Trump was telling anyone to riot. I have listened to the speech several times.There is no need for the DOJ to become involved; Trump is already tried and convicted in the media court of the mob. The modern method of a trial of someone you don't like: exaggerate, assume, insinuate and lie until they are already convicted in public opinion.
Yes, it would seem they are once again headed into some sort of useless exhibition as were the two impeachments that lead to Trump being acquitted.
Nope, America needs Justice for what Trump has done to us. A conviction in court is a minimum requirement.
Without any convictions of Trump for anything, all that is left to demonize him is words. Thus "Insurrection"; it sounds much, much worse than riot, particularly as the country appears to have decided that rioting is alright.
And there it is! Your usual false equivalency about rioting versus halting the peaceful transfer of power that Congress was literally in the middle of administering. Typical far-right debate style to leave out that really critical element to this criminal activity.
I truely feel that Trump was persecuted with every trick in the book from the moment he won the primary. No one could persuade me from that opinion.
His every word was demonized. And yes your point is well taken. The media named it and those that disliked Trump claimed it... I can not see how anyone could think that the allegation that he planned an insurrection could ever be logically proved or that he will be indicted for inciting an insurrection.
My common sense tells me we are going back down another vindictive path as we did with the impeachments. What a mess.I don't deny that many people spoke badly about Trump, sometimes as bad as Trump talks about others, but he deserved all of it. He started it with his racist rhetoric coming down the escalator to announce he is running, and he never stopped giving people reason to criticize him, some times severely.
Are you going to tell me you deny that he didn't give us reason to point out his serious, dangerous flaws?As an outsider looking in, with a pretty clear perception, I don't think Trump deserved much of the treatment he received from the media and the Democrats in Washington.
"He started it with his racist rhetoric coming down the escalator to announce he is running, and he never stopped giving people reason to criticize him, some times severely."
What racist statement? Please offer it up.
I did not see the same flaws you did. As I have said I am not a network media person. I think that's why I could look at it all differently. I naturally would hear about an offense that the media might be pushing, and when I would look into it, as a rule, it was very much a narrative the media put together out of context.
I kept a close eye on what Trump was doing in his job. I was as a rule pretty satisfied.
I never jumped into the media rhetoric or tried to stay clear of it.
I would be interested in the racist statement he said coming down the escolator in Trump tower.While looking for the exact quote, I found another Trump lie
Coming down the golden escalator Trump said "“Wow. Woah. That is some group of people. Thousands!” Trump said, looking out towards a bank of TV cameras." - In reality, there were a few dozen.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … s-memories
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. (BTW, Mexico didn't send a single person to the US,, just to set the record straight)
That is racist! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … gn-launch-
speech-two-years-later-annotated/
And yes, you said it - the right-wing propaganda outlets (I just can't cell them news, because they are not) do not report Trump's flaws - ever.
The mainstream media simply reported what they saw and heard with little embellishment in their news and analysis articles.
Different Point - Just saw come across the screen that the Jan 6 committee, after those revealing texts from Meadows, they want to call those Fox talking heads who pleaded with Meadows to get Trump to call of his dogs.
Yes, the demonization continues. It will continue until Donald Trump is completely, 100% removed from the political stage - Neither Democrats nor some Republicans will stop their campaign until that removal is accomplished, for Trump is too great a threat to the political system as we have it today. A threat not only to Democrats but to Republicans as well, for the dirty tricks and power plays of both cross party lines and are used by both sides.
Or dead... Trump was and is unique, and is such a threat to both sides. None wanted American's to have a true peek into what actually goes no (or better yet what does not go on ) in Washington. He certainly has opened many's eyes to what problems we have in Government. It would well seem many are not willing to buy into pretty speeches with a ton of second-rate acting put in for good measure. They are all standing there in their underwear at this point, with all the flaws evident.
And that is because Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy.
I don't know what the future holds, but what would you do if Trump runs in 2024, and wins? It is obvious you dislike him, but he could be back. Would you feel comfortable voting once again for Biden? He is tallying up many lies himself, and you clearly have shared you do not like that poor quality in a president.
I'll keep tilting at that windmill.
I guess I do dislike him because he is a bad, evil man who has done horrible things to America. I don't hate him, however, because he is mentally ill (or that is the considered opinion of dozens and dozens of mental health experts).
Yes, even though I really disliked his decision on Afghanistan, I would be very happy to vote for Biden again. And, I think he will win by a larger margin.
And yes, I don't like it when Biden doesn't fact check many of the things he is found wrong on. However, do admit it when he is wrong. But, unlike Trump, generally once he is told he is wrong he stops it; unfortunately though, not always. That said, if I have to chose between someone who lies a little over someone who lies a WHOLE lot.
Time to go to bed but I will leave you with this - Many are charged Obstruction of an Official Proceeding which carries a maximum of 20 years. Insurrection is 10 years.
Those were interesting cases. I find a difference due to the actual interpretation of words. the full context of what led up to the statement in question, and what was said after. The demeanor of the [person saying the words should also be important. Many people use the word "fight" --- context matters. As in the Brandenburg case, this was a man that had a history with the KKK. Which was at that time were known to be committing crimes of violence against black citizens. and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken." The word itself calls for violence, there can be no mistaking the word to have any other context.
The word fight is used in our society in many ways. Trump used the word many times in his Jan 6 speech. However, the context was clear each time he used it he prepared the words before and after he used the word. His demeanor as he said the word went along with the context in which he used it. If he would have used a word like revengeance, I would say he was calling for violence as an option at the Capitol on that day...
In regard to the Claiborne County case, Mr.Evers used very clear language, and his demeanor was angery, and the context could not be mistaken for anything else but a violent threat. "In 1966, a boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Miss., was launched at a meeting of a local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) attended by several hundred black persons. The purpose of the boycott was to secure compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice. The boycott was largely supported by speeches encouraging nonparticipants to join the common cause and by nonviolent picketing, but some acts and threats of violence did occur. Charles Evers, the field secretary of the NAACP in Mississippi and a principal organizer of the boycott, was quoted as saying, Source quote -- https://mscivilrightsproject.org/claibo … y-boycott/
“if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.”
In my opinion, the Brandenburg test could certainly be applied, but not stand in regard to Trump's actions.
I would not be surprised if at some point we see this all before the Supreme Court, and the Brandenburg used and shot down due to Trump's word's will be put into context.
It's a wait-and-see. I certainly don't put it past the Democrats to work very hard to bring charges against Trump for Jan 6th, as they did with the two impeachments. It seems very vindictive in my view, and I think that's one of that party's biggest problems.
I have frequently shared my view on Trump's Jan 6th speech, I admitted I turned it off halfway through and had to go back and listen to it in full after the riot. I listen carefully, I did not in any respect think he called for violence. His demeanor was very loud and clear when he called to march peacefully to the Capitol. There was at no time context that would lead me to think he was calling for a riot.
I do think many yahoos showed up on that day ready to riot. I can't assume their reasons other than being very bad losers. I think it very disturbing that our society has come to the point of reading in whatever they want to into one's words. Very much ready to misconstrue if it serves their purpose. I am blunt on this subject due to making every attempt to keep my common sense while I feel many have lost it.
Thus far I have seen no clear evidence that Trump was promoting an insurrection. I think reading the transcript gives very good context to what Trump said in the speech. I think then one should watch the clip, and have a look at his demeanor giving the speech, and following the progression of the speech. I put two and two together and came up with my conclusion.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?507744-1/ … tification
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics … index.htmlDeleted
I feel the First Amendment gives less but some protection when it comes to speech that incites imminent lawless action. I think it would be hard to prove from Trump's speech that he wanted to incite a riot. One would need to think this man very much unAmerican, and uncaring to those that could be hurt. That certainly is quite an assumption. Not sure I would jump on this bandwagon.
"Does the First Amendment protect fighting words?
Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. ... Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment."
This is a precedent they could use more easily. If they can prove his words were fighting words.
To your point --- "He absolutely fanned the flames of his supporters’ discontent with his consistent talk of a rigged election and a “fraud” of an election. Many also believe that Trump’s incendiary language did incite the rioters."
I voted for Trump, I was not in the least inflamed, and had moved on. So who is to say more that hoped he won did not just move on? And who can prove Trump's incendiary language provoked any or all to riot? Would that not involve a given person's perception of the speech? My point is, how would one prove any of this. It sounds plausible, and would to some, but others may hear something different.
I agree 100% it was irresponsible to hold that type of rally when the electoral votes were being counted. I found the rally altogether inappropriate. He lost, he should have moved on gracefully. If he had a problem he should have handled it quietly not in the media.Deleted
I did not personally find him to lie, I did find him at times misinformed, and some of his comments showed that. I also found the media did not provide all context when making a claim of a lie. I can agree after he lost he was not being forthcome with evidence of his claims in regard to fraud. So, certainly, I would agree his claims or the majority of his claims were
unsubstantiated.
I have no way of knowing if he believed what he said. He certain feel as I said if he did believe there was a fraud he should have handled it out of the public eye.
His character has been well questioned throughout his campaign and during his presidency. I would think many looked past his character in both elections. I never skip voting, I take what I have to work with, carefully weigh the pros and cons, and vote my conscience. In the past years, this has become a harder task, due to the poor character of candidates. So, for me, it's come down to agenda, and ideologies. Who best fits my own visions for the country.
I am very disgusted with Washington altogether. Actually ashamed at this point. I am well beyond thinking about character. What I have witnessed over these past 5 years sickens me. I want and feel we need a president that can do the job, solve problems that are piling up quickly in my view. It would be great if a great character came along with that package."I did not personally find him to lie, " - So you now admit, after first denying it, that you believe in Trump's Big Lie? And you believed his other 10,000+ documented, proven with context lies?
Over the past five years, various forum commentators have offered you clear evidence, with contest, of Trump lying, bold-facedly lying - not misunderstanding mind you, but outright lying, You are telling us that none of that truthful evidence mattered to you because you think we all got it wrong?
" I would think many looked past his character in both elections. " - [i]What that seems to tell the reader is that, assuming you liked his or her agenda or ideologies, you would have voted for ... pick you modern day or past dictator ... because you can ignore their character. In other words, you could see yourself voting for Madoro, Xi, Un, or Putin on the Left and Hitler, Assad, Erdogan, and Hussein on the Right?
That is what I am getting out of your comments.I have browsed the WAPO list. I found the list contained not lies but misconstrued words. I did not find a purposeful lie. I found some that were stat-oriented, which as we know can be quoted wrong, I found statements that when I read fully before and after content was written out of context. I read many that were clearly his opinion, and really can't be thought of as a lie. I am sure there may be some lies in that last. Could you give me just one example of what you feel was a lie this way I can see where you are coming from.?
"What that seems to tell the reader is that, assuming you liked his or her agenda or ideologies, you would have voted for ... pick you modern day or past dictator ... because you can ignore their character. In other words, you could see yourself voting for Madoro, Xi, Un, or Putin on the Left and Hitler, Assad, Erdogan, and Hussein on the Right?"
This is hyperbolic. I did not find Hillery, Biden, Trump, or in the class of a dictator in any respect. If this were the case, I would not vote,
I don't feel any of the above are of good character. I don't consider them dictators.
It may come to the point I can not in all good conscious vote. I have not come to that point as of yet, it seems to be getting close.
It would seem you can't accept that as an individual I think differently than you. I have a very matter-of-fact personality, I try not to read into anything, and stick to what I can see as the here and now.
I would guess this is why I don't agree with most liberals. I feel they read too much in and take too much for granted. But, I understand they have the right to their opinions and do not in any way fault them for individuality.Deleted
I was referring to the list at WAPO which ECO had referred. However, yes Trump is promoting something that has been proven factual not to be true. Due to the number of accusations that have not been proven to be true. It would be evident he either believes what he is saying or he is lying.
And IF he truly believes what he is saying to the truth, then he is dangerously delusional. Either way, delusional or lying Trump must be opposed strongly.
Does Trump still believe he lost the election only through fraud? Probably, but I can't say any more than anyone else can.
But do you remember the "Trump colluded with Putin" case 5 years ago? It took years of throwing the entire might of the US justice system at it to decide that he did not, and there are still millions of people that will unequivocally state that he did. On the other hand, none of Trump's "evidence", none of his eyewitness reports, were ever heard in a court of law - all were dismissed on procedural grounds or because a single judge decided they were without merit. Can, or should, you expect less of Trump than of the millions that believed the Big Lie of Collusion by Trump? Should we be discussing the mental state of Democrats that pushed an impeachment effort based on that false charge?Except it wasn't a 'Trump colluded with Putin' case. It was a Russian interference in our elections case, which actually did prove that:
1.) Trump's Campaign Chair did coordinate with Russian Intelligence
2.) Russia interfered to assist Trump's election
3.) Trump Obstructed Justice on 10 separate occasions to thwart the investigation of an attack by a hostile foreign government on our country.
And yes, courts did hear evidence as I showed you in multiple cases a few days ago and that you still continue to lie about.You and I both know that the first claims were that Trump colluded with Putin.
Russia actually did "interfere" with the election...by posting on social media. If you can call that "interference".
If Trump obstructed justice then he would be jailed. If he did it on 10 separate occasions then it is not possible that he skated by on all ten accusations - the inevitable conclusion is that this is not true.
You have not shown a single case, filed by Trump or his lawyers, that a jury heard. What you have shown is that cases by other people were heard. Why you keep making the claim that Trump's cases went to trial is beyond me.Your own perception of the investigation certainly is not the truth. And you left out a few things the Russians did in their interference like illegally hacking the DNC.
If Trump obstructed justice while president, he was unable to be prosecuted according to his own Justice Department. Therefore, your claim of an inevitable conclusion is a lie because it leaves out that factor that has protected Trump.
And all the cases I chose were filed by the Trump Campaign, none by people outside of his campaign because I knew you'd make that argument. You're just too sloppy to read closely enough to note those details and then choose to lie about what was actually posted."You and I both know that the first claims were that Trump colluded with Putin." - PROVE IT. If you don't, we all know you are wrong.
"Russia actually did "interfere" with the election...by posting on social media. If you can call that "interference". - WE don't claim interference, the various intelligence services (you know the ones Trump threw under the bus in his treasonous support of Putin's version) PROVED interference.
Whether DOJ choses to prosecute or not (and it simply amazes me they don't appear to have the balls), the truth of the evidence is supported by hundreds of former federal prosecutors of both Parties said there was sufficient evidence to indict Trump on obstruction. (And just because they retired dioesn't mean that received a lobotomies the moment they retired,)
"that a jury heard" - I see you are trying to move the goal posts once again. It won't work. You know you are wrong, just admit it.
"I have browsed the WAPO list. " - Then I guess you missed these:
- This is my favorite. In two then recent speeches and once in his Art book Trump claimed his father was NOT born in New York. In the speeches it was Germany and in the book it was New Jersey. Are you claiming Trump misconstrued or misunderstood where his father was born, lol.
- JAN 20 2021 “We also got tax cuts, the largest tax cut and reform in the history of our country, by far.” Repeated 238 times as of Jan 2021. [i]The first time he said this, one can forgive him for making a mistake. But once it became well known it was not correct, then it is classified as a bold-faced lie
- JAN 20 2021
“One of the things we're very, very proud of is the selection of almost three hundred federal judges and three great Supreme Court justices. That's a very big number. That's a record-setting number.” Repeated 84 times - Again, he could be forgiven the first few times, but when he learned that Bill Clinton holds the record, the next time he made this statement, he was lying
JAN 20 2021
“We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly. We had we didn't have any of those rights before when I came on.” Repeated 119 times -]i]Same story, the first time he said it, it was reported that the ability to fire bad employees came under Obama with the 2014 Choice Act. So he lied about this 118 times[/i]I do know that the tax cuts were not the largest in our history. Although if I remember correctly I checked out that statement way back when he first made it. His tax cuts were not the biggest tax cut in US history, measured as either a percentage of US GDP or in absolute terms. But, the biggest corporate tax cut in US history. He should have made that clear. So the way he put it would be a mistruth.
Perhaps he was referring to a list of selected candidates for Fed Judges. he seemed to use that number frequently accompanied by the word selected, no appointed.
It well appears he lied about it being his accomplishment to fire people that treat vets poorly.Deleted
I must change my comment. Trump did actually sign a bill in 2017 that clearly shows he was being truthful in regard to “We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly."
ECO statement ----" JAN 20 2021
“We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly. We had we didn't have any of those rights before when I came on.” Repeated 119 times -]i]Same story, the first time he said it, it was reported that the ability to fire bad employees came under Obama with the 2014 Choice Act. So he lied about this 118 times[/i]"
Actully this is a diffrent bill than Obamas .
Trump signs bill making it easier to fire bad VA employees
BY KATHRYN WATSON
JUNE 23, 2017 / 1:01 PM / CBS NEWS
"President Trump signed a bill into law Friday that will make it easier to fire bad employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs and give more protection to employees who bring misconduct to light.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Whistleblower Protection Act gives VA Secretary David Shulkin more authority to fire misbehaving or underperforming employees, shorten the appeals process for that firing, and prohibits employees from being paid while they pursue the appeals process. It also includes new protections against retaliation for workers who file complaints with the VA general counsel's office and shortens the process for hiring new employees to fill a workforce shortage at the VA.
"Our veterans have fulfilled our duty to this nation and now we must fulfill our duty to them," Mr. Trump said."
"Many veterans died waiting for a simple doctor's appointment," the president added, bringing up the VA wait-time scandal that emerged in 2014. "What happened was a national disgrace, and yet some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls. Our dated laws kept the government from holding those who failed our veterans accountable. Today we are changing those laws."
Mr. Trump in April signed an executive order to create the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection within the VA, intended to weed out bad employees and outdated policies that keep them there. This legislation empowers that office, Mr. Trump said. The Trump administration has also launched a website that shows wait times at VA facilities."
So it is clear Trump did not lie in regard to “We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly" he said this in regards
to his bill --- Accountability and Whistleblower Whistleblower Protection Act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … -bill/1094
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sign … employees/
Are you interested in the lies or making the point about who told them? It is very clear that one could provide long lists of prior and present presidents' lies. Actually some pretty hurtful, dishonest, destructive lies. Politicians are well known for lying.
Does it serve a purpose for us to compare who lies more or the serious nature of a given lie? As you said in a previous comment It does reflect on one's character.
I think this is very true. I found little difference in Trump and Biden when it came to being honest. Both leave a long path of lies. Sort of equal one another in telling lies. I found Biden's more destructive, than Trump's. So Trump won out in this respect by a hair.I left the Veteran's Choice lie because it was a bit complex to give a concise description.
"He should have made that clear. So the way he put it would be a mistruth." - I agree for the first couple of instances he said that. But, how about the other 236 times he said it. Were those simply "mistruths" as well or knowing lies?
Either way, selected or appointed, Clinton still beat him. So why did Trump keep up repeating what is now a lie another 85 times.
So, let's get back to your assertion that you aren't aware of any Trump lies. Those examples have been out there for a very long time.I have been thinking about this, and your examples got me thinking why I did not feel trump was a liar. I think it was because the lies were as ar ule very benign. Much of the time seemed to be braggadocious. Perhaps I have become immune to the lies presidents tell.
As I said to Faye -- Are you interested in the lies or making the point about who told them? It is very clear that one could provide long lists of prior and present presidents' lies. Actually some pretty hurtful, dishonest, destructive lies. Politicians are well known for lying.
Does it serve a purpose for us to compare who lies more or the serious nature of a given lie? As you said in a previous comment It does reflect on one's character.
I think this is very true. I found little difference in Trump and Biden when it came to being honest. Both leave a long path of lies. Sort of equal one another in telling lies. I found Biden's more destructive, than Trump's. So Trump won out in this respect by a hair.
Are you keeping a list of the lies Biden has told?Deleted
The country is divided not only by party, but the parties have split due to severe ideology differences, and citizens have proclaimed their ideologies and feel they need to protect them. A president that tells lies is the very least of our problems in my view.
If it were a problem, more would be very up in arms in respect to a president lying about American's being left behind in a military withdrawal. Some society are we not? Some will look at a braggadocious pat on the back lie as showing a great character fault ... Yet when a president promises to bring all American's home before pulling out of a volatile country, it can be understood, it can be tucked away nicely in a box, not to be discussed. It truely confirms the great hypocrisy of those that defend that lie, and or just tuck it away not to be spoken of.
In my view --- The very worse barefaced lie I have heard from a president of the United States --- We will not leave until all Americans are out". And that there were a hundred or so to be gotten out... This is at the very top of my list. The most disgusting, the most hurtful, the most dishonest lie I could imagine.
And Biden said it with such vigor. "If there are American citizens left, we're going to stay to get them all out: US President Joe Biden" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbDMqMYYvII
So, I would prefer to not keep a list of mistruths on Biden, just as I did with Trump. These lists only lead to the comparison game. And for me, we thus far have a winner.Deleted
"I'm particularly concerned with the continued claims of a rigged 2020 election." - As well as you and every other patriotic American should be. Trump and the Republican's attack on our elections is the most dangerous thing to the continued existence of our democracy since the Civil War.
"Mr. Trump's success in creating his own version of a new truth about the election" - And getting millions upon millions of gullible Americans to go along with him.I can only give my view, what I felt in the last election. I moved on the next day. I in no respect felt there was fraud committed that was out of the norm.
And I agree many did and still do believe Trump's words are the truth. He is still an influence in the GOP. And the political landscape has been changed. Some no longer have faith in our system for many reasons... One many saw how the 2016 election lead to investigating a duly elected
president for many crimes he just did not commit. This is what started the great divide IMO. We have what we have... I guess one could thank the Democrats for this. All the accusations lead to nothing. However, it did make a lot of citizens realize how corrupt a party could be when they lose an election.
I feel their anger but can see the reality of the 2020 election.
Yes, we have a huge lie that is influencing the minds of many. But,
I think there are many more variables that keep many supporting Trump.
Many that don't feel the election was fraudulent feel he was a good president for many individual reasons. He has built lots of support due to what many see as his accomplishments.
Again, it is the quantity and seriousness of the lies that count. And since Trump wants to be a king, well he certainly qualifies for that title in this regard.
I must say your statement makes no sense to me --- The quantity? This indicates a bunch of braggadocious lies are more serious than a very serious lie from a president that put lives in danger. Or lies that can hurt another individual. Like Bidens cruel lie about the man he claimed drank his lunch and killed his wife and child? This man's daughter said Bidens lie hurt him until the day he died.
Biden's gotten 200 more Americans out since then and has assurances from the Taliban that no American lives will be harmed. The same assurances Trump had gotten from them as well and trusted.
Weird how you criticize one president for accepting the word of the Taliban but not the other.Yes, quantity, it goes to character. There is a marked difference between somebody like Trump who averages roughly 20 lies or deceiving language a day, large and small, as opposed to somebody like Biden, who may utter one every few days. On the large side, as best as I can tell, not one person has died due to a lie from Biden, but thousands upon thousands have because of Trump's.
Was the example you gave a lie at the TIME that Biden said it? No, it was not, it was the common perception then. Only later did it come out the guy MIGHT not have been drunk. You know that as well as I do, but you bring it up anyway. Why?Believe what you please. Polls indicate you are in the minority in your support for this man
.
More Voters Want Trump To Run In 2024 Than Biden, Poll Suggests
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre … -suggests/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/preside … d=81701113
The polls certainly are a good sign that people are done with Joe. The left media is no longer carrying his water, they are all but done with Biden. They are jumping on the truth and reporting it in regard to Biden's poor ability to govern. He is toast.Deleted
I think the Trump era will be viewed in the same manner as the Civil War is today - a terrible blot on American history. Hopefully, history will report that like with the Civil War, America ALMOST lost its democracy and not that Trump was successful in destroying it.
I am with the majority--- I would hope people are more intelligent to back others at this point.
If the election was a do-over today I am with the majority in the poll I offered. Especially after these past 11 months, I don't think I have ever witnessed such a poor job performance, and I am opposed to the agenda he is pushing -- I would vote for Trump. Again it would require pros and cons... I prefer a president that can govern. Biden has so many problems he is completely ignoring. Thank God the polls show the people seem to be as dissatisfied as I am.
Hopefully, we have two brand new candidates in 2024. In my view, Biden has the perfect storm going at this point, and all that will be left is rubble by 2023.
IMO, Biden has provided nothing but chaos, and things are getting worse daily.
I am pleased you shared your view and shared it in a very non-confrontational way. The points you provided were well taken." I don't think I have ever witnessed such a poor job performance," - Yes you did, you just refuse to recognize it. Trump was far worse that you imagine Biden is - who is doing a very credible job on most things.
"Polls indicate you are in the minority in your support for this man" - For the moment. Chances a great that Biden will get past 50% while you will always be in the minority with Trump.
"It seems as if we are party over country these days." - I am not sure I entirely agree - yet
In my lifetime, there once was a time when each Party had a right, middle, and left component. The two ends of each group were roughly the same size within each Party. The middle was the largest.
It is my observation that the middle and left of the Republican Party and the middle and non-Southern portions of the Democratic Party that were largely Country over Party. (the southern contingent - with some notable exceptions - became conservative Republicans in the 90s). The extremes of each Party were the Party over Country crowd.
Fast forward to today. The middle and left part of the Republican Party has all but disappeared and the remainder has bifurcated into the Trumpers and true patriots (meaning Cheney and Kizenger). The Trumpers (they aren't really conservatives anymore) are your Party of Country group.
The right-side of the Democratic Party is more or less non-existent, having moved to the right side of the Republican Party, as I mentioned. The middle of the Democrats are still dominant, but the extreme left has grown in power. The extreme left, in my view, are also Party over Country while the middle still holds Country over Party.
That is my story and I am sticking to it.
Keeping a list? No. But the Washington Post and others are. The difference between Trump and EVERYBODY else is the quantity and effortlessness of his lying - it is a distinguishing characteristic. That is not true with any other president.
All people lie, even you and me and presidents. But some are white lies to protect the feelings of others. Some are misremembering things which have truth behind them (I am thinking of Biden being a bus driver once, but that has morphed into a repeated lie that he drove a tractor trailer once). Still others are self-aggrandizement in nature for which many of Trump's fall into. Yet others are to deceive, which is another favorite category for Trump. It is the latter that can be harmful - the best example of that is Trump's lying about the dangers of the pandemic which resulted in thousands of needless deaths. (For that particular series of lies, I don't think there is an analog in presidential history.)
"Does it serve a purpose for us to compare who lies more or the serious nature of a given lie? " - Yes, it absolutely does.
Does Biden have 30,000+ lies, deceptions, misleading statements, etc to his credit? I don't think so.
"I feel the First Amendment gives less but some protection when it comes to speech that incites imminent lawless action." - In fact, the First Amendment offers NO protection in those circumstances - at least according to several Supreme Court and other court decisions. The test is now - 1) did the speech egg people on to do something bad and 2) did the people listening to the speech go and do something illegal. In Jan 6ths case, the answer to both of those questions is yes.
You are correct, Sharlee, context and demeanor do matter. Exhibit # 1 of several hundred, is the video and audio of how the crowd reacted to Trump's "fight" speech. It is clear to any observer the crowd was getting more and more inflamed the longer he talked.
Claiborne: I agree with the Courts reversal of conviction of those associated with the boycott. It was what Justice Stevens said later in his opinion that pertains to Trump's Jan 6 speech and the insurrection that followed immediately afterward. He said - Stevens wrote that the speech had to incite imminent lawless action in order to be punishable.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the Court, explained: “For liability to be imposed by reason of association alone, it is necessary to establish that the group itself possessed unlawful goals and that the individual held a specific intent to further these illegal aims.” He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to support the proposition that persuasion must be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” in order to be punishable via criminal law. Furthermore, he observed that speech may encourage or even advocate lawless action, yet be unlikely to incite such action.
Then I supported that with Chaplenski vs New Hampshire (1942), a unanimous court said this about "fighting words" - Justice Francis W. Murphy, writing for a unanimous court, held that certain written or spoken words are exempt from First Amendment protection when they instigate violent reactions by listeners. - There shouldn't be any question that Trump's speech was a "fighting" speech.
And in Feiner vs New York (1950) you can find (a) Petitioner was neither arrested nor convicted for the making or the content of his speech, but for the reaction which it actually engendered. - We all know what happened after Trump was done inflaming his army.
"I do think many yahoos showed up on that day ready to riot. " - And why did they show up ready to riot? Trump's rhetoric in the six months leading up to the insurrection.
I have only read portions of the transcript but I listened to his whole speech. Had I been a Trumper there, I would have wanted to riot to "save this country".I can see all of your points. However, I am not sure how all would play out with the Supreme Court. The intent might be hard to prove, it's in the eye of the beholder. That's why I asked all to listen to the video and then read the words. The context does build throughout his speech. I picked up Trump's conveying mixed messages in the speech. An individual could very easily hear one but not all of what he was conveying. Like I said "eye of the beholder". This is what would make it hard, some could have selective thinking some could take in the entire speech, and misconstrue the context of the entire speech. Perhaps just picking the word "fight", and adding their own perception of the word. That's why it would be hard to prove Trump's intent. I did not pick up the word fight as literally go and fight. I thought he was asking his followers to continue to carry on with an ideological cause.
More precisely - , the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker's words or conduct must be likely to produce such action.
Since Trump will never say he "intended" to do anything and none of his words specifically told his the army he assembled on Jan 6 to go "attack" the Capitol, you and Wilderness are quite correct, you can't get to "intent" directly.
Given that a riot by over 1,000 people immediately followed his speech after he sent the to the Capitol, a reasonable person would have to assume something incited them to do that. So the question comes down to - did Trump's speech (as well as Giuliani's, Trump Jrs,, and Mo Brookes') do the inciting?
As has been pointed out, in his speech he used the word "fight" or its analog many, many times; many more than what I offered in my response to Wilderness. Many of the times "fight" was used, taken by themselves was the "normal" usage. But, did the repetition of such words so many times in and the angry tone of the diatribe of lies about how Trump and the country was wronged create a mentality in the audience to go do violence? One could easily draw that conclusion based on three facts:
1) their reaction to Trump's words while he was talking (of which there is plenty of audio and video of),
2) over a 1,000 of them went on to attack Congress and obstruct its official proceedings. and
3} testimony from multiple participants that it was Trump's rhetoric that brought them D.C. to start with and to violently stop Congress from certifying the election.
Intent can also be drawn from all of the texts and emails that are just coming to light that Trump had been doing everything in his power to change the outcome of the election. Why would his speech not be part of his plan?
Did others think Trump was in charge of all of this? You betcha'. At least one of his sons, Ingraham, Hannity, and Kilmeade thought so because all of them were asking Meadows to get Trump to end the riot.
All of that is why I think there is a pretty good chance Trump could be convicted if Garland has the guts to indict him.Have you considered how and why so many of our large demonstrations (the large majority of them) in the past year went beyond a "protest", or "demonstration" if you prefer, into a riot? Did Trump "instigate" all of those, too, or is there something at work here?
You ask "Why would his speech not be part of his plan?", yet have to understand that questions are not proof of anything, that your implication that there IS no other answer is not reasonable, that ignorance is not proof or even evidence. Even the suggestion that third parties asked Trump to end the riot is not evidence that he started it.
As an example, the city of Portland could have ended the riots there - if nothing else they could have brought in a few thousand national guard troops, instituted and enforced a curfew and shut it down. They did not - does that mean the mayor of Portland started the riots?Did the Mayor of Portland lie and claim that an unarmed black man was not killed in the streets for two months before protests? Did he organize any of the protests? Did he give an hour-long speech at any of the protests? Was he the leader of Black Lives Matter? Did he tell protesters to go down to the local police station? Did he tell protesters that the police were a threat to democracy?
Congrats on leaving out ridiculous amounts of details in the greatest false equivalency in history."Have you considered how and why so many of our large demonstrations (the large majority of them) in the past year went beyond a "protest", or "demonstration" if you prefer, into a riot?" - [i]Actually I have, even though it is a false equivalency. This difference is, which has been pointed out to you many times before, is those other large demonstrations weren't insurrections and the riots that followed a few of them, were not a 1,000 strong storming the seat of government.]/i]
It is done many times in trials. I did it myself once in a courts-martial I was prosecuting. I can't quite remember what the case was and it wasn't even close to something like Trump did and nowhere near as complex, but I remember having to lay out a timeline of actions that supported whatever it was he had been accused of.
For Example:
Feiner vs New York (1950)
Primary Holding
The First Amendment permits the government to take action against speech when there is a clear and present danger that it will cause a disturbance of the peace.
Facts
... Some of Feiner's remarks encouraged African-Americans to take up weapons and fight for their rights against white people. The crowd, which was racially mixed, responded with some emotion, .... so the officers eventually intervened to forestall the prospect of a riot. After Feiner twice refused to stop his speech, they arrested him...
Held:
The conviction is sustained against a claim that it violated petitioner's right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 340 U. S. 316-321.
(a) Petitioner was neither arrested nor convicted for the making or the content of his speech, but for the reaction which it actually engendered. Pp. 340 U. S. 319-320.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/315/
"In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”" - In terms of Jan 6, there is no doubt the speech incited "imminent lawless action because that is what happened
In Chaplenski vs New Hampshire (1942), a unanimous court said this about "fighting words" - Justice Francis W. Murphy, writing for a unanimous court, held that certain written or spoken words are exempt from First Amendment protection when they instigate violent reactions by listeners
Although most speech falls under the protection of the First Amendment freedom of speech, expressions that are “lewd and obscene, . . . profane, . . . libelous, and . . . insulting or ‘fighting’ words” cannot claim constitutional protection. Murphy argued that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
It should be clear to any reasonable person that Trump's speech would probably pass the Brandenburg test of "imminent" as well as Chaplenski and Feiner because Trump's, and others, words DID "instigate violent reactions by the listeners".
"
Well if it is your opinion, I have no real problem. I have naturally heard and seen the prediction, and the what if's. The committee seems to be having a very hard time getting anyone to cooperate at this point. And no we don't know what has gone on behind closed doors, I think we should wait before we accuse Trump of such a serious crime. Thus far he has been accused of many things, and nothing has been proven.
I read the article in regard to Medow's handing over his emails
and text --- It does not seem he would have handed them over so easily if there was anything condemning in them. I know he has refused to talk with the committee feeling the emails and text speak for themself. He is in no way going to be caught up in questioning where he might be trapped in some respect lying to Congress. In my view, there is no there -there. I will be surprised if there is anything that would lead to inditing Trump. CNN seems to be blowing this story out slightly out of proportion.
" (CNN)Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows provided the House select committee investigating the January 6 riot with text messages and emails that show he was "exchanging with a wide range of individuals while the attack was underway," according to a source with knowledge of the communications.
The messages on Meadows' personal cell phone and email account, which were voluntarily handed over without any claim of executive privilege, relate to "what Donald Trump was doing and not doing during the riot,"
I know the book was to be released on Dec 7th, I have not heard any juice reports from the book. Have you? I think Trump and Meadows are very close, I can't imagine him writing much negative about Trump. I am not going to read the book. I am over all these politicians tell-alls, I buy the book and there is zip in them."It does not seem he would have handed them over so easily if there was anything condemning in them." - I would agree except that he probably doesn't live in the same reality as most of us do. What seems wrong to everybody else may seem perfectly fine to him and is not worried about it. Sort of like his admissions about Trump and Covid. He doesn't really believe in the pandemic, so no big deal.
"CNN seems to be blowing this story out slightly out of proportion. " - Don't see how, unless you are reading an opinion piece. CNN general just reports the facts in their news feed. Exactly what was being "blown out of proportion" in the quotes that followed? Seems like standard stuff to me.
"relate to "what Donald Trump was doing and not doing during the riot,"" - And that is the point, isn't it.Speaking of Meadows, The Select Committee just voted to recommend he be held in Criminal Contempt of Congress.
In a Jan 5 email, Meadows reveals that the National Guard was on stand by, get this, "to protect pro-Trump people; the same people who beat the crap out of the police and tried to capture and kill congress people (at least according to the posts of a few of them). The emails and texts apparently also reveal that Meadows had numerous contacts with members of Congress about Trump's efforts to recruit state lawmakers and encourage them to help overturn the election.[/i]"the same people who beat the crap out of the police and tried to capture and kill congresspeople " You have no proof that anyone was going to kill anyone. Where are these posts? You should not make statements like that unless you can offer a source. You stand to spread unproven information.
Thus far the emails and text have not been reported, and Meadows offered these documents without a problem.
This kind of comment is very much unfair, and it is what contributes to information that may not be true being spread. We have no idea what is in those emails or text messages. Little has been leaked, and none proved...
On all things Trump you might find this quote from the continuing NY investigation into his and his company's finances interesting:
Cohen first made his allegations public in testimony before Congress. At the time he made several financial statements public, including one from 2012. In that statement, which CNN has reviewed, Trump's accounting firm notes that "Donald J Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement," adding they did not audit the statement and identified several deviations from generally accepted accounting principles. The statement also notes that users "should recognize that they might reach different conclusions about the financial condition of Donald J Trump if they had access to a revised statement of financial condition" without the departures to accounting rules.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics … index.htmlThis truism from an analysis (not opinion) about how Trump is destroying our democracy is worth remembering (and why Trump is SO dangerous)
And democracy is often not a tangible commodity: The history of rising autocracy abroad suggests it's often not noticed until it's gone.
Bottom line is that the so-called patriots that really do care about preserving democracy (there are many that don't) are playing with fire in their blind support of this dictator-in-waiting - Trump. If they don't wake up soon, democracy WILL be gone!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/politics … index.htmlWOW! Amazing new revelations about Trump's attempted coup. Also note that Fake Fox so-called News, OAN, and Newsmax did not show the Select Committees vote to recommend Meadows be held in Criminal Contempt of Congress.
Let's see if I can summarize:
- Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows repeatedly for him to get daddy to stop the violence immediately! Meadows responds we are trying. Hours later, Trump finally did.
- Hannity, Ingraham, and Kilmeade did the same thing saying things like "“Mark, president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy,” Ingraham texted. " - Notice she wasn't worried about the Congressmen and women!!
“Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished,” added Kilmeade.
Then they went back to lying that nothing had happened.
-It is becoming clearer and clearer that this coup was planned! By who you ask? Among them, Trump, Mark Meadows, Scott Perry, Jim Jordan, Stephen Miller, and Bill Stepien with Kayleigh McEnany as a mouthpiece.
The NYT reports that on On Nov. 9, two days after {AP} called the race for Mr. Biden, crisis meetings were underway at Trump campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va..
Mr. Perry and Mr. Jordan huddled with senior White House officials, including Mr. Meadows; Stephen Miller, a top Trump adviser; Bill Stepien, the campaign manager; and Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary.
According to two people familiar with the meetings, which have not been previously reported, the group settled on a strategy that would become a blueprint for Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress: Hammer home the idea that the election was tainted, announce legal actions being taken by the campaign, and bolster the case with allegations of fraud.
At a news conference later that day, Ms. McEnany delivered the message.
“This election is not over,” she said. “Far from it.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/us/p … jan-6.htmlThis analysis (not opinion) nicely summarizes many of the revelations regarding Trump's coup attempt; albeit with well deserved sarcasm. (it does not mention last night's NYT expose of the planning meeting a few days after Trump's Nov loss between Meadows and other high ranking members of Trump's inner circle to plan how to overturn the election.)
One passage gives me hope that the straws which broke the camel's back finally did their job. This is from one of the main orgainzers of the Jan 6 rally (nott the riot) that Trump called.
"Essentially, he abandons people when the going gets tough for people. And, you know, in some ways, it's embarrassing to think that in a lot of ways, we bought into what essentially turned out to be a bluff or a con," Stockton told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Tuesday. - If more Trump acolytes like those on this forum can finally see the light like Dustin Stockton just did, maybe there is hope yet.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics … index.htmlDeleted
More proof that Trump purposefully mishandled his response to the pandemic which led to thousands of excess deaths.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/politics … index.htmlDeleted
Absolutely.
Just like we now know there was a conspiracy within the Trump administration to suppress the truth about Covid, we are quickly learning there was a conspiracy between White House, Congressional, Defense, and other powerful Trump acolytes to overthrow the Constitution.
The sentences of the insurrectionists are getting longer as the crimes get more serious. In this case, five years for assaulting police officers.
I wonder what the people who almost killed Fanone will get - 20 years, I hope.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/politics … index.htmlI have not as of yet witnessed anyone being charged for an "insurrection". Have I missed something? So, here is what I got from the article you posted. First that the man that was sentenced was not charged with insurrection.
"Robert Scott Palmer is the first person to be sentenced for the felony of assaulting an officer with a dangerous weapon."
Then this stood out to me --- A Statement from District Judge Tanya Chutkan that presided over the trial.
"I wonder if the people who are usually before me," Chutkan said of Black and minority defendants she presides over, "if they had tried to storm the Capitol that day, would they have been met with rubber bullets. I suspect not."
(I find her statement biased. She is a black woman, and she appears to have a problem being non-bias.)
Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama and former public defender, has emerged as perhaps the harshest judge for January 6 defendants. Seven cases in front of her have reached sentencing, and all seven have received jail time ranging from 14 days to more than five years behind bars."
And not sure why you feel anyone that has been charged for crimes on that day deserves 20 years. The crimes don't warrant such a sentence.One can only wonder why you are going about trying to whitewash the insurrection by claiming none have been charged with that specific crime. Is it that you just cannot process what makes an insurrection an insurrection? Do we need to list the definition so you can stop this line of thought?
"I have not as of yet witnessed anyone being charged for an "insurrection"." - [i[Actually, that seems to be the part of the accusations in the civil suits the capitol police and lawmakers have brought against Trump. For example - "In another, two US Capitol Police officers sued Trump, claiming he directed his followers to assault them." or "In the third lawsuit, Rep. Bennie Thompson and other lawmakers accused Trump and Rudy Giuliani of conspiring with the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to incite the January 6 insurrection."
"that day deserves 20 years" - Ii]I am aware you don't think the attack on our democracy was no big deal, but patriots like definitely do. He tried to kill a cop to overthrow the gov't. To me, that deserves the death penalty.[/i]If Trump is sued for instituting an insurrection by private parties, and none of the rioters were charged for being in an insurrection, doesn't that mean Trump didn't institute an insurrection that no one participated in?
Trump tried to kill a cop? Video, please, as that would be quite interesting. If you can't provide a video, provide the orders (beyond "March peacefully on the Capital) instructing the guy being charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at a cop. But if you can't, quit making ridiculous claims you cannot support.Nope, it doesn't
Who said Trump personally tried to kill a cop. There you go being obtuse again and making things up. By inciting the insurrection, the jury can find Trump guilty of attempted murder before the fact and award damages to all those hurt by his insurrection.
Why are you hanging your WHOLE defense on what amounts to lip service. If Trump was serious about being non-violent, he 1) wouldn't have used so much violent and hateful language and 2) used much more language about being peaceful. You know as well as I do, that "peaceful" comment was just another Trump lie - like when he told the crowd a couple of times he was going to be with them.
BTW, I guess you didn't notice, I am not making the claim, the plaintiffs are."He tried to kill a cop to overthrow the gov't. To me, that deserves the death penalty.[/i]"
He was not charged with Attempted murder or anything related to murder... (no one was charged with attempted murder) This kind of rhetoric (in my view) is harmful and unnecessary, and truely works to promote conspiracy theories. No one was charged with murder... or attempted murder.
He was not charged with this sort of crime in any respect --- he was charged with --- "Robert Scott Palmer is the first person to be sentenced for the "felony of assaulting" an officer with a dangerous weapon." ASSAULT.
Here are Palmers charges with source
"Assaulting, resisting, opposing or impeding an officer while armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon; obstructing, impeding or interfering with law enforcement; unlawful entry; disorderly or disruptive conduct; physical violence against a person in a restricted building or grounds
Outcome
Pleaded guilty Oct. 4 to assaulting resisting or impeding certain officers using a dangerous weapon.
What happened
Palmer, who owns a cleaning service in Largo, Florida, was dubbed #FloridaFlagJacket by online sleuths because he wore a jacket styled like an American flag with the word Trump on the front and a Trump campaign pin to the Capitol. The FBI reported he threw a wooden plank at officers, sprayed the contents of a fire extinguisher toward officers, threw the fire extinguisher at them, and then picked it up and threw it at them a second time. Court records in Pinellas County, Florida show Palmer has been in trouble with authorities more than a dozen times over 35 years, including a 1989 felony charge of fraud and theft and a 1998 felony charge of false imprisonment. Records show he declared bankruptcy in 2014 and was ticketed with driving on a sidewalk or bike path in 2018."
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/flor … us-capitol
Here is as it that list who was arrested, and what they were charged with
https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/c … b-arrests/
No one was charged with an insurrection period.I am sorry that trying (and succeeding for a short time) to overthrow our gov't doesn't impress you as being serious. I certainly does me.
I am WELL aware of what he was charged with and what he pled guilty to - those are the technical details. But, what he did was much, much worse that simple assault. At least the judge increased the penalty because he was an insurrectionist.
Other judges are also complaining that DOJ is being too lenient given the seriousness of the crimes. I agree.
The man attempted to kill an officer protecting our democracy - that is as serious as it gets, IMO. I don't understand why that doesn't deserve the death penalty (or at least 20 years).I certainly would or will affect me if any of this is proven. I think after going so many rounds with me, you would realize I wait for facts. I have been through all of your conspiracies now for some years... I put the blame where it should be if facts are supplied. I am holding onto my ability to use common sense, and not buy into the media's accusations.
I have laid out the facts in regard to Palmer --- you can see his charges, none were murder or attempted murder. He committed crimes, was convicted, and was given an appropriate sentence. Not the 20 years you feel he should have received...
You do realize many are charged with various murder charges with different degrees of that crime and do not receive life or 20 years. The sentence is set due to the type of murder they committed. Not sure why you feel this guy was purposely trying to murder an officer, could he just have been attempting to hurt him to do bodily harm? We can hope the judge took all of this into consideration when she sentenced him. Not sure I would want to condemn this man to 20 years in prison. I know nothing about his motive, or if he intended to kill anyone, do you? IMO, this kind of thinking is what can lead to mob violence. In fact that most likely was what did promote violence on that very Jan day at our Capitol --- people thinking they knew what needed to be done, due to something they believed there was fraud committed, something that there was no proof of ...
You are doing the same thing --- reading in what you want to believe, and offering an opinion on what "should be done."
Maybe time for people to cool their jets, and have a long look at what the media is doing. Tune out, wait for facts or you in my view are adding to the problem we are seeing today."The sentence is set due to the type of murder they committed. ." - You do realize, don't you, that it is just my opinion as to what the charges and sentences should be - based on what they did. Nowhere did I say that is what reality is. I did say others, like judges, thought DOJ was being too lenient; but, they also said they can't do anything about it (except maybe give 5 years where DOJ asked for 4). Maybe it is time for those whitewashing what happened understand how close they are to losing there democracy to dictators like Trump and the Republicans.
I simply have a hard time discerning the difference between what Trump, and those that support him, is trying to do to America and what HAS HAPPENED or IS HAPPENING in places like Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Hungary, Algeria and others listed in this report on the decline of democracy around the world.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom … nder-siegeYes, I realize that was your opinion -- here is my response to that comment -"And not sure why you FEEL anyone that has been charged for crimes on that day deserves 20 years.
"I simply have a hard time discerning the difference between what Trump, and those that support him, is trying to do to America and what HAS HAPPENED or IS HAPPENING in places like Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Hungary, Algeria and others listed in this report on the decline of democracy around the world."
Again, I don't agree with the fraud accusation. It was and remains harmful to the country. Did he try to over through the Government? I don't feel there is proof of that. His judgment was very poor to promote an accusation of fraud without facts. It certainly was detrimental to our society and remains detrimental to this day.And I told you why - they attacked our democracy directly and almost succeeded, I find that extremely serious while you don't. BTW, some of those charged with obstructing an official proceeding face 20 years.
"Fraud accusations"? - Oh, I see, some of the things he is being charged/investigations for. Why do you find that "harmful", if they are legitimate accusations, like from Mary Trump?
And I feel there is plenty of FACT-BASED proof, as I have explained previously, that Trump tried to overthrow the gov't by changing the results of a fair and free election..You have a right to your opinion. I just find it non-compatible with my own.
That is true, but my opinion is fact-based. Yours is based on a hope that it isn't true.
You have nothing factual to prove your point. And you have only unproven offered opinions. Can take a horse to water....
I have offered a multitude of facts. I can't help it if you "see no evil and hear no evil".
"In another, two US Capitol Police officers sued Trump, claiming he directed his followers to assault them." or "In the third lawsuit, "
Did they win this case? CNN -- "Judge Amit Mehta of the DC District Court has set oral arguments on whether the cases -- which are separate from the congressional or criminal investigations -- should be dismissed for January 10." (A wait and see)
I see no evidence to make me believe anyone was trying to over through the Government. I would think a true patriot would promote the concept of innocent before proven guilty. What appears to me by your statement "they should get 20 years," you have lost what the statement innocent until proven guilty means, and the importance of keeping that value in our society. A hang em high sentiment is damaging to
our very moral structure.
It well appears those that committed chargeable crimes are getting their day in court. Let's let our laws and penal system do the job of punishment if necessary. I will admit with judges showing biases we have a problem brewing... This mentality is uncalled for from the bench.
I think you need to reevaluate some of the words your using, none of the charges that came from that riot include "insurrection". This kind of language is at this point is destructive, and inflames people unnecessarily.Did I say they "won" the case (although I have zero doubt it will go to trial).
"I see no evidence to make me believe anyone was trying to over through the Government. " - ??? Did you NOT SEE the members of Congress run for their very lives? Did you NOT SEE they stopped their official proceeding because of the insurrection? By Definition Trump's troops overthrew the American federal gov't for a short period of time. The fact that they didn't do it permanently (which must have disappointed Trump and his supporters terribly) doesn't alter the fact that they succeeded in what they set out to do - shut down Congress. How do you not understand that?
The way I see it, when I joined the Army and went to Vietnam, I did it to protect America. When these a-holes took up arms (be they guns or fire extinguishers) against Congress and the Capitol, they were attacking America. In my opinion, they are no better than Russian troops.No, I did not see anyone in Congress run for their lives What I saw was congress being escorted out to safety, very scared, but not running for their life. There are many videos of what they did when notified. I have not seen any showing them running for their lives. I saw some very scared people doing what they were told to do. It was very clear this situation was very terrifying and would be to most anyone. However, you are being hyperbolic say "they were running for their lives".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUh9iYE_Obs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr1zP1xP63g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJBOyZZTnig
And yes I witnessed Congress being stopped cold from their duties of that day. Which the perpetrators have been arrested for interfering by rioting and committing various crimes.
Was it an insurrection? So, far no one in law enforcement has charged anyone with an insurrection. You are entitled to your opinion that it was. But, factually as it stands no one was charged with insurrection.
The only Trump troops would be our military on that day. He did not direct them to attract the Capitol, did he? The Government was not overthrown on that day and were quickly back in session by that evening.
So, no they did not succeed in shutting down Congress.
https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/a … ke-capitol
"Congress will reconvene Wednesday evening and continue the certification of President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College vote, hours after violent riots forced the U.S. Capitol into lockdown.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California released a statement that the breach at the Capitol by pro-Trump supporters won't deter lawmakers from fulfilling thier duty to formalize Biden's victory and that they will work to complete the process they had started around 1 p.m. It remains unclear how long the session will last and if a handful of Republicans plan to follow through with their objections to state results. Politico reported that Congress plans to return around 8 p.m."
You need to look at the facts, in my view, your comment just does not ring true.
This is what I understand--- and all of what I understand was derived by clear facts that stand thus far. We differ in how we come to opinions. This is just an assumption, but I feel the mindset between conservatives and liberals differs greatly when it comes to using facts to come
by an opinion. You are very much willing to hang your opinion on unproven information, although compelling, lacks substantial truth. It's like a puzzle that is compelling but the pieces never fit. And when that puzzle becomes frustrating, you start a new one.
So, here is what I understand thus far about the riot of Jan 6 at the Capitol.
I understand there was a riot at our capital. I realize I can't just appoint to any given individual a motive. I realize Congress was scared, and had every right to be scared, but were not hurt, and returned to work hours after the riot to complete their job. I realize the FBI tracked down lawbreakers and the DOJ rounded them up and arrested them, and charged them with what they felt was their crime or crimes. I realize these people are having their day in court, and being sentenced appropriately by judges. I do not think it is my place nor would it be appropriate or fair
to use words like insurrection lightly. I trust in our law enforcement agencies, and our courts to offer facts. Which they did. You just appear not to want to believe the facts as they stand thus far.
To promote if come and conspiracies is what can lead to lawlessness and sometimes violence."No, I did not see anyone in Congress run for their lives" - [i[What a beautiful example of deflection - focusing on the semantics rather than the REAL issue (which was incapsulated in the your next sentence)[/i]
"What I saw was congress being escorted out to safety, very scared, ..." - If you would have expanded and discussed this part of that sentence, rather than whitewashing the meaning with the conclusion "... but not running for their life", that would have been useful. But instead, you turn to arguing about semantics.
"And yes I witnessed Congress being stopped cold from their duties of that day. " - Which, by definition, is an insurrection! To wit: a violent uprising against an authority or government.. 1) it was violent and 2) it was against both authority and government. A rose by any other name is still a rose. I rest my case.
"The only Trump troops would be our military on that day. " - Again, you deflect by arguing semantics, I simply like alliteration. Would Trump mob suit you better? There is no question it was Trump's. He spent months planning for this gathering and calling them there; and once there, he sent them to the Capitol. There is no denying any of that.
" The Government was not overthrown on that day and were quickly back in session by that evening." - LOL Even in your own rebuttal you admit the insurrectionists shut down the operation of government, to wit: the counting of the electoral votes (which was the goal, btw). So, YES, they did succeed, if only temporality (which appears not to bother you in the slightest, If it did, you would understand how close we came to losing our democracy that day!} You can never be a "little bit" pregnant. Either you are or you are not; either you, how did you put it earlier, "Congress being stopped cold from their duties" or they were not.
I would suggest it is YOU who need to look at the facts, ALL of the facts.
" You are very much willing to hang your opinion on unproven information, although compelling, lacks substantial truth." - So now you are claiming the official proceedings of the House were not stopped? The truth is, they were. The unproven information is that they were not."No, I did not see anyone in Congress run for their lives" - [i[What a beautiful example of deflection - focusing on the semantics rather than the REAL issue (which was incapsulated in the your next sentence)[/i]"
I was asked a direct question. I guess I could have written it off as just being overly dramatic. I offered you facts of why I felt your sentiment was incorrect in my view.
I certainly feel the context explains my belief well --- What I saw was congress being escorted out to safety, very scared, but not running for their life. There are many videos of what they did when notified. I have not seen any showing them running for their lives. I saw some very scared people doing what they were told to do. It was very clear this situation was very terrifying and would be to most anyone.
You seem to argue semantics --- Your comment is full of derogatory semantics that implies something you can't prove.
I am claiming they were not stopped due to concluding their business within hours after the riot. That the rioters did not STOP them from concluding their business totally."I was asked a direct question. " - The question I asked had nothing specifically to do with my "running for their lives" hyperbole and had everything to with WHY they all had to be "hurried" (is that better?) quickly to a protected place. The question I asked was "didn't you see what happened?" to your curious comment that "
"I see no evidence to make me believe anyone was trying to over through the Government. " - ". I was simply pointing out that there is PLENTY of visual evidence. (and now the Jan 6 committee is providing a lot of documentary evidence).There was visual evidence of a riot at the Capitol, and many were arrested for their crimes due to that visual evidence. No one was charged with insurrection. Not sure what the committee hopes to prove. If there was no one charged with insurrection, how can Trump or anyone in his circle be charged with an insurrection?
Is there evidence where someone ordered someone to come and riot? Are there emails or texts with insurrection instructions sent out to rioters from Trump or anyone in Trump's administration? OR were there just telepathic vibes sent out to Trump followers?
You are promoting conspiracies theories. Just can't buy into that kind of stuff.Deleted
The January 6 commission is nothing more than a Soviet style show trial. It is in no way bipartisan. The two Republicans on the committee were hand-picked by Nancy Pelosi. Liz Cheney is hated and despised by the Republican base. She is considered the ultimate RINO (Republican in Name Only). Both Cheney and Kinzinger are RINOs who hate Donald Trump. They incapable of representing the Republican base or the Republican party. pelosi rejected Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s recommendations for Republicans to be on the committee. So, with pelosi and the rest of the corrupt democrats forming a committee the outcome was determined before it even began. Mitch McConnell will not be leader of the Senate should the Republicans regain control. His only claim to fame is how he provides big doners to the Republican party and that is it. He too old and out of touch with the Republican party to do the job.
So, I, like many other Republicans will completely ignore the Soviet-style January 6 commission and anything it claims. As far as I, and many others like me, are concerned, this is simply a dishonest show put on by the dishonest democrats to appeal to their dishonest base.You, like many other Republicans, were on the ground that day. You were convinced, and likely remain one of the 60% of Donald Trump's supporters, to believe in his Big Lie. You live in his alternate realities of dishonesty. We don't really care what you think about the findings of the January 6 investigation as you have clearly shown the inability to reason beyond your own partisanship and paranoia.
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/1 … sm-column/"You live in his alternate realities of dishonesty...you have clearly shown the inability to reason beyond your own partisanship and paranoia."
Back at you.I am unfazed when the delusional criticize me for not being willing to leave reality behind. Imploring me to ignore court rulings and easily explained reasons that debunk all claims of the Big Lie. And then to join them in ignoring the reasons behind an attack of our democracy and the peaceful transfer of power based on those lies.
Yeah, your 'back at you' is an argument to judge which of us is no longer a functional adult basing their stances on actual facts. I'm quite comfortable with this comparison.
"The two Republicans on the committee were hand-picked by Nancy Pelosi. " - That is a lie, they volunteered because they are true patriots who want to reveal what really caused Jan 6th; something you deny happened or want to sweep under the rug.
"Liz Cheney is hated and despised by the Republican base. " - NO, the correct statement is 'Liz Cheney is hated and despised by the RINO base".
" Both Cheney and Kinzinger are RINOs who hate Donald Trump. " - I would say that what they "hate" is someone trying to destroy our democracy (which appears to be totally fine with you)
"They incapable of representing the Republican base or the Republican party." - It seems to me they are quite capable of representing what the Republican Party Used to stand for but you are quite correct, they do not represent today's RINO base.
" pelosi rejected Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s recommendations for Republicans to be on the committee. " - What Pelosi rightly rejected were ultra-partisan bomb throwers whose goal was to subvert the investigation. Had McCarthy appointed more real Republicans like one she did accept, then there would not have been a problem. Remember, this committee is of Republican making because they rejected the truly bi-partisan committee that had been put together.
"Mitch McConnell will not be leader of the Senate should the Republicans regain control." - Sorry, it is already clear the Republican senators are rejecting Trump's call for that
You are clearly not a Republican because you hold none of their values who will refuse to look at the evidence.
I have no problem with an investigation into the Jan 6th riot, like the FBI, and DOJ has been doing. Which has led to charges, arrests, and punishments.
This sort of puts the spotlight on what I find disgusting about this way the Committee is conducting the investigation-- Quoting your source
"When the committee held its contempt vote on Meadows earlier this week, lawmakers disclosed text messages he received around the time of the attack. The texts, which Meadows provided to the panel while he was still cooperating with it, were from several Fox News hosts, Donald Trump Jr. and lawmakers, who were not named by the committee. The office of Rep. Jim Jordan confirmed Wednesday that the Ohio Republican was one of those lawmakers."
"and lawmakers who were not named by the committee..." But they saw fit to use the names of Donald Trump Jr, and Fox hosts. These are American citizens being put in the public eye for scrutiny. Jim Jorden's name leaked out quickly.
No one I mean no one should be submitted to these forms of witchhunt put out as fodder for those that eat up fodder. IMO, This investigation is for political purposes. This committee has no evidence of anything. They are putting out the well-chosen BS as you can see by the quote I offered... They are smearing anyone they choose to smear. This is the Democrats vile way of politicking in my view.
It's sad to see we have some Americans that feed off of this sort of destructive behavior.
We pay Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate crimes, the Jan 6th riot is being well investigated by well-trained agents. IMO I don't need in any respect support Congress once again implying crimes without pure evidence. That's the way of communist counties. Convict and then look to prove a crime... Purely disgusted with this kind of witchhunt.
But you certainly have a right to your opinion on the investigation. Just offering my own view.
Our differing opinion does give a good example of why we are witnessing such a great division in regard to ideologies. It is so interesting we could read the same article, and come out the other end seeing it so distinctly different.If someone organizes a robbery, but does not do the robbing, are they guilty of a crime?
If someone organizes a murder, but does not actually commit murder, are they guilty of a crime?
Do you now understand why the January 6 committee exists? Those people didn't just get there on their own. Finding out if they were organized with intent does have merit to see if a crime was committed at higher levels.How in the world do you feel you have the right to say why thousands of people attended Trump's rally? This is just so outlandish.
As I have shared my view, once again I feel the FBI and DOJ are conduction an investigation, I trust the pros to do their job. I don't trust a bunch of Congressmen promoting a political witchhunt. Having pseudo law enforcement investigate a crime is not acceptable in my view. Just funny that way... LOLDid I claim why they were there? They were, undeniably, organized to be there. Then those organized attacked our Capitol.
Congress certainly has the authority to investigate an attack on our country, even if done by homegrown domestic terrorists. They can then refer people to the DOJ and let them determine whether charges warrant being filed.
Your view does not preclude government from doing a duty it has undertaken since 1792. That just makes your view ignorant of historical precedents."They were, undeniably, organized to be there. Then those organized attacked our Capitol."
Undeniable? Proof... LOL
Like I said I like law enforcement to investigate crime.
You may appreciate that this committee is doing this particular investigation. I see it as a political ploy. A ploy that will fall flat due to no true evidence of what they are accusing Trump of. I think this kind of ploy is inexcusable.Yes, undeniable. This is one of those things I expect any person following politics to understand. Let alone to have seen my link a few days ago about the Stop the Steal ORGANIZERS. That would be some proof, of which I could easily post more of, but would be a waste of my time since it's all over the place to those not in complete denial about it.
I do appreciate this committee, one that excluded Jim Jordan, who as it turns out is likely one of those at the heart of the conspiracy to undermine the 2020 election and wanted to serve on it despite that fact.
And what is so wrong with trying to determine what Trump was doing as the Capitol was being attacked? Why on Earth would you not want to know those details if the man has plans to run for the office again? Is that someone you would trust to defend the country? You may see that as politics, but that goes to the heart of one upcoming matter - is Trump even fit to serve again? Even Republicans should want that answer.I have no problem with investigating any form of questionable problem. Do you feel the FBI, DOJ, and a Congressional impeachment trial are not enough? Do you not feel at some point this is inappropriate and repetitive and unfair to Trump?
So let me ask you -- If this Congressional investigation falls flat, will you be prone to let this all go or will you continue to want further investigations?
No really, do you not realize Trump has not been charged with anything yet hounded throughout his presidency even until today? In my view, this is very dangerous, and consider you are being led along by a very corrupt political party aided by media. It seems by now you would or should be realizing that. At some point, I needed to say that... No insult meant, but come on.Actually, I still want to see trials for Trump on multiple fronts not yet filed:
1.) Campaign finance for the Cohen payoffs where he was named as an unindictable co-conspirator
2.) The Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller report that a thousand former federal prosecutors stated they could secure conviction on if Trump was a regular citizen
3.) The Georgia election tampering charges that we all heard with our own ears
I think oversight of a criminal like Trump is both necessary and warranted to prevent another criminal from considering trying to occupy that office.Problem is that you have decided Trump is a criminal without ever having a trial. Without ever being judged by a jury of his peers.
Just for your information (you can check it) that's not how our justice system works. We do not convict by mob rule or by public opinion. Or at least most of us don't - there are people out there that would imprison others simply because they don't like them.Not true again. A person can commit a crime without being convicted as you just argued in your post about Bill Clinton. You assert he committed a crime, yet he was not convicted during his impeachment trial. Yet, you remain convinced Clinton did actually commit that crime. And that was certainly a jury trial, just one involving the Senate.
I can assert Trump committed a crime (or in his case crimes) and wish for him to face a jury trial to determine his guilt or innocence. Even then, I can determine his guilt, such as in the OJ case, despite a ruling to the contrary based on my own reasoning of the evidence.
Your assertion that the courts convict those that committed crimes 100% of the time is just your latest falsehood.Yes, you can assert one is a criminal, having committed a specific illegal act. You can repeat it 1,000 times (as you have). What you cannot do is prove your assertion to be true, and that is illegal, unethical and immoral for if you cannot prove what you say then you have zero right to say it.
Free speech does not cover slandering another person. Either ethically or legally, unprovable slander is not covered.Actually, there are plenty of court cases in Trump's history to show him breaking laws and then paying fines for violating them. Hence, stating he has a criminal past is not illegal, unethical or immoral. It's called having done the research.
Here is a very simple one: In 2000, Donald Trump paid $250,000 to settle fines related to charges brought by New York State Lobbying Commission director David Grandeau. Trump was charged with circumventing state law to spend $150,000 lobbying against government approval of plans to construct an Indian-run casino in the Catskills, which would have diminished casino traffic to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City.
Yeah, do some homework before misunderstanding the criminal past of who we are talking about.
That is how overwhelming the evidence is, Wilderness. Between what was presented at his second impeachment trial which was enough to convince 57% of fair-minded senators of his guilt and the revelations coming out of the Jan 6th committee, it is clear that at least Trump has a very high likelihood of being convicted. Ergo, I am convinced of his guilt, just like i was for O.J. Simpson and you are of Hunter Biden's.
I think I will set back and let the appropriate law enforcement do their jobs. As I feel the FBI and DOJ are doing in regard to the Jan 6 riot. Do you not feel these agencies can sort out what happened on that day?
It is naive to think if anyone on this earth could get Trump charged with anything I mean anything would have done so. I must laugh at those that think otherwise.
"No really, do you not realize Trump has not been charged with anything" - Your right, I do not realize that. Why? Because he HAS been charged with the things, several things, but it seems you are blind to it due to your equally blind to him.
Here is what he has been charged with, at a minimum, three of which the MAJORITY of Senators thought he was guilty of (pretty soon, I hope that gets through to you):
1. Abuse of Power [i](which should have been a slam dunk if it weren't for political fear)
2. Obstruction of Congress
3. Incitement of Insurrection - which you said many times he wasn't
4. Defamation
5. Fraud - Mary Trump
6. Fraud - Investors
7. Civil Suit - Violation of Federal Law - the Ku Klux Klan Act
8. Civil Suit for inciting an attack against the Capitol that terrorized lawmakers and prevented us from certifying the votes of the American people. (another name for insurrection
9. Civil Suit - Capitol Police suit alleging the defendants (Trump et al) conspired to stop Congress from confirming President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory “through the use of force, intimidation, and threats.” (another form of insurrection)
6. Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
7. Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
8. Second Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
9. NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Voting Rights Case for Post-Election Actions - for violating the federal Voting Rights Act.
Those are just the recent CHARGES for various illegal actions. There have been many others over the last several decades, all ended in out of court settlements with either the government entities suing him or the people/organizations suing him.
Is that enough "charges" for you? I can probably find a few more.
It seems to me a person who really loved America rather than a man or cult, would want a man as sketchy as Trump investigated for the multiple questionable things Trump has done in the last four years.
Why not, he wasn't fit to serve the first time, so why should they care the next time around?
I guess you are not following all of the revelations the committee is releasing then.
Was it a "political ploy", as you call it, when Pelosi came up with a totally bi-partisan commission that met Republican demands?? Or was it a political ploy when McCarthy and McConnell nixed it. Was it a political ploy when Pelosi TRIED to create a similar bi-partisan select committee? Or was it a political ploy when McCarthy submitted poison pill names to lay waste to the committee?
I think everybody knows who is playing political games and who is trying to get to the truth behind the insurrection.
As to no evidence, I go back to what appears to be your lack of review of the evidence being presented. The only explanation I can come up with is you are only listening to Fox, OAN, or Newsmax who will not present what the committee finds. Even some of your other go to sources, AP and Reuters report what is going on, so I am guessing you are ignoring them as well.
"Congress certainly has the authority to investigate an attack on our country, even if done by homegrown domestic terrorists."
It certainly does. Where is the investigation about the invasion at our southern border, and the political games being played over it?
Where is the investigation into city and state leaders that promote and insist they and their city/state will violate federal laws concerning illegal aliens?
Where is the investigation into city/state leaders that not only permitted but encouraged months of rioting, violating not only any and all ethical concerns of their duty, but the laws of the nation as well?
But no. We don't investigate those efforts to take over our country - just anything we can pretend will remove Donald Trump from the political arena. Only political rivals shall be investigated; when liberals permit and encourage, or even participate in it, it shall be ignored while we pretend it didn't happen.Your whataboutisms do not rise to the level of an attack of our Capitol or a conspiracy to commit a Coup d'etat against legally elected leaders.
Nor do I find policies that the Supreme Court upheld in 2012 to be violations of federal laws as you just lied about. Rulings in California in 2018 also sided with the states.
Same with your claim that city leaders 'encouraged' rioting is complete horsepoop.
Again, when you come in with such falsities, you're not worth debating.What invasion?
Because city/state leaders do not violate federal law
Because city/state leaders do not promote riots (it is Republicans that instigate insurrections and THAT IS being investigated)
"We don't investigate those efforts to take over our country " - Isn't THAT exactly WHAT is being investigated?
I don't think Sharlee believes that Congress, or at least the Democrats in Congress, have the authority to investigate anything about a president.
"like the FBI, and DOJ has been doing." - I see. So, investigations are fine unless it is a Democratic House investigating a former, disgraced, one-term, twice impeached Republican president using their constitutionally guaranteed oversight powers. In those specific circumstances, an investigation is not warranted to look into a successful attempt to halt an official proceeding (otherwise known as an insurrection if it is Congress that was halted).
Mine, in this matter, is not an "opinion". It is based on constitutional language while your opinion is not.
"No one was charged with insurrection. " - Why are you focusing on semantics again. What happened there fits precisely the definition of insurrection, so insurrection it is regardless of whether anybody is charged for it. Arguing that point is simply deflection from the real problem - Trumpers wanting to overthrow the gov't. Please talk about what they did, not what it is called.
"Is there evidence where someone ordered someone to come and riot? " - Again, more deflection. As I proved to Wilderness, proving that "exact" thing isn't needed. All that is need to prove is that the "conditions" were purposefully set up that could foreseeably lead to that imminent outcome. All of the publicly available evidence (especially the most recent revelations) point to exactly that while none of the publicly available evidence points in the other direction. That is no conspiracy theory."No one was charged with insurrection. " - Why are you focusing on semantics again."
The fact I offered in regard to no one having been charged with an insurrection is a fact. You use the word insurrection frequently, I pointed out as thus far no one has been charged with an insurrection. It would be you deflecting.
" All of the publicly available evidence (especially the most recent revelations) point to exactly that while none of the publicly available evidence points in the other direction. That is no conspiracy theory."
Again the Democrats have accused Trump of a crime and now must look for evidence to substantiate that crime. Again half ass-backward.
Your statement proves you have bought into this form of charging one with a crime. " All that is need to prove is that the "conditions" were purposefully set up that could foreseeably lead to that imminent outcome."
Don't you feel evidence should have been collected before smearing Trump's name once again needlessly? They have not presented any kind of evidence that proves Trump planned or intended to plan an insurrection."
The Democrats play a vile game.
Noting but a smear tactic, a smear tactic that has all but backfired
already. Yes, they will have some fodder for whoever runs in 2024. But the Republican candidate will use that fodder to add to the list of vile tactics the Dems have used in the past the Russia hoax, two impeachment hoaxes, and now an insurrection hoax.
Do you ever tire of this kind of crazy?"The fact I offered in regard to no one having been charged with an insurrection is a fact. " - Granted, it is a fact - but a meaningless one. I use the word insurrection because that is an accurate descritption of what happened. The fact that nobody hasn't been charged with it (although it does seem that Trump is in those civil suits) doesn't change the fact that what happened on Jan 6 was, in fact, an insurrection. Apparently, you don't like it because it reflects poorly on your chosen authority figure. But, just because you don't like it, doesn't change the reality of that is exactly what happened that day.
"accused Trump of a crime and now must look for evidence to substantiate that crime. " - Once again you are parroting talking points from the right-wing. If you thought about it, even a little bit, you would realize that is how the American legal system works. To wit: 1) there is some evidence that a crime was committed, 2) an investigation happens, 3) if the evidence points to a particular person or group, then the prosecution develops more evidence to hold them accountable. Whether you like it or not, that is exactly what is happening with the Jan 6 committee!
An insurrection happened on Jan 6th. It just didn't magically appear (as some Trumpers want you to believe), it had a cause. All of the prima facia evidence points to Trump being that cause. The commission is investigating whether that is true or not. It is that simple
The Republicans play a vile game.
You are clearly one who does NOT believe in the old truism "where there is smoke, there is fire", but most Americans do. And with Trump, the smoke is ubiquitous and blinding.
It would be "crazy" if I did get use to the assault on democracy as apparently you have."It would be "crazy" if I did get use to the assault on democracy as apparently you have."
Again -- Hopefully for the last time --- As I have shared my view, once again I feel the FBI and DOJ are conduction an investigation, I trust the pros to do their job. I don't trust a bunch of Congressmen promoting a political witchhunt. Having pseudo law enforcement investigate a crime is not acceptable in my view. Just funny that way... LOL
You enjoy your daily soap opera. I am sure it will be salacious. But I predict it will as all the witchhunts fall flat. I am actually becoming uncomfortable saying "told ya so" at the end of all these crazy investigations.
Facts are just not on your side. The outcomes are pretty much the bottom line.You don't trust a bunch of Congressmen? Isn't that is tantamount to saying you don't trust the Constitution.
What facts are not on my side?
- The fact that Trump called for the rally?
- The fact that Trump repeatedly told his supporters to be there and be "wild" (or something like that)
- The fact that his followers have said on Countless occasions that Trump told them to be there and to "Stop the Steal".
- The fact that they tried?
- The fact that they succeeded for a while?
Which of those facts don't support my claims?
I think you have it backwards - the Facts are just not on your side.You better read your comment it sounds like a kick the wall kids comment. You put the word fact in where there are no facts only your conjecture you derive and is the basis of incomplete information.
Deleted
Explain to me why the only Republicans on the committee are ones who have an extremely anti President Trump bias and are also not at all popular within the Republican party? Also, explain to me why the five Republicans recommended by the leader of the minority to be on the committee were not even considered by pelosi?
No real Republicans who supported President Trump and popular within the Republican party are on the committee by design.
So, how is this NOT simply a show trial for the left wing and the leftist media?Deleted
"There is absolutely no reason to believe that the two of them can't complete the task before them in an unbiased manner. They are also staunchly conservative. "
These two are a lot of things, but conservative they are not. Cheney is hates and despised by Republicans and Kinzinger has earned the title of RINO! They don't represent Republicans or the Republican base. They were picked by pelosi and not Republicans. That speaks volumes.
"Again, if you go ahead and read the government website you can find the scope and purpose set forth for the committee. It doesn't mention Mr Trump's name one time at all."
It doesn't have to mention his name. With the Republicans they picked for the committee, it's obvious this is a show trial and nothing more. They ignored the names submitted by the minority leader, and that confirms it.
This IS a show trial.
I'm sure people would want to know what happened January 6th...but that is not going to happen with this hand-picked, biased group of Democrats and RINOS.
Sorry, the committee is a joke.Really, so you must support Trump in order to be a Republican? That's just your own far-right view of the party. There are plenty of moderate Republicans out there that clearly disagree with your stance.
In fact, many are starting to refer to Trump's base as the RINO's since they have veered so far away from conservative principles and are now just a cult revolving around one man's personality.
Many see a base willing to listen to Trump's lies and then attack their own country as the real joke.I don't think you realize the amount of power and influence President Donald Trump has within the Republican party. There is a purge occurring in the Republican party. Many who went against President Donald Trump are no longer seeking reelection or have retired. Many have been voted out of office. This will continue in the future. Anyone who wants to run for public office as a Republican seeks President Donald Trump's support. The number of those who win after getting his support is something like 135 to 7.
"The number of those who win after getting his support is something like 135 to 7."
Consider the following:
"Ultimately, we found that Trump’s endorsements cost Republicans 16 seats – exactly 20% of the 80 candidates he endorsed. That represented 12 in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate."
Early indications in Trump endorsements for 2022 suggest they may be even more detrimental than in 2018.
In reality Sanders does the best, as his endorsees won 70 percent of the time.
https://theconversation.com/does-a-trum … ill-165416
I think you nailed this one Valeant. I also think there are moderate Republicans that are not represented by the base.
GA
Well actually the committee is formally called a select committee and it is not a "trial" Again, The complete scope and purpose is laid out in a document to read.
I would submit that Cheney and Kinzinger, as they're voting records as well as their ratings by many conservative organizations (such as Heritage) indicate
They are in fact the true representative of what has been traditionally known as the Republican party.
Maybe the base of Mr. Trump should very well consider forming their own party based on their core values.
He certainly doesn't stand with Republicans on one of their core principles, that being free trade.
Republicans have long championed free trade, believing that by allowing markets to operate unhindered, nations can boost domestic industries, lift their wages and improve living standards. That view is not shared by Mr. Trump, who has taken a much more critical approach to trade, sowing concern among many Republicans and business groups that the United States will wind up on the losing end of an integrated global economy.
Mr Trump didn't even align very well with the Republican value of limited social spending.
He was roundly criticized by his party when he signed the massive 1.3 trillion. omnibus bill in 2018.
His presidency didn't appear to be a fight for conservative policies at all, unless one cares only about judicial nominees and a lone tax cut; it’s been about the repeated tyrannical use of government power. At this point I'm not sure that all of Mr Trump's base understands what traditional Republican tennets are.
And what of states rights? Is that no longer a Republican stance?
During an evening news briefing in 2020, Then President Trump declared that he, and not individual governors and mayors, would make the decision about when and how to reopen the country. Explaining his authority by stating that “[w]hen somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total,” President Trump claimed vast executive powers in relation to the ongoing fight against COVID-19, including the power to reopen businesses, send children back to school, and end stay-at-home orders.
Let's not forget also, that Mr Trump has changed his political party affiliation five times since 1987. But maybe that explains Why so many would not consider him traditionally Republican."At this point I'm not sure that all of Mr Trump's base understands what traditional Republican tennets are."
I'm convinced nobody in the Democrat party does.
I don't understand why Ivana and her husband don't disown Trump for his anti-sematic stupidity. Tropes like these have led to the killing of millions of Jews worldwide. We know another infamous person who talked like this back in the 1930s, don't we?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/politics … index.htmlRemember your kast big conspiracy Trump's taxes. Predicting Trump would be charged. Has he been charged with any form of a tax crime? New York has his taxes... Has he been charged? You seem hell-bent on getting this man arrested for something. Don't you feel at some point you should stop all of this? The Democrats have made fools of themselves needlessly with all this BS. This is destroying their credibility, and hurting the country IOM. One would wonder how anyone would want to be associated with such a political party. I must shake my head...
Did you read somewhere they shut down their investigation into Trump? I haven't. In fact, I just read they are now trying to depose him for what amounts to tax evasion coupled with bank fraud.
I would think that the fact that Trump is under investigation for a multitude of criminal activity would give you a clue that this man is a criminal, whether he has been formally convicted or not.
Will he be convicted of some of the following:
1. E. Jean Carroll Defamation and Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation
2. Mary Trump Fraud Litigation
3. Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action (for using the Trump brand to scam investors)
4. DC Civil Suit over Misuse of 2017 Inauguration Funds
5. Reps. Karen Bass et al. Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
6. Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
7. Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
8. Second Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
9. NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Voting Rights Case for Post-Election Actions
10. New York Attorney General’s Civil and Criminal Investigations
11. Scotland Unexplained Wealth Orders
12. Trump Tower Assault Suit
13. Criminal Investigations into Trump’s Finances
14. DC AG Incitement Criminal Investigation
15. Fulton County, Georgia Criminal Election Influence Investigation
16. Westchester, New York Criminal Investigation of Trump Organization Golf Course
https://www.justsecurity.org/75032/liti … ald-trump/
The only fools are those whitewashing Trump's illegal activities. Yet you are associated with the Republican Party which has morphed into the anti-American, anti-democratic, conspiracy theory party. I seriously don't think the GOP will survive Trump and will go the way of the Federalist Party.Again with all these words, they add up to THUS far zero... another big puzzle that as of yet you can't complete.
With all of what you call illegal activities, the man has not been chat=rged with a crime in his life. You accuse him without a foundation of facts or an arrest.
You again predict --- I will predict the Republican party will survive, and sweep in 2022. Beyond that, I will wait and see what the 2024 primaries bring.
Just an opinion I don't think anything will come from the Jan 6th committee but more rhetoric for left media. And this kind of rhetoric is getting old, and IMO harmful to their party. They are becoming the party of crazy conspiracies if one were to ask me." You accuse him without a foundation of facts or an arrest." - So you want us to believe you would never accuse Al Capone or Un or Xi or Putin or Hitler or Stalin or ... of killing people? After all, none of them have ever been arrested or convicted of killing people. So, using your reasoning, none of them ever did it. To me, that is not a tenable position to take when the evidence is obvious with all of those I named as well as Trump for most of what he is in court for or being investigated for.
You certainly could be right able about the Republican Party, but I hope not. I also hope what the real Republicans will do is form another party.Is that response to imply that "you DO want us to believe you would never accuse Al Capone or Un or Xi or Putin or Hitler or Stalin or ... of killing people?" ?
Do you believe the outcome of two impeachments, a made-up Russian dossier, and now a made-up insurrection? All these vile investigations fell flat, no there -there... That is factual.
Deleted
But, Conservatives , apparently believe it is not right or Constitutional to "check" a president, if it is a Republican president, lol.
This is really funny --- In my view, you can well bet if the Republicans sweep in 2022 they will play the same gameplay --- And investigate the hell out of Hunter, and the cherry on top -- they will certainly make every attempt to impeach Biden. You see they learned from the pros... Democrats. Can or will they be as vile? Most likely. Hey, remember I said this.
Will I derive satisfaction from what goes around comes around? No, I will not, I will find it just as distasteful. Because,I have been well able to stick to my values, and keep a sound head about me." You see they learned from the pros..." - That is cute. You forget who started this with the Clinton impeachment. The difference is, the Democrats had real presidential crimes to work with. The fact that enough highly partisan, frightened Republican senators didn't vote their conscience doesn't alter the fact that Trump violated the Constitution. O.J. Simpson was left off of murder for the same reason, it doesn't mean he didn't actually do it.
It will be sad if you derive satisfaction from a revenge impeachment (unless there is really something there, there) based on - well nothing other than revenge.This makes me laugh. Clinton's impeachment was no witchhunt... Ya may forget we had a "blue Dress", and a woman that gave such a disruption of how her blue dress became soiled. I am shocked you would bring old Bill's impeachment into this conversation.
I was referring to the lessons the Rep learned from the Trump impeachments.Impeached for infidelity. Technically, for lying to Congress about that infidelity. Talk about partisan reasoning. The origins of weaponizing oversight.
Really? I did not say anything about infidelity. I mentioned the dress that held the sperm that showed him to be lying to congress, as well as a live female giving an account of how the sperm got onto her dress. I guess I should have offered a very clear scenario.
Thought you would have gotten my point. It was the sperm that showed him to be a liar.
Did I miss something was Trump impeached for infidelity or lying to Congress? No
I am not sure Clinton's impeachment need even be brought into a discussion about Trump being accused of insurrection.
Let me remind you --- Congress tried to impeach Trump for inciting a riot
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump was acquitted Saturday of inciting the horrific attack on the U.S. Capitol, concluding a historic impeachment trial that spared him the first-ever conviction of a current or former U.S. president but exposed the fragility of America’s democratic traditions and left a divided nation to come to terms with the violence sparked by his defeated presidency." NOTE THE WORD ACQUITTED.
Congress tried and failed, why in the world do you feel Trump needs to be dragged through the mud once again. There was a trail they lost, move on.You didn't say anything about infidelity while bringing up the evidence of that infidelity. So, my point is that he was impeached for lying about infidelity. After a partisan commission was formed. Which goes to Eso's point that your claim that this just started with the Democrats is just more partisanship of denial.
I think my comment with ECO was clear, we were discussing Trump, and all the previous Democrat accusations to include the two impeachments. I pointed out the Republicans could or most likely will impeach Biden due to learning well from how they tried to impeach Trump twice.
In my view, the Republicans did learn in the last 5 years to fight back using the same weapons. Too bad the Democrats played such ugly games. They will now most likely have their own vile tactics played against them.
I mean come on the writing is on the wall if they sweep 2022, the Dems are such toast. So is Biden in my view?You truly have an amazing gift for changing history to fit your narrative. The real history is the Republicans played those "ugly games" many years ago.
On the other hand, the Democrats did what any America loving set of politicians should do when you have an obviously out of control president in office.
If they didn't, they should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Hey, you don't believe the 16 women accusing Trump of similar things. Why do you believe this one now. That is a mighty inconsistent wouldn't you say?
Yes, I noted the word acquitted. That does not mean he is innocent. Why does it not matter to you that a majority of Senators, including 7 Republicans Why are you married to a technicality? Like with Simson, all thinking people know Trump is guilty.
Why, because Trump stonewalled the initial investigation. Lot's of facts are now coming out that Trump, with obvious good reason, kept hidden. He can't stonewall this one - the truth will come out.
You're right - impeached for lying to Congress. A crime.
As opposed to impeaching Trump for what never happened. And you want to talk about partisan reasoning?Deleted
Glad Wilderness can still see that a crime was committed despite Clinton not being convicted during an impeachment trial. But I guess that can only happen when it's a Democrat being impeached.
You may have missed the point... This kind of politicking is nonproductive on both sides.
However, was Clinton investigated repeatedly for the same accusations? Congress conducted an impeachment trial --- WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump was acquitted Saturday of inciting the horrific attack on the U.S. Capitol, concluding a historic impeachment trial that spared him the first-ever conviction of a current or former U.S. president but exposed the fragility of America’s democratic traditions and left a divided nation to come to terms with the violence sparked by his defeated presidency.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump … 954baba452
The FBI as well as the DOJ have and still are investigating the violent riot that occurred on Jan 6th.
Congress had a go at proving Trump incited the riot with a trial.
In my view, this is a political ploy. Is this kind of ploy good for the country?
We have our best Federal agencies investigating, should we not be able to trust these agencies? Do we need a second go at the riot from Congress?
I must ask, where do you head after this investigation if it does not provide the outcome some want? Where?
Factually we have two Government agencies on the case, people that are paid to conduct just these kinds of investigations. Why do you feel Congress could do a better job -- And who do we believe if the FBI and DOJ come out with opposing views of what occurred?
The logic of this kind of partisanship is destructive no matter what party is in the driver's seat. If we support it, we will be bound to see it from both parties.
Makes me wonder if Republicans sweep in 2022 will we see Biden impeached at just the appropriate time, to score political points.
In my view "we the people have been sucked into an ugly game, and some truely don't realize they are even part of the game.
Hey, in my view the Trump insurrection investigations have been played out, if there is nay there - there, I feel the FBI will uncover it. Congress is playing the ugly game let's feed our sheep."However, was Clinton investigated repeatedly for the same accusations? " - No, but new evidence never came out, did it? With Trump, while a handful of partisan Republicans let Trump off the hook, there was much more to learn about WHY Jan 6th happened. And now we are going to find out even if you do not want to know the truth.
Why do you keep saying I feel the FBI will uncover it. when you absolutely know that is NOT what they are investigating. ONLY the select committee is.[/i]
All the Clinton impeachment did was highlight that Congress determined that lying about infidelity was not grounds to remove a sitting president.
What never happened? Pretty sure the things he was impeached for happened in the eyes of those not living in a constant state of denial about them as was shown in testimony. Looking at the partisan result as a claim that things did not happen is bold, even for one who lies as much as you do.If they had happened then he would have been removed from office. He wasn't; ergo it never happened. Only a pretense by Democrats to remove a political rival.
Certainly the charges were severe enough (collusion with Putin to throw the election) to warrant not only removal but imprisonment. Neither happened; the only possible conclusion is that the accusation was false. As a falsehood (given the political grandstanding at the time) the only possible conclusion is that Democrats just wanted that rival gone, and were willing to make trumped up charges to try and accomplish that. At least for honest people that's the only possible conclusion.So you are saying Clinton did not lie to Congress? Because if he did commit a crime, he should have been removed from office, right?
And there you go again into your false reality of not honesty, but dishonesty.
Trump was not impeached for colluding with Putin in either impeachment. And I have consistently stated that Trump's Campaign did collude with Russia, but somehow you and other idiots change the wording in some straw man attempt to change what was meant to focus on just Trump. And despite your denials and lies, that was fully proven.
Trump has been accused of Obstructing Justice however, a crime, and protecting Russia during that investigation. I would enjoy seeing that trial to determine his guilt or innocence."ergo it never happened. " - Exactly what does that mean?
What "pretense"?
As much as you try to change history, you can't. Let's center you to reality again.
1. Mueller was NOT investigating Trump for colluding with Putin
2. Mueller WAS investigating the Trump campaign's possible collusion with the Russian.
3. Try to keep those straight when arguing a point.
"Neither happened; the only possible conclusion is that the accusation was false. " - Actually, that is not even close to being true, is it? Mueller was VERY clear that he found LOTS of interactions between the Trump CAMPAIGN and the Russians or their surrogates. (One of them, Manafort's, I maintain actually crossed the line to conspiracy, but he chose not to charge that with everything else he had). What he DIDN'T HAVE was ENOUGH evidence to convict the others beyond a reasonable doubt If this was a civil trial then Mueller could have had him (and maybe still does) since you only need preponderance of the evidence.
What was the lie to Congress that Clinton was impeached for?
The problem is, what Trump was impeached for DID happen. That was proven sufficiently well that a majority of Senators wanted Trump convicted. You just want to ignore it.
Hell, the Republicans did no investigation whatsoever, they were in such a hurry to impeach Clinton before the midterms thinking that would gain them a ton of seats in the House (they lost five).
There were two articles of impeachment: 1) lying to a grand jury and 2) obstruction of justice. After a bit of research, I have to change my opinion on the impeachability of lying to a grand jury - it is. What I believe I was thinking of is that nobody but the Republicans impeaching Clinton thought it rose to the level of impeachment; which the Senate agreed with later on - it didn't rise to that level.
This is interesting since the Republicans relied 100% on the Starr report for its information (they conducted no independent investigation).
In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his first Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made to justify Clinton's impeachment. Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clinton's impeachment. In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress, and stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for
Deleted
Congress did do its job with an impeachment trial. No, I don't agree they have the right due to not getting the outcome they desired to have a second investigation. Their job requirement was fulfilled. I used the words witch hunt and hoax because these words best suit what I think is underway. I in no respect can justify the Congress doing this investigation.
They had the first shot, and I don't feel it fair to continue to badger Trump with a second investigation. Many seem to ignore we have our two best agencies the FBI and DOJ investigating the Jan 6th riot. I truely trust them to be non-partisan and do their jobs.
I don't object to Congress doing investigations, I object to them being bad losers and needing to do a second investigation, and ignore the fact we have professionals on the job.
I at this point see this Congressional investigation as a witch hunt and an ugly political ploy.Deleted
McConnell is a very confusing man. First he shoots down a bi-partisan commission then, apparently after seeing what is being developed, he is all for Pelosi's Select Committee.
And now the Republicans have declared that if they take back the Senate, they will block any Biden Supreme Court pick. Very American of them.I see where you are coming from, and it is certainly pertinent information. It gives a view into what Leader Mitch McConnell felt from day one about the Jan 6 riot, and what part he felt Trump played in, I would say inciting the riot, and his opinion that Trump was showed "dereliction of duty." And President Trump was practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. Many of us shared all and more of his sentiments.
" McConnell argued the Senate could not convict Trump because he had left office before the Senate trial.
"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he’s in office,” McConnell said.
Which is the truth. We currently have the Capitol riot being investigated. I can see your point that the FBI and DOJ are conducting crimes, not all the "whys" that the riot occurred.
It is very clear they are looking to connect Trump to a legitimate plan to over through the Government. I truly feel if this occurred the FBI will discover that, due to being the agency that has rounded up those that committed crimes. My common sense tells me if a plan was sent out from the White House it would have been outed thus far, and that would have come from our law enforcement agencies. We differ in what we want to see from these investigations, that is clear. I certainly want to ascertain what laws were broken, in regards to anyone involved --- Trump, his administration, and the actual people that did break the law in the riot. I do not want or do I search for unproven accusations that can't be proved with factual information. I don't want to decipher what an email or text may have meant... I do not want a big puzzle that just won't fit but almost fits... It is clear the Committee will continue and will dig up little smoking
guns. I like facts. If they produce facts I will be first to recognize a fact or facts.
All the Congressional committees can provide thus far is inuendos, "He may have" scenarios. They are pushing unprovable conjecture. I for one think this is not fair in any respect. he said this, here is an email, here is a text... I find "what if's" unjust, distasteful, and shows a form of insult to one's intelligence.
On the Senate floor, Leader McConnell suggested Mr. Trump could be liable in civil and criminal court for his alleged actions and said the vote "does not condone anything that happened."
McConnell's statement is warranted, it's his view. And yes, if one feels there is proof to accuse anyone including Trump of a civil or criminal crime they should file such a lawsuit. You do realize the DOJ could do just that. They could charge Trump with anything they feel they could prove. The bottom line is one needs evidence, not conjecture.
So, in my opinion, we do not need a Congressional investigation to produce "if come", unprovable fodder. I realize many stive on these investigations and fodder. I find this Congressional investigation harmful to our democracy.
On the other hand, I fully support Congress's right to conduct investigations. So no need to make an attempt to prove Congress has the right to investigate, this is part of their job. What I am saying is -- I don't support this particular investigation. As I said IMO it's a political ploy. And I believe it's continuing to promote a divide in our citizens.
It would seem we will need to agree to disagree. We are very far apart ideology-wise on this one...I tend to view the current select committee as much the same as the 9/11 commission. And the committees document clearly outlines its purpose and function. Getting to the pertinent questions of how and why January 6th occurred as well as the response to it and using this information to guide better responses and possible legislation.
The difference? Republicans in the Senate blocked the plan for the independent 9/11 style commission.
The proposed commission was to be modeled on the one established to investigate the 9/11 terror attacks, with 10 commissioners — five Democrats and five Republicans — who would have subpoena powers. A Democratic chair and Republican vice chair would have had to approve all subpoenas with a final report due at the end of the year.
This is actually what the American people deserved but we ended up with the select committee instead.
My patience with government is stretched thin and my faith some of them is hanging by a thread but I still think that they can get this job done. I still believe that there are enough honest and honorable people in Congress. I support the committee because we cannot have something as monumentous as January 6th go by without understanding the nuts and bolts of how it came about, who was involved and how we can better react to something like that in the future. Just as we delved into to 9/11. Could you imagine if at that time we had just said it happened and we're done with it? We don't need to look at it critically and learn from the events of that day? Again the difference? No one at all applied sinister motives to the 9/11 commission.
The terms "political ploy" or "a committee that is a requirement of Congress and our democracy" would be applied interchangeably depending on which party members are being investigated. To me, that's the real political ploy and sadly it's The American people who are being duped.
As always, I appreciate you elaborating your views They help me expand my own.I think if the Committee on the Jan 6th riot is desired by even some American's it can stand to hopefully give a type of closure to what happened. People have a right to question what made American citizens come to the point of rioting at the capitol.
I think that should concern about the fact Americans would riot at the nation's Capitol.Maybe if you say riot one more time, you can really hammer home the point that you don't agree that the crowd invaded the country's Capitol seeking to half an official proceeding of Congress as they were conducting official business involving the certification of the 2020 election.
The rest of us will keep calling it an insurrection as we don't ignore that very important aspect of the crime.
I see that Sharlee and Wilderness rarely respond to your great wisdom. For good reason, I suspect.
And I was refereing to the lessons the Democrats learned from the Republicans.
If it is not a witch hunt, what was it then? Clinton did not commit an "impeachable" offense. Even IF it were, it pales in comparison to the crimes against the country that Trump committed. (Clinton's crime was not against America and the Constitution) Hell, they couldn't even get a majority of senators to vote to convict, let alone a supermajority. They couldn't even get all of the Republicans to join in on the Republicans little theater.
If infidelity were impeachable, almost all presidents would have been impeached - certainly Trump, lol. But, sadly for you, infidelity is not an impeachable offense. Nor is what he was actually impeached for. He was wrongly impeached for lying in a civil case. Trump, on the other hand was impeached for leading an insurrection in the second case and for strong-arming a foreign power to help him win an election. Both specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The only reason Trump wasn't convicted is that enough Republicans no longer believe in the Constitution nor what it stands for. They only believe in Trump and their sad excuse for a Party.One thing we need not fear Biden will be impeached for is infidelity.
Hey, Trump might very be your next president, and keep you in conspiracies for four more years.
In my view, Republicans will be the ones that stop the Democrats cold from bringing in their form of socialism/communism.
At this point, we still have a Democracy that's to Trump.
The outcome of the two impeachments was just partisanship. Accepting the outcome has nothing to do with facts.
In Trump's first impeachment: 80% of democrats were convinced he broke the law and should have been removed from office compared to just 7% of Republicans. Although 40% of Republicans agreed Trump did something wrong, they just didn't think he should have been removed from office.
In the second impeachment, those numbers only grow. 90% of Democrats wanted conviction while 90% of Republicans did not. But this also includes a party that believed his Big Lie at around 70%.
The Russia Investigation did prove the Trump Campaign coordinated with Russian Intelligence, so not sure why you would deflect to the dossier when it was proven that Trump's Campaign, which he is the head of, did conspire with a hostile foreign government.
Insurrection: A violent uprising against an authority of government.
January 6:
violence? you bet.
authority of government? Congress - yup.
Criminal Sedition: the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.
When Trump sent people to the Capitol, knowing who was in attendance during that rally, the case can certainly be made he incited the revolt with the intent to stop the certification of votes on that day in order to remain in power despite the Constitutionality of someone else being elected."January 6:
violence? you bet.
authority of government? Congress - yup." - I tried that. Maybe repetition will break through, lolYou can dance around with tons of words. Do you believe the outcome of two impeachments, a made-up Russian dossier, and now a made-up insurrection? All these vile investigations fell flat, no there -there... That is factual.
The outcomes are what matter. Trump acquitted of two Impeachment. The Mueller investigation produced no charges toward Trump, and this new venture IMO will produce nothing. It will give many a new page to put in their conspiracy book. That's all Jack
We have argued every point in your comment, it's very clear we are at a place we must just disagree. I sure am not willing to fall in step with conspiracy witch hunts.
Youn should keep that comment for copy and paste purposes. It would save you time in the years to come.The investigations definitely did not fall flat. Each and every one showed a man unfit to be re-elected who skirted the laws of our country and a Republican party willing to allow his lawlessness.
The Mueller investigation produced no charges against Trump because Trump was shielded by DOJ guidelines. Another technicality.
And no, we did not argue every point, you clearly are unable to discuss the definitions of insurrection and criminal sedition because they are exactly what happened on January 6. What you call 'dancing around with words' is educating you on the actual definitions of the things you deny."The investigations definitely did not fall flat. Each and every one showed a man unfit to be re-elected who skirted the laws of our country and a Republican party willing to allow his lawlessness."
Can only share a view --- No I feel it left some believing many things that were not proven to be true, and they still dredge them up frequently, even though the accusations were not proven to be true.
Yes, he did not win, and yes there are many that thrive on the unfounded unproven accusations in regard to Trump.
Mueller had the staff, the money, the time to complete a good investigation. He was professional, we had a few leaks. We got a report, Trump was not charged with anything. THE END
Well, I don't feel it is of that much importance that you or I completely understand the definition of insurrection. I put my trust in two of our best Federal law enforcement agencies to ascertain if there was an insurrection. Thus far they have not labeled the riot an insurrection, that would be the media.
I don't find them as reliable as the FBI or DOJ, just funny that way.
We have a system, innocent until proven guilty. I am going to hold on to that concept. I find the alternative very much unacceptable.
I can assure you I know the definition of insurrection, as I am sure does the agents at the FBI and DOJ. How about we trust them?"THE END" - And there is a great example of Obtuseness. The FACT that Mueller COULD NOT charge Trump apparently doesn't enter into the thought process, the reasoning to come to that conclusion. ALL that mattered was that Mueller didn't charge him.
It also apparently doesn't matter to a Trumper that Mueller all but told Congress to impeach Trump for the obstruction, which for some unfathomable reason the House did not do nor does it seem likely that DOJ is going to prosecute him for it.
The whole defense here is hanging its hat on the fact that it was impossible for Mueller to indict and somehow they impute that Mueller didn't want to indict."
It is clear you do not know the definition of insurrection since you won't label what happened on Jan 6 as such. What has trusting the FBI have to do with a definition?
Do you trust a DOJ prosecutor who spoke out of turn? [i]Former District of Columbia acting US Attorney Michael Sherwin, who oversaw the Capitol riot cases until March, previously made clear he was pushing for seditious conspiracy charges. Why has DOJ not pursed those charges which this prosecutor wanted to use? Who knows, but I bet it has something to do with sticking with those charges, with similar penalties, that are easier to prove.
Then there is this by a judge worried about the death threats they are getting from Republicans.
The judge described the insurrection in dark terms and said his decision, and the large fine, were meant to deter people in the future from lying about elections and threatening democracy.
"It does threaten the future of our democracy," Walton said. "Democracies die, and we're (sic) seen it in the past, when the citizens rise up against their government and engage in the type of conduct that happened on January 6." Now, I suspect one of the sharpshooters here will try to point out that the judge didn't use the word "insurrection" itself. Then tell me what else he is talking about?
And a majority of Senators supported that view.
Yes, I definitely believe the two impeachments. I also realize that the majority of senators voted to impeach in the trial. I also know that that the vast majority of Republican senators were too partisan or scared to vote for impeachment.
It has never been proven in a court of law (to use your tactic). It has just ]recently been shown that one small, non-material, part was fabricated by an operative. None of the rest has been proven to be false. A lot of the dossier has been verified as true. You are just repeating right-wing propaganda about the dossier.
"All these vile investigations fell flat, no there -there..." - You are hoping that is going to be true. Therefore, your statement is not factual.
Once again, whether or not you wish to believe it, what took place on Jan 6 was, by definition an insurrection."Yes, I definitely believe the two impeachments. I also realize that the majority of senators voted to impeach in the trial. I also know that that the vast majority of Republican senators were too partisan or scared to vote for impeachment."
I noted factually Trump was acquitted of two Democrat-led Impeachment.
The dossier has been proven to be drummed up by the Dem party bought and paid for. I think it's been well proven that this was a Dem hoax that fell through. But you hold onto whatever you need to.
Yes, it is my opinion this new crazy will also fall flat. As I predicted all the other crazy Dem's crazy political stunts.
I think you really need these kinds of conspiracies, so have at it."I noted factually Trump was acquitted of two Democrat-led Impeachment." - Yes you did. And I showed (factually), that means nothing because the "jury" as neither fair nor impartial. So I hang my hat on the FACT that the majority found Trump guilty both times, a larger majority the second time around. It was just a technicality that saved him.
This is crazy --- Please realize standing on a soapbox saying we might not have proved anything factually, but we can still say we did. Technically he was acquitted twice.
I think you might want to worry we see a red wave in 2022 it could lead to Biden being impeached, and I hate to venture he won't be acquitted but removed.If you want to get into technicalities, he was not found innocent, which is what I think you are trying to say. In this case, he was simply not convicted (they didn't even find him not guilty). A decision not to convict, an acquittal, or a finding of not guilty is NOT the same thing as an a finding of innocent. All it says is the prosecution couldn't prove something beyond a reasonable (or in this case a political) doubt. He, like Simpson, was clearly guilty. You just had enough unpatriotic senators that didn't have the balls to say he was.
The prosecution PROVED a lot factually - enough to get more than a majority of Senators to Convict him of it. It simply didn't meet a supermajority threshold. To say that another way, 57% of the Senators found Trump guilty, while only 43% chose to follow Trump (we don't know whether they actually thought Trump was guilty, I imagine many did but were to scared to say so.)
How does that not convince you Trump was more likely guilty than not? I just can't understand your reasoning unless you are so under Trump's spell you can't reason.
Could Biden be impeached by a vengeful Republican House on some trumped up charge, of course. Will he be convicted? NO, by a large margin, I suspect.
I don't know whether to worry or not about the anti-democrats taking over the House. Initially, the odds are against them because a Democrat is in the presidency, and for no other reason. So, that historical bias must be overcome.
Since Manchin just killed any chance for the Democrats to have a great record to run on then it seems the only hope the Democrats have is what the Jan 6 committee finds and how incriminating that is and a good economy with low inflation again.
I don't have high hopes for fixing the damage Republicans did to voting rights either, and for the same reason - Joe Manchin.
To win, the Democrats will need to be something they haven't been since Obama was first elected - organized, focused on the prize, and motivated.
While Democrats (since WW II anyway) have been very adept at running the country and providing for a good economy, they have a terrible time convincing people it was them that did it.
Biden and the other powerful Ds should be beating the Red bushes touting all that they have done for them and clearly pointing out how their legislation has helped. Clearly, they won't convince any Trump voters since they don't use their brains anyway, but they need to press hard on the right-leaning independent voters who still can critically think.
Will revelations of Trump's crimes in office never end?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/19/politics … index.htmlI watched the entire interview not spliced snippets--- He did not in any respect say he was pressured to support any form of medication or did he say he was asked to fire Fauci. This is once again taking a man's words and adding their own context. The quotes they used only need to be put in the context of the complete sentences before the quote. Hopefully, he will put out a statement today to clarify this CNN hit job.
Can't wait until CNN initiates the new format. This is full-out disgusting.
"Washington (CNN)The outgoing director of the National Institutes of Health said Sunday that he faced political pressure from then-President Donald Trump and other Republicans to endorse unproven Covid-19 remedies such as hydroxychloroquine and to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Dr. Francis Collins, whose last day as NIH director is Sunday, told CBS News that he got a "talking to" by Trump, but that he held his ground and would have resigned if Trump made him endorse remedies for Covid-19 that were not based in science.
"I have done everything I can to stay out of any kind of political, partisan debates because it is really not a place where medical research belongs," he said. "I was not going to compromise scientific principles to just hold onto the job."
Trump frequently touted hydroxychloroquine as a potential Covid-19 cure, and he claimed while in office to have used it himself even as medical experts and the US Food and Drug Administration questioned its efficacy and warned of potentially harmful side effects. In June 2020, the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization for both hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for the treatment of Covid-19, saying it determined the drugs were unlikely to be effective in treating Covid-19 based on the latest scientific evidence.
CNN has reached out to the office of the former President for comment on Collins' interview.
Collins also said he fought back calls from Republicans for him to fire Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert who now serves as President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser.
"Can you imagine a circumstance where the director of the NIH, somebody who believes in science, would submit to political pressures and fire the greatest expert in infectious disease that the world has known, just to satisfy political concerns?" he said.
Fauci has faced harsh criticism from Republicans, including Trump, during the pandemic, with the longtime public servant being assailed for what they see as an overly cautious approach to the crisis and his occasional reversal on some key issues, including mask-wearing.
Collins said on Sunday that during his 12 years serving as NIH director, one thing he would have studied more carefully is hesitancy.
"I did not imagine there would be 60 million people who, faced with compelling evidence of the life-saving nature of Covid vaccines, would still say, 'No, not for me,'" he said."
Collin did not in any respect say he was asked to support any form of medication. He was asked if he would resign "IF ASKED" would he support something he did not believe in. Which he answered with a direct statement of what he would do, not what he did..."He did not in any respect say he was pressured to support any form of medication" - Then you and I must have watched different things. Also, please reread the headline. First, he was very clear, in response to the question about Trump pressuring him to advocate unproven therapies, that Trump was very unhappy with his decision to follow the science and not endorse the cure de jeur. Second, it wasn't that he was "asked" by Trump or his cronies to fire Fauci, but the interview clearly shows he was pressured to do so. Third, the quotes you offered support the CNN headline, not refute it.
Watch the actual interview that was on CBS yesterday Morning watch it in full... CNN took an interview and murdered Collen's words. I am so glad you posted this article, anyone that wants to see the full scope of what CNN does should watch the full interview. You need to start researching some of the articles you post. In my view, this article is spreading disinformation. Collins also did an article with Fox on Friday which totally gives the context he offered in the CBS interview.
Watch the interview in full with all the context before and after sentences that give the context of Collins's words. https://www.cbsnews.com/sunday-morning/Thank you for posting this interview. That was really inspiring. What a wonderful man both professionally and personally. Incredibly accomplished but boy you could really see the passion for his work. I'm glad he's getting some positive attention where others have been absolutely vilified. In the past we've rarely seen the individuals who are doing unbelievable work within our government. Kudos to him.
I did hear him say that he got a talking to from Mr Trump. I can understand why he wouldn't elaborate on that.
I appreciate his straightforward comments in the following article also
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru … -real-enemYes, my point --- he did not elaborate. And perhaps it's not wise for the general public to read into what he was referring to. He walked a fine line, and one certainly could read into his words. But should we as the CNN headline? "Outgoing NIH director says Trump and other Republicans pressured him to endorse unproven Covid-19 remedies and to fire Fauci"
I did not hear him confirm these accusations.
This was my beef with the article. The interview was one I watched yesterday morning. It was a very nice interview for this man to end his time with the NIH.
I felt CNN garbaged the interview up. With a blurb headline, and a short few words to feed those that like dirty laundry.
OH, that's what Media is now best known for. Gotta pay the bills.
It should be noted that Trump is STILL trying to overturn the election.
New study shows US closer to a civil war since the last Civil War. My take is that Trump's insurrection is the reason.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … vn-vpx.cnnThis interview was incredibly sobering. Particularly with the threat of Mr Trump choosing to run in the 2024 election. That could be the tipping point in my opinion. Sadly, maybe that's been his goal all along.
I hadn't paid too much attention to this until I saw an interview on CNN with one of the retired generals who authored this exceptionally scary op-ed in the Washington Post.
If, after reading and listening to this, thinks that the danger to our country from Trump is very real then they are an ostrich with their head in the sand or anti-American, one or the other!
It is time, I think to start identifying Trump acolytes in our military ranks and separating them.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ip-vpx.cnn
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/u … il-war-in/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 78961.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 78961.html
https://www.news-journal.com/retired-ge … 8b821.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … -military/Who are these generals?
Paul D. Eaton is a retired U.S. Army major general and a senior adviser to VoteVets. Antonio M. Taguba is a retired Army major general, with 34 years of active duty service. Steven M. Anderson is a retired brigadier general who served in the U.S. Army for 31 years.
What Did They Say?
For starters: "In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time."
Note that they think there was a coup attempt on Jan 6, 2021
Their lead in is this:
"As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we — all of us former senior military officials — are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk."
Speaking of our military: "But without constant maintenance, the potential for a military breakdown mirroring societal or political breakdown is very real."
The signs are there: " On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol.
"A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name “Flag Officers 4 America,” released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections."
"...more worrying, Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, the commanding general of the Oklahoma National Guard, refused an order from President Biden mandating that all National Guard members be vaccinated against the coronavirus."
The Bottom Line - "The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines — from the top of the chain to squad level — is significant should another insurrection occur. "
Further - "The lack of military preparedness for the aftermath of the 2020 election was striking and worrying. "
What To Do - Hold people accountable! - "First, everything must be done to prevent another insurrection. Not a single leader who inspired it has been held to account."
"But the military cannot wait for elected officials to act. The Pentagon should immediately order a civics review for all members — uniformed and civilian — on the Constitution and electoral integrity."
"all military branches must undertake more intensive intelligence work at all installations. The goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers; guard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command; and understand how that and other misinformation spreads across the ranks after it is introduced by propagandists."
"Finally, the Defense Department should war-game the next potential post-election insurrection or coup attempt to identify weak spots. "
More evidence the Republicans are doubling down on the coup Trump started by 1) being even more restrictive on voting rights and 2) promulgating Trump's [b]Big Lie[/i]
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics … index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics … index.html"A refusal to endorse the legitimacy of Biden's victory has become a key requirement in Republican primaries across the country. From conservative Alabama to the swing states of the Midwest, numerous Republicans trying to win party nominations in 2022 have joined former President Donald Trump in refusing to publicly admit that Trump just plain lost.
Some candidates are aggressive, turning the lie that Trump was the rightful winner into a central part of their campaign pitches. Other candidates are evasive, straining to sidestep a direct answer on the question of Biden's legitimacy.
Both approaches are dishonest. And both are evidence of a disturbing fact about the state of the Republican Party: you'll find it very hard to win a 2022 primary if you decide to openly acknowledge the truth about Biden's fair-and-square victory"
Let's hope that truth and reality prevail. This is just mind-blowing. It's an alternate reality. It's so hard to wrap your head around the fact that people could be led to believe these sorts of lies. The indoctrination of Mr. Trump's base is appalling.And, as it turns out, fund raising off of the "Big Lie" may lead to wire fraud charges.
With any luck "You'll find it very hard to win a 2022 primary if you decide to openly acknowledge the truth about Biden's fair-and-square victory" will help nullify the hole the Democrats are facing in the 2022 mid-terms.
As the Jan 6 commission uncovers more information, the talk of criminally referring Donald Trump is getting louder.
Initially, the commission simply wanted to get to the bottom of how and why the insurrection happened. But with Meadows' revelations it has become clearer that Trump might be criminally responsible for what happened that day. Based on what they have uncovered so far (that we know of) two possible charges stand out:
1. Wire Fraud based on the fact that Trump and other Republicans raised millions of dollars off assertions that the election was stolen, despite knowing the claims were not true, and
2. Obstruction of an Official Proceeding.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/20/us/p … erral.htmlWhile Republican's stymie Democratic efforts to combat the anti-democratic repressive Republican state voter laws, Biden and Schumer have quickly been filling judgeships with ones that understand the importance of everyone being able to vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/opinions … index.htmlAs part of their mandate, the Select Committee is trying to figure out a set of recommendations that will Trump-Proof future certifications. Many scholars think that is impossible since any law passed that binds Congress depends on the "honor system". The problem, of course, is when a Party and their losing president have no "honor" as we are seeing today with Trump and the Republicans.
Color me simple-minded, but it seems that the answer is in the 12th Amendment itself. Among other things, it requires that
1. The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, ... , and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-
Even with all of the extra words, that seems pretty straight-forward to me. The Electors gather, they vote, they make a list, they seal it, and they send it to the Vice President. As far as that part of the process, where is the ambiguity?
Next,
2. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; - So where is the ambiguity in that?
Any law passed to implement the 12th Amendment must incorporate those mandates - BOOM
Any law which provides for a deviation from that would, IMHO, by unconstitutional. For example, the part in the Electoral Count Act that allows congress people to "challenge" a states certification seems blatantly unconstitutional. So it would seem to me when the Democrats did it to prove a point or the Republicans just did it in order to overturn the election, that would be in violation of the strict wording of the 12th Amendment - meaning that when the Democrats did it and the Republicans did it, it was unconstitutional!
If that is true, then what the Republicans attempted to do on certification day was unconstitutional (but not a coup as they were using the law and the official proceedings in an attempt to subvert the outcome of the election). BUT, what Trump and his army did on that day was a coup/ insurrection since they succeeded for many hours to violently stop the functioning of government, or, as many are charged with "Obstructing an Official Proceeding"
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/0 … nge-526168"If that is true, then what the Republicans attempted to do on certification day was unconstitutional (but not a coup as they were using the law and the official proceedings in an attempt to subvert the outcome of the election). BUT, what Trump and his army did on that day was a coup/ insurrection since they succeeded for many hours to violently stop the functioning of government, or, as many are charged with "Obstructing an Official Proceeding"
What Republicans? Can you be more specific? What representatives tried to stop certification on that day?Even after the mob of Mr. Trump's supporters swarmed and entered the Capitol, a handful of Republican senators and more than 100 Republican representatives stood by their decisions to vote against certifying the results of the presidential election. Their decisions to make these objections really suggested just how some were shockingly comfortable with undermining the democratic process.
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrecti … lege-count
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/p … ation.htmlI guess you wouldn't have heard about this from your right-wing propaganda sources. Contained herein are the 147 Republicans who voted not to certify the election. Were it not for the insurrection, there would have been more, but a few Republicans were so horrified by the assault on them, they changed their mind.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … ctors.htmlHere is a good description of factually what happened in regard to the Election certification, and all the objections that were heard leading up to the certification and on the day of the certification. And the final outcome.
Plus, Objections to the electoral votes had virtually no chance of success, as Democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives. Although the Senate had a Republican majority, there was no committed majority of Republicans for overturning the election results. Those that were objecting had ever right to bring forth their objections to being heard and debated, which was done. Objections were not unconstitutional.
Jan 6, 2021 --- "The joint session of Congress met at 1:00 p.m. EST to count the results of the Electoral College. Prior to the vote, Pence released a letter to Congress which denied the assertion that Pence, as the presiding officer of the count, had "unilateral authority" to overturn any state results.
The results from each state were opened and read one at a time, in alphabetical order. The results of Alabama and Alaska were read without objection. The results of Arizona were then objected to by Paul Gosar (AZ-4) and Ted Cruz (TX). Because of the objection, the joint session adjourned at 1:15 p.m. to allow each chamber to debate and vote on the objection.
During the debate of Arizona's votes, Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol at approximately 2:15 p.m. and members of the House of Representatives and Senate were promptly evacuated from the Capitol by Capitol Police, and Congress was placed under lockdown. The District of Columbia National Guard, as well as the National Guards and state police of the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland, were activated within the hour. At approximately 5:40 p.m., the Sergeant-at-Arms announced that the Capitol building had been secured. Congress then reconvened at 8:00 p.m. and politicians from both parties condemned both Trump and the rioters' failed insurrection.
Before the session resumed, at 7:00 p.m. Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, left a voice message to Senator Mike Lee by mistake, as the intended recipient was Senator Tommy Tuberville. Lee subsequently released the message to the public. In the message, Giuliani is heard saying: "I know they're reconvening at 8 tonight, but it ... the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow – ideally until the end of tomorrow." The legal or tactical purpose of the attempted delay is not clear, but may have been to form the basis of another legal challenge if the certification could not have been finalized on the 6th. Senator Tuberville was not aware of the message intended for him until after it became public. How many other members of Congress received similar calls is not known.
Debate on the objection to Arizona's electoral votes resumed at 8:00 p.m., and both chambers spent some time condemning the storming of the Capitol. The Senate then voted to reject the objection by 6–93 at 10:10 p.m. and was followed by the House rejection by 121–303 at 11:08 p.m. The joint session resumed again shortly afterward where Pence requested the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to report the actions of both, with the written objection being formally rejected, allowing the session to resume for the rest of the states. Objections to the electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada were raised by Republican members of the House but were not sustained because no senator joined the objection. In the case of Georgia, Senator Kelly Loeffler (R–GA) had withdrawn her objection after the unrest. After the failed objection to Michigan's electoral votes, the outstanding planned objections for Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin totaling 36 votes were not sufficient to deny the Biden/Harris ticket the 270 votes needed to win. Representative Jake LaTurner was notified of his positive diagnosis with COVID after the vote on Arizona and went into isolation, missing the Pennsylvania vote.
The next state objected to was Pennsylvania where Scott Perry (PA-10) and Josh Hawley (MO) objected to the results, and the joint session adjourned at 12:15 a.m. The Senate held no further debate and within minutes the Senate rejected the objection by a 7–92 vote. The House held a debate where there was a single instance of disruption during a speech by Conor Lamb (PA-17). An objection by Morgan Griffith (VA-9) to Lamb's words was denied over timeliness, during which Andy Harris (MD-1) and Colin Allred (TX-32) began arguing with each other and ended up confronting each other. The confrontation was broken up and Lamb's speech continued after the disruption. After further debate, the House voted to reject the objection at 3:08 a.m. by a 138-282 vote.
The joint session resumed once again at 3:25 a.m. with the Secretary and the Clerk reporting the results of the vote, formally rejecting the second written objection. The session resumed the tallying of the results. At 3:33 a.m., the electoral votes of Vermont were counted, putting the Biden/Harris ticket over the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the presidency and vice presidency. The final objection was to Wisconsin, but it failed because no senator joined the objection. The joint session was dissolved by Pence at 3:44 a.m.
Republican Congressman Peter Meijer said that several of his Republican colleagues in the House would have voted to certify the votes, but did not out of fear for the safety of their families and that at least one specifically voted to overturn Biden's victory against their conscience because they were shaken by the mob attack that day.
I asked you a simple question ---What Republicans? (once again you blanketed an entire body of individuals). That was my point.
Can you be more specific? (I had hoped you would realize it was a handful that truely was behind that brought forth objections to the counts from several; states.)
What representatives tried to stop certification on that day? ( no one tried to stop the proceedings unlawfully -- Yes, they brought forth objections, those objections were heard, and voted on, and shot down. There was nothing unconstitutional in their actions in regard to bringing forth objections.
I think this article is non-bias and gives a good description of what went on around and up to Jan 6th certification of Biden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Unit … vote_count
There is nothing to substantiate your view that anyone planned a coup or did anything unconstitutional. In my view, Congress worked well on that horrendous day to certify the election and did their job to the letter. They certainly could have refused to hear objections if they felt it unconstitutional. Again why not trust those that are investigating to do their job? You seem to be headed down the path of another unproven conspiracy. Hey, I sure don't know what will come of all this, and I would think, neither do you.
Please think back, you have been down these trails before, and all were dead ends thus far."There was nothing unconstitutional in their actions in regard to bringing forth objections." - Did I say what they did was unconstitutional? No, I didn't. In fact, I said what they did WAS lawful (go back and reread what I wrote). What I DID say is that they attempted to overthrow the results of the election by trying to decertify the legally cast Electoral ballots. In addition, I said that the Electoral Count Act allowed this. But I ALSO said that I think that part of the law is unconstitutional.
So, if you feel like it, you might come up with a comment that addresses what I actual said.
As to "There is nothing to substantiate your view that anyone planned a coup or did anything unconstitutional.". There was already a lot of circumstantial evidence that Trump and several of his WS friends who are now charged with conspiracy were involved (not necessarily together) before the formation of the Select Committee. Since its formation, however, much more evidence has become public that clearly points to a conspiracy between Trump and others to overthrow a free and fair election. But you have to read mainstream media to learn that.
Trust? I do trust the Select Committee to do their job (along with the FBI and DOJ).
No, I don't know FOR SURE what will come out of this, just like I don't know the outcome of a football game where one team is 50 points ahead at half time. But I do have a reasonable expectation that the team that is 50 points ahead will come out on top. From what you say, you would not form any opinion until the fourth quarter is over.Problem is that you have taken a couple of plays after the kickoff, predicted a 50 point difference at half time and extended that to the final winner.
You don't have a single thing on Trump...yet. It's still the first two plays of the game, and shows every sign of being called for rain. Or because the team that did so well the first two plays all broke a leg on the third play. Your "reasonable expectation" is based on only those first two plays, with no score on the board yet."Problem is that you have taken a couple of plays after the kickoff, predicted a 50 point difference at half time and extended that to the final winner." - Try reading what I wrote this time - that is NOT what I said and you shouldn't make things like that up.
So, what do we have on Trump so far?
- His much repeated Big Lie
- His repeated call to actions prior to Jan 6 inciting people "to do something about it" (i.e. the Big Lie or reverse the election
- His frequent calls to come to D.C. on Jan 6 to have a "wild time" and to stop the certification which we now know is part of conspiracy with some of his White House and Congressional enablers.
- His Big Lie speech on Jan 6 which first, based on the videos and audios, clearly incited his mob that he had called together
- His sending them to the Capitol to "stop the steal" and stop the certification.
- We have Fake Fox News hosts beseeching Trump (through Meadows) to stop the riot. Why would they do that unless they thought he had control over it?
- We have one of his sons asking the same thing as the last point
- As new information reveals, Trump purposefully refused to stop the riot/insurrection.
- Then there is the multiple social media posts and testimony from hundreds of rioters saying that it was only because of Trump were they there and doing the violence.
- Then we have what is being called the "paperwork coup", potentially much more dangerous to democracy than the violent insurrection ever was. To quote an Atlantic article:
The violence on January 6 broke a long string of peaceful transfers of power in the United States. If the paperwork coup had worked, though, peace might have prevailed—but the transfer of power might not have happened. - meaning IF Pence had gone along with the conspiracy and did what they were telling him to.
- Remember, Trump told DOJ to declare the election corrupt (since he failed to find any at all) "and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen" - What "rest" you have to ask yourself?
- Trump attempted to replace the head of DOJ with a compliant lackey but was stopped only because staff threatened to resign en mass.
- Trump put extremely heavy pressure on Pence to break the law and not certify the election (and for once in his life, Pence showed great courage and refused)
- Why did Trump consider declaring yet another manufactured National Emergency in order to bypass the election results?
- There are numerous texts and emails from Meadows showing Trump and his loyalists conspiring to figure out a way to cancel the election and keep him in power. I wonder what the committee has that hasn't been revealed yet?
- Why, As it became clear that wasn’t true, and as Trump mounted more desperate efforts to halt the certification process, Attorney General Bill Barr, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, and the lawyers Jay Sekulow and Eric Herschmann ALL abandoned Trump in his attempt to steal the election if they believed Trump wasn't doing something illegal?
Another conclusion from the Atlantic article:
"The surprising thing, which more recent revelations help underscore, is that what looked from the outside like one of Trump’s classic chaotic improvisations was in fact a concerted effort, coordinated among multiple Trump loyalists over a matter of weeks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … -6/620998/
It seems to me those are more than "... a single thing on Trump...yet". It looks very much like I have a whole lot of things, ones that you would have to if you stopped listening to your right-wing propaganda outlets and read more real news.Nice list. Which ones are illegal and Trump was convicted for them? You have a long list (could be expanded to thousands of lines with enough imagination and spin), but not a single one has been proven to be true, and illegal, in a court. Only in your biased mind.
That was the point - you have looked at two plays and determined that your team is so much better that it will win, but the game has barely started. Personally I predict the rest of it will go just as the preceding game did, with one team calling "foul!" on every play but with no response from the referees.Boy, you guys sure are hung up on this "was convicted" thing as the be all and end all. What a silly argument while the trial is STILL going on.
Proven to be true? Actually, most, if not all are "proven" since they come from written documents of one sort or another from original sources.
I see you fell into Sharlee's trap of not reading what I wrote in my sports analogy. Not only are you getting it wrong, you are missing (maybe on purpose) the meaning. Here let me be simplistic for you:
You and Sharlee CLAIM that I am not allowed to make a reasonable assumption as to the outcome of an event, in this case finding Trump guilty. What I gave you was a scenario where, knowing that a football team was 50 points ahead at Half-Time allows me to make a reasonable assumption of who the victor will be. Sometimes that may be a bad prediction, but 9 times out of 10 it is not. Does that help?
That said, I do know there are people who are incapable of intuition (taking a set of facts/circumstances and drawing reasonable conclusions from them). I am guessing you are two of them. I bet defendants would LOVE having you two on a jury, because unless the defendant admits guilt on the stand, you would find reasonable doubt no matter how solid the prosecutions case was.'That said, I do know there are people who are incapable of intuition (taking a set of facts/circumstances and drawing reasonable conclusions from them). I am guessing you are two of them. I bet defendants would LOVE having you two on a jury, because unless the defendant admits guilt on the stand, you would find reasonable doubt no matter how solid the prosecutions case was.'
+1
What I take issue with is the idea underpinning the reporting. Since Watergate, there’s been an assumption that there has to be some secret detail just waiting to be revealed that blows the lid off of this whole thing. The "smoking gun"
But take a moment to consider what we already know. Mr. Trump was sowing doubt about the election results on camera as early as April. He promised his supporters that if he lost, it was only because the election was “rigged.” He refused to concede on election night and lied to claim that he’d actually won. His allies organized rallies across the country in the lead-up to Jan. 6, saying the election was stolen from him. He pressured the Justice Department to declare fraud that didn’t exist. He held a rally on the day Congress was counting the electoral votes and spent the days beforehand publicly and privately pressuring his vice president to declare him the winner. He refused to intervene as the mob tore through the Capitol until it was clear that they were unsuccessful, and even then, he did not condemn his followers.
Yet we’re still talking about supposed burner cellphones and a “possible connection” between Mr. Trump and the insurrection. The connections are clear and aren’t likely to get much clearer. I’d love to be wrong here, but I doubt we are going to get anything on par with President Richard Nixon’s taped order to obstruct justice.
In fact, according to various outlets through the years, Mr. Trump has fired off enough smoking guns to deplete a small arsenal. And yes, that includes several rounds fired prior to and during Jan. 6.
The unfortunate truth is that folks are so busy looking for a smoking gun that they wind up either overlooking or downplaying the mountain of other evidence.
Let's be real focus on the facts: Mr. Trump nearly managed to get the election results overturned — and he’s poised to try again."Mr. Trump was sowing doubt about the election results on camera as early as April. He promised his supporters that if he lost, it was only because the election was “rigged.” He refused to concede on election night and lied to claim that he’d actually won. His allies organized rallies across the country in the lead-up to Jan. 6, saying the election was stolen from him." - Up to THIS point, he just proved in the court of public opinion what an asshole (Faye won't say that, but I will) he is. If he/they did nothing more, then plenty of harm to our democracy but no foul. It did lay the groundwork for prosecution if they carried it any further, however.
Faye's next points, all verifiable (and don't need to be proven in a court of law) is "He pressured the Justice Department to declare fraud that didn’t exist. He held a rally on the day Congress was counting the electoral votes and spent the days beforehand publicly and privately pressuring his vice president to declare him the winner. He refused to intervene as the mob tore through the Capitol until it was clear that they were unsuccessful, and even then, he did not condemn his followers." - [i]Just with THAT, Trump is tip-toeing, if not crossing the line into illegal activity. In both cases Faye brings up, those actions are illegal because Trump is asking somebody to break the law on his behalf{/i].
"In fact, according to various outlets through the years, Mr. Trump has fired off enough smoking guns to deplete a small arsenal. " -
What Trump has created is how democracies are overthrown. Like Putin, like Belisario, like Maduro, like Hussein, like a whole host of dictators, Trump has corrupted enough people to allow like minded autocratic politicians to challenge a democracy that lives only because enough people in positions of authority can be trusted to what is best for democracy.
There is truly no practical difference between those dictators I listed and the cabal that keeps them in power and Trump and the today's Trumplicans.
The state Republicans have gone a long way to creating a structure that will allow them to dictate the outcome of future elections in their states unless the courts can intervene. (I am presuming Manchin will hold tight with his "no changing the filibuster" policy.
Speaking of Manchin. He worries that if the filibuster goes away, then some future Republican majority will walk all over the Democrats and reverse what ever is done. What he doesn't realize is that that is exactly the outcome if he doesn't relent because the Republicans will have rigged many of the elections.
"But I do have a reasonable expectation that the team that is 50 points ahead will come out on top."
Did that team of yours come out ahead pointwise in any of their endeavors to convict Trump of anything? It would seem in the end they only had these "points" in their imagination. Facts or points showed one winner...
It was you that spoke of the 12th amendment and brought in the Constitution, not I. Read your own comment. I seek to point out there has been nothing as of yet that points to anything the Congress did when certifying the election were unconstitutional.
I gave a very good factual source that should cover my opinion on what Congress did in regards to certifying the election, neither party acted to subvert the constitution."Did that team of yours come out ahead pointwise ... " - Try rereading what I wrote, this time with a focus on what I said
" I seek to point out there has been nothing as of yet that points to anything the Congress did when certifying the election were unconstitutional. " - Again, you didn't read what I wrote. Where did I say that it WAS unconstitutional?? You are trying to create disagreement where there isn't any. Why?
"neither party acted to subvert the constitution." - Yet again, you didn't read what I wrote. Where did I say they were trying to subvert the Constitution? What I said was that they were trying to overturn a free and fair election through lawful (but POTENTIALLY unconstitutional) means.
I think the Democrats ought to challenge that section of the Electoral Count Act in court. (Yes, I know they would be arguing against their own actions, even though they were just to make a point).
Apparently, the Select Committee has now found evidence of some sort of financial fraud regarding the insurrection.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/ … index.html"Apparently"? I read the article, and the context is very clear from Cheny she made this claim --- Liz Cheney, the vice-chair of the committee and one of its two Republican members, told ABC News that the panel has "firsthand testimony" that during the attack, Trump's daughter and then-senior adviser Ivanka Trump asked him to intervene. "We know his daughter -- we have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to 'please stop this violence," Do we know how Trump responded?
And where does a crime occur when a presidential adviser gives an opinion to the President? Where is the crime?
"Thompson told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" Sunday: "We have significant testimony that leads us to believe that the White House had been told to do something. We want to verify all of it so that when we produce our report and when we have the hearings, the public will have an opportunity to see for themselves."
He added: "Well, the only thing I can say, it's highly unusual for anyone in charge of anything to watch what's going on and do nothing."
Does the word VERIFY not add context?
And do we know actually what the president may have done to stop the violence? I do know he used social media very early on after the violence broke out. This would be looked at as the quickest way he could address them. “No violence!” adding: “Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.”
And Then there is this --- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congre … 021-05-12/
"May 12 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.
Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.
According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
It would seem the Mayor did not request help to monitor the crowd.
"On Thursday, December 31, says the current accepted narrative, the District of Columbia mayor rang an alarm about protests at the Joint Session of Congress. In fact, the opposite is true. What the mayor did, was ask for the minimal number of National Guardsmen and women to help out the Metropolitan Police Department, and she warned that those troops should be unarmed and not directly involve themselves in any protests.
https://www.newsweek.com/dc-mayor-murie … ed-1661320
What poor Governing... She certainly knew that a Trump rally, as a rule, draws many thousands of supporters. She dropped the ball.Under federal law, the president is the commander-in-chief of the D.C. Guard. The president authorizes the secretary of defense to supervise and control the D.C. Guard while in its militia status (i.e., not deployed overseas). The secretary may order the Guard mobilized to aid D.C. civil authorities, but subject only to the direction of the president.
Thus, while reports circulated about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser requesting the Guard to help restore order, only the president, or his secretary of defense, may have ordered it to do so. The D.C. mayor has no authority and is not in the chain of command of the D.C. Guard. The D.C. metropolitan police did request Guard assistance for crowd control in preparation for the rally that preceded the Jan. 6 riots.
During the violence, Ms. Bowser requested, and received, a limited force of 340 from the D.C. National Guard. Those troops were unarmed and their job was to help with traffic flow — not law enforcement, which was meant to be handled by D.C. police.
Additionally, Ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said that requests for National Guard were denied 6 times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/95554891 … -during-riPerhaps you misunderstood what the president told Miller on Jan 3. "Under federal law, the president is the commander-in-chief of the D.C. Guard. The president authorizes the secretary of defense to supervise and control the D.C. Guard" This is true, and it's very clear Miller spoke to the president in regard to the Mayor's request, and made his own request of Miller to fill her requests, and well as having the guard on that day to protect his own supporter's rights... Not sure what you felt he could have done more, it's plausible he did not think there would be violence and was acting accordingly not knowing if left protesters could show up and the two side clash.
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
He clearly had a conversation with Miller and told him point-blank -"Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
He also According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory. telling Miller to fill her request.
It would seem he allocated Miller to handle crowd control. It will also be curious to know why he did not carry out an order from the president.
I fee Reuters is a responsible source and the context, and quotes are very clear.
Your Quote --"During the violence, Ms. Bowser requested, and received, a limited force of 340 from the D.C. National Guard. Those troops were unarmed and their job was to help with traffic flow — not law enforcement, which was meant to be handled by D.C. police."
Mayor Bowser made her request days before Jan 6th... Not as you claim while the violence was occurring. She made her request on New Year's Eve.
"According to a U.S. defense official, Bowser put in a request on New Year’s Eve to have Guard members on the streets from Jan. 5 to Jan. 7 to help with the protests. The official said the additional forces will be used for traffic control and other assistance but they will not be armed or wearing body armor. Congress is meeting this week to certify the Electoral College results, and Trump has refused to concede while whipping up support for protests.
"Now with downtown D.C. businesses boarding up their windows, Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested a limited National Guard deployment to help bolster the Metropolitan Police Department. During a press conference on Monday, Bowser asked that local area residents stay away from downtown D.C., and avoid confrontations with anyone who is “looking for a fight.” But, she warned, “we will not allow people to incite violence, intimidate our residents or cause destruction in our city.”
According to a U.S. defense official, Bowser put in a request on New Year’s Eve to have Guard members on the streets from Jan. 5 to Jan. 7 to help with the protests. The official said the additional forces will be used for traffic control and other assistance but they will not be armed or wearing body armor. Congress is meeting this week to certify the Electoral College results, and Trump has refused to concede while whipping up support for protests." Source's for this Quote - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/d … en-victory
https://www.newsweek.com/dc-mayor-murie … ed-1661320
"Some 340 D.C. National Guard members will be activated, with about 115 on duty in the streets at any given time, said the defense official, who provided details on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The official said Guard members will be used to set up traffic control points around the city and to stand with district police officers at all the city’s Metro stops. Contee said Guard troops will also be used for some crowd management"
Miller gave her precisely what she asked for... She did get what she requested she received a limited number unarmed and not wearing body armor...
Yes, your article adds another plea for additional help from Sund former chief of U.S. Capitol Police. It makes me curious what Congress would refuse his request for added crowd control. Just my opinion, I don't think Trump the Mayor, or the Congress felt there would be any form of trouble that would require more law enforcement. Looks like all felt comfortable with the status quo.
"The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress
Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.
Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it."
And who gets canned --- the guy that asked for extra help -- Sund. Go figure."made his own request of Miller to fill her requests, " - That is an interesting twist of meaning.
Your own rebuttal rebuts what you are trying to make real, when it is not. The testimony you quoted was ""Do whatever is necessary [u[to protect demonstrators[/u] that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." But THAT isn't what the mayor was asking for, was it. She was very, very worried about the potential for violence BY those demonstrators, and not the other way around. - Hell, I could twist those same words and suggest Trump wanted the guard there to protect his troops from the police.Twist of meaning? The statement was very clear, Miller was answering questions put to him by Congress.
I did not say what the mayor was asking for--- I clearly just quoted her request, the date of the request, and her request they not be armed or wearing body protection. IYou are reading into my post... The chip on your shoulder is showing... My gosh. I provided two articles that simply gave quotes to what was going on in regard to Trump's conversation with Miller along with orders he gave Miller, and the other article provided Bowser's request for some extra law enforcement stating on new years eve.
I did not in any respect say she was not worried, simply presented facts.
I did not twist any words... Just take in the articles...I can see we derived different opinions on both. Both offer information on who did what, and when they did it. Also what Trump wanted to be done in regard to the extra-national guards would be needed yes both had different reasons. Trump clearly felt he wanted his supporter's rights to protest protected. Bowser felt there would be violence, and wanted no one-armed or protected with body armor. This to me IMO is a liberal bunch of BS! Hey, you have your opinion I have mine --- in this case, we disagree.Then what did you mean by "to fill her request"?
That was a quote from Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller to Congress... He was quoting what President Trump ordered him to do in regard to adding National Guard for his Jan 6th rally and the request Mayor Bowser made. . Once again here is the source with the article I quoted. This was not my words but those of Miller
Source --- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congre … 021-05-12/
"May 12 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.
Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.
According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
Yes, you are correct. I'm a little jumbled in my thought. Let me clarify.
Mayor Bowser said that the Capitol police did not request additional police or guard before the protests, and that she does not have jurisdiction to send police or National Guard to Capitol Hill. “I think a more robust presence on the ground” would have maintained order, she explained. She placed blame for the inadequate law enforcement presence directly on the federal government.
Her guard requests were for D.C. and for the event in which protests spilled into her streets. I do not believe that there was any major unrest in her jurisdiction.
She doesn't have jurisdiction over federal properties such as the Capitol.
The Federal government could have requested the assistance of her police force but they did not.
I believe that the federal buildings and properties are solely under jurisdiction of the Capitol police and U.S. parks.
Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter.
"Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration."
But now we know that Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said he requested that the National Guard be placed on standby in the days before the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, but House and Senate security officials turned him down. Officials didn't like the "optics"
William Walker, who was the top commander for Washington, DC's National Guard and responsible for troop deployment in support of law enforcement spoke with the House select committee last month.
Walker told senators that even though he did not need Pentagon authority to mobilize troops to respond to protests that summer, a memo on January 5 instructed him to seek approval from the secretaries of the Army and Defense before preparing troops to respond to a civil disturbance.
Walker described the additional level of authority needed to mobilize troops as "unusual." He went on to say it took three hours for Army officials to give him the OK to send his troops in to help -- this despite an urgent plea directly to him from the then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund.
At best, the planning for the containment of Mr. Trump's rally and the possibilty for unrest was almost non-existent or haphazard at best. All the more reason for the Select committee to get to the bottom of it.After the fact, it appears that many drop the ball in regard to not only having a good plan to handle the large rally crowd but even realizing there might be a violent riot occurring. It is clear no one seemed to be aware this would happen. I would think the FBI would have had heads up to any riot talk, and warned Trump of the pending possible problem.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclus … 021-08-20/
"WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described "dirty trickster", and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.
FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said." READ MORE
Our FBI did not pick up any indication there would be any type of violence planed for the Jan 6th rally.
In my opinion, it is just prudent to let the investigation play out before condemning anyone. I hate to say this but, a witchhunt is dangerous, and could work to hurt many people's reputations unnecessarily.
That riot has left the country with a very tangled web. I for one just do not point a finger unless there is tons of factual evidence to prove an accusation."After the fact, it appears that many drop the ball in regard to not only having a good plan to handle the large rally crowd but even realizing there might be a violent riot occurring. " - I have to disagree with that in part. The Capitol police certainly had enough staff to handle a very large, but peaceful protest. But, they were neither sized nor equipped to handle the violent insurrection that happened.
"It is clear no one seemed to be aware this would happen. " - As you will see shortly, A LOT of people WERE aware the violence was going to happen.
"I would think the FBI would have had heads up to any riot talk, and warned Trump of the pending possible problem." - Yes, you would think that, wouldn't you - a reasonable assumption to make. And, in fact, the FBI was warned by multiple authoritative sources, yet they buried it! I have to ask WHY. I hope others are asking WHY. Who told them to bury it?
From https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … story.html you have:
The U.S. Capitol Police had specific intelligence that supporters of President Donald Trump planned to mount an armed invasion of the Capitol at least two weeks before the Jan. 6 riot, according to new findings in a bipartisan Senate investigation released Tuesday, but omissions and miscommunications kept that information from reaching front-line officers targeted by the violence. "Omissions" and "Miscommunications" - REALLY? I personally think there was something more nefarious afoot. I find it inconceivable of those kinds of errors in a professional intelligence unit about a probably attack on the Capitol, especially after the lessons-learned from 9/11! I hope somebody is doing a deep dive on who told who what as that information was passed up the chain.
Then from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … urrection/ you have this even more devastating information about prior knowledge:
[i]"The head of intelligence at D.C.’s homeland security office was growing desperate. For days, Donell Harvin and his team had spotted increasing signs that supporters of President Donald Trump were planning violence when Congress met to formalize the electoral college vote, but federal law enforcement agencies did not seem to share his sense of urgency. "
"On Saturday, Jan. 2, he picked up the phone and called his counterpart in San Francisco, waking Mike Sena before dawn.
Sena listened with alarm. The Northern California intelligence office he commanded had also been inundated with political threats flagged by social media companies, several involving plans to disrupt the joint session or hurt lawmakers on Jan. 6."
"He organized an unusual call for all of the nation’s regional homeland security offices — known as fusion centers — to find out what others were seeing. Sena expected a couple dozen people to get on the line that Monday. But then the number of callers hit 100. Then 200. Then nearly 300. Officials from nearly all 80 regions, from New York to Guam, logged on."
"Forty-eight hours before the attack, Harvin began pressing every alarm button he could. He invited the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, military intelligence services and other agencies to see the information in real time as his team collected it. "
"Harvin was one of numerous people inside and outside of government who alerted authorities to the growing likelihood of deadly violence on Jan. 6, according to a Washington Post investigation, which found a cascade of previously undisclosed warnings preceded the attack on the Capitol. Alerts were raised by local officials, FBI informants, social media companies, former national security officials, researchers, lawmakers and tipsters, new documents and firsthand accounts show."
And then we have this kick in the ass and in response to your claim that "Our FBI did not pick up any indication there would be any type of violence planed for the Jan 6th rally.":
An FBI official who assessed the tip noted that its criminal division had received a “significant number” of alerts about threats to Congress and other government officials. The FBI passed the information to law enforcement agencies in D.C. but did not pursue the matter. “The individual or group identified during the Assessment does not warrant further FBI investigation at this time,” the internal report concluded. - Again, REALLY!!!!
I sure hope somebody is investigating who told the FBI and DHS to "stand down"?
And finally, to "I would think the FBI would have had heads up to any riot talk, and warned Trump of the pending possible problem." - I think they, or DHS, or the FPS DID tell Trump there was a riot (which it was at that point, but not an insurrection yet) was going on at the Capitol WHILE he was giving his speech or right after - it simply doesn't make any sense that they would hide this information from the President of the United States. And I think Trump ignored them and left to watch it on TV.
""Apparently"? " - Do you EVER read my words or just make up things that have nothing to do with what I said? I was talking about possible FINANCIAL crimes while you go on about Ivanka. (I have a post about that as well.
Now to the rest of your comment.
"And where does a crime occur when a presidential adviser gives an opinion to the President? Where is the crime?" - And what "crime" are you talking about? It certainly isn't the Financial Fraud I mentioned since you ignored that.
"And do we know actually what the president may have done to stop the violence? " - Yes we do - NOTHING, for several hours while he watched it on TV
"No violence!” adding: “Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” - He tweeted this lip service at 2:38PM. He didn't tell them to disperse.
Now here is an abbriviated timeline of what happened that day (with a surprise, not a good one, for me in it)
12:00 PM: Trump starts his speech.
and A Federal Protective Service (FPS) briefing email states that there are about 300 Proud Boys at the Capitol (I didn't know that), a man in a tree near the Ellipse is holding what looks like a rifle, and some of the 25,000 people around the White House are hiding bags in bushes.[75] The email warns that the Proud Boys are threatening to shut down the downtown water system.[75]
12:20 PM: FPS emails that POTUS is telling crowd to go to the Capitol and continue protesting.
12:28 PM: FPS reports 10,000 to 15,000 people were marching on the Capitol even while Trump is talking (I didn't know that either)
12:49 PM: Capitol police reported finding pipe bombs near the DNC and RNC Hqs as well as a truck carrying weapons and Molotov cocktails (wouldn't this have been reported to Trump immediately?)
12:53 PM while Trump is still talking: (It was this that blew me away, how could I have not known this??) Rioters overwhelm police along the outer perimeter west of the Capitol building, pushing aside temporary fencing. Some protesters immediately follow.
12:58 PM: First call for the national guard by the Capitol police (and nobody told Trump who was sending his people to the Capitol?)
1:03 PM: a vanguard of rioters have overrun three layers of barricades and have forced police officers to the base of the west Capitol steps.
1:10 PM: Trump ends his speech and sends his people to the Capitol to "go save their country". The riot had been going on for 15 minutes by now! (I have a very hard time believing the President of the United States was informed about what had been going on at the Capitol building for at least 15 minutes)
2:12 PM: The Capitol building itself is breeched!
2:38 PM: A full two hours (which is NOT early on, btw) after the riot started and well after they started running around in the Capitol building looking for Congresspeople to attack and Mike Pence to hang, Trump sends (after a lot of pressure) a milquetoast tweet telling the insurrectionist to start obey the law.
4:05 PM: Biden puts out a video asking Trump to call of his dogs.
4:08 PM: VP Pence calls SecDef demanding help.
4:17 PM: FOUR AND A HALF HOURS after hostilities started does Trump FINALLY call off his dogs with a video where he sickeningly says
"I know your pain, I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.” (this was the most "palatable" of three takes Trump did)
4:30 PM or thereabouts: The insurrectionists start dispersing.
5:20 PM: The national guard begins to arrive
6:01 PM: Trump sends what can only be a congratulatory message to his troops:
"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!" God, how disgusting!
Now - tell me again how Johnny on the Spot Trump was, lol? We all know he was in front of his TV enjoying the hell out what he had wrought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ … tol_attack
""Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." - And you think this helps your case. Where was his concern about Congress given he was planning on sending his mob there?I responded to this post --- MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
Apparently, the Select Committee has now found evidence of some sort of financial fraud regarding the insurrection.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/ … index.html
Yet when I read the article at the link you posted it had nothing to do with financial fraud. It would appear you posted the wrong article to cover your current financial fraud conspiracy. Please next time check the link before being rude. I responded to the link you posted. The article was titled ---
Cheney: January 6 committee has 'firsthand testimony' that Ivanka asked Trump to intervene during insurrection
here is the permalink of your post https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4221192
"And you think this helps your case. "
I have no case... Such an odd statement."I responded to this post --- MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
Apparently, the Select Committee has now found evidence of some sort of financial fraud regarding the insurrection." Yes, I am aware that was the post you were responding to, but you deflected from what I wrote. You said absolutely nothing about the Financial Fraud I was talking about.I did not deflect, I responded to the article. It was you that apparently added the wrong article to your post.
Your article had nothing to do with financial fraud. I had no idea what you were referring to. I imagine once again it is some form of speculation as was the article you posted in regard to Cheney's quote about Ivanka.Still deflecting, Sharlee. The article was provided to give context to my post about financial fraud, which it did. "The chairman said on Sunday that the panel has "some concerns" about potential financial fraud by Trump and his allies around the insurrection."
And how is it "speculation" when they have 1st Hand accounts of what took place (except in the minds of die-hard Trumpers)?What 1st hand accounts? I saw nothing in regards to any evidence mentioned in your article.
I assume you are talking about this quote. It's the only quute that includes anything about finance.
"The chairman said on Sunday that the panel has "some concerns" about potential financial fraud by Trump and his allies around the insurrection.
"It's highly concerning on our part that people raise money for one activity and we can't find the money being spent for that particular activity," he said. "So we'll continue to look at it and the financing is one of those things we will continue to look at very closely.
He also wouldn't say if the panel is planning to subpoena members of Congress, such as Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, to cooperate with the committee.
"ONE OF THOSE things we will continue to look at very closely." "people raise money for one activity and we can't find the money being spent for that particular activity,"
I do not see any form of information "WE CAN"T FIND ".
This is not evidence of a crime, this is more crazy conjecture on the part of a bias Democrat.
It well appears you are sinking into a world of crazy conspiracies. Hook -- line - and sinker.Again you are trying to dance around and play with semantics.
All I said was that the Chairman found EVIDENCE of POSSIBLE financial fraud and that they need to look further into it. Out of that simple observation, you managed to build a mountain of ... I don't know what, but it had nothing to do with reality.
As to 1st Hand Witnesses, I guess I have to provide that quote as well - "Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the committee and one of its two Republican members, told ABC News that the panel has "firsthand testimony" that during the attack, Trump's daughter and then-senior adviser Ivanka Trump asked him to intervene. Ivanka visited him in the dining room off the oval office where he was watching his handiwork unfold while sitting on his ass doing nothing about it until a VERY LONG time later (2+ hours).I am not one that speculates. I have no idea what was going through Trump's head. I do know he did tweet out to supporters while they were rioting. I have not heard anything else about what was done or said by the president. Nor have you. I think it best to wait and see what the committee comes up with.
"I am not one that speculates. I have no idea what was going through Trump's head. " - But you should, based on 20 years (5 al least) years of observing him.
" I do know he did tweet out to supporters while they were rioting. " - At least you dropped the "early on" mischaracterization, thank you. I guess it is possible that Trump was SO stupefied and horrified by what he was watching on TV that he was incapable of action even though so many people were asking him to act for at least an hour. But, I doubt it. A much more likely scenario is he was enjoying what he was seeing and he didn't want it to stop - that makes much more sense than the alternative, isn't it?
" I think it best to wait and see what the committee comes up with." - That is what people caught up in the Trump cult do. Thinking people actually think about what they observe and draw conclusions from those observations."But you should, based on 20 years (5 al least) years of observing him."
I will come right out and say it --- We do not have the same thought process. I am very much guided by the present facts, I do not read into what a situation could be. I simply do not do that, it is not part of my make-up. Especially when it would be to demonize another
human being.
He did tweet, I did feel at the time it was the only thing he could do to reach the rioters. Thus far, I don't have any idea what he did on that day in regard to his actions. I would hope this could be filled in by the Congressional investigation. It certainly would help to have some facts about what he said, and did during those hours the violence was occurring. These facts would help me make a sound decision if he did the right or WRONG things on that day.
" A much more likely scenario is he was enjoying what he was seeing and he didn't want it to stop - that makes much more sense than the alternative, isn't it?"
You see this is your mindset... You can see how we differ. You assume I am not willing to assume. I will be willing to assign guilt if guilt is well proven. Please read this statement you made very carefully...
MY Thoughts --"I think it best to wait and see what the committee comes up with." - I am willing to wait and see what the facts are.
Your thoughts --- That is what people caught up in the Trump cult do. Thinking people actually think about what they observe and draw conclusions from those observations.
You seek to insult another's thought, Draw conclusions? You have sought to accuse, and demonize many, before seeing proof of what the Committee's report provides all due to what you call observation.
I could follow your mindset and accuse or lump you into a group as you did with "Trump supporters". Or say that's what this "group does" they assume, they accuse before facts are presented, they are hyperbolic in their description of what we could see happen on that day, they are caught up in a cult, directed by media blurbs. they do this without cause or
facts. ( these words do not express my mindset, I use them as an example to perhaps show you harsh words lumping people into groups never add to a conversation.)
Do you see how unnecessary it is to add a vague insult? Yet much of the time you do add a vague insult. I can say with confidence I know 100% you do not appreciate Trump or anyone who supported or supports him.Many of those facts have come out. Unfortunately, Sharlee, you appear to be blind to them. They have been presented to you many times but you just gloss over them and pretend they don't exist and then say things like " I do not read into what a situation could be. ".
It is like this. I am pretty fat with a belly to prove it; I could probably wear an A-cup. But when I look into the mirror, I don't see it - I deny what is obvious and know to be true. Why? Because I do not want to think of myself as fat.
Well the real truth is, Trump is fat (literally and metaphorically); you just can't accept that fact because you are so invested in his innocence.
"He did tweet," - You write that like I said he didn't. But now you are trying to obscure your false claim that he "tweeted early on
Why do I talk about "groups"? Because they think alike and possess similar characteristics. For example, Trump supporters, as a group, believe in the Big Lie - probably 90+% of them. As a group, most parrot (sometimes verbatim as I have seen you do a few times) the false narratives given to them by the right-wing propaganda outlets. As a group, they ALL believe in Trump' fantasy world - otherwise they wouldn't be part of that group. So, since these group characteristics are ubiquitous and well known, it makes sense to encompass all those ideas into a couple of words - in this case Trump supporters.
SO. How do you view your hero, never can do anything wrong, disgraced, twice impeached, with the majority of the Senate concurring, one-term Former president now that you know he blithely sat by and watched Congress being attacked by his mob? There is NO GUESSING about it. There is FIRST HAND witness testimony that will say something like Trump sat by an let the insurrection play out (while, I suppose, they really would hang Mike Pence).
What a guy, lol. Somebody you can really be proud of. Go ahead and defend him in spite of ALL of the evidence.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/ … index.htmlThis new poll suggests why it was Republicans, specifically Trumpers, who decided it was a good thing to participate in an insurrection last Jan 6. It seems Republicans (and independents, most of who lean right) are twice as likely as likely as Democrats to support violence against the government. 40% of Republicans (and 41% of independents) think using violence is OK, while only 23% of the more peaceful Democrats think the same.
And based on my observations over the last 5 years, it seems when there is violence by the Right, the root cause is political in nature while for the Left, it is justice.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/ … index.html
In the same poll, 60% of Americans think Trump bears "great deal" or a {good amount" of responsibility for the attack on Congress.One a side-note. The NY AG is still going after Trump and his organization for fraud for misrepresenting the value of his properties. Ivanka and Jr. are being subpoenaed.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/03/politics/ … index.htmlThe Select Committee wants to know why Sean Hannity, Fake Fox News' purveyor of misinformation, why he pushed Trump to stop fighting the results of the election and why he told Trump that he is "very worried about the next 48 hours." (It certainly seems at first blush, Hannity is being much more patriotic than his good friend. That said, I bet Trump puts Hannity under a mushroom now, lol)
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics/ … index.htmlAND? What in the world does this have to do with anything but Hannity's offering his opinion on what he felt Trump should do? Do you feel this is some sort of revelation?
Thompson and Cheney said they had information indicating Hannity had “advance knowledge” about Trump and his legal team’s planning for Jan. 6 and had been providing advice to the president and White House staff.
Do you have a source for this info? I have read articles in regard t Hannity's communications with Meadows in regard to his suggestion to the President to call off the crowd. I have not found any info that - " information indicating Hannity had “advance knowledge” about Trump and his legal team’s PLANNING for Jan 6."
Are you saying that Hannity knew there was a plan of some sort to attack the capital?Hannity was texting Meadows the day before saying he didn't think things were going to go how Trump believed they would. That means 1.) Hannity knew what they had planned and 2.) Hannity didn't think the plan would work.
https://news.yahoo.com/sean-hannity-tex … 23971.htmlThanks for the link --- Hopefully, Hannity will cooperate with the committee and fill in what he meant by his comments. I would like to see the entire text, and not just a sentence or two. It is obvious Hannity was concerned about what might happen on Jan 6th at the rally. IMO, Jan 6th was one of the lowest moments our nation has faced in a very long time. Hopefully, the committee provide clear information and not just tidbits. I will look forward to the report.
It will be interesting to see if Hannity will cooperate. he should IMO.This also just came out today.
Grisham said she spent “about an hour” with the committee and answered “every question that they asked of me, and I’m going to continue to cooperate.” She told the committee she spoke with them about planning for Jan. 6 and “conversations that were happening” beforehand and during the attack.
Grisham described Fox News host Sean Hannity as a “shadow advisor” to Trump, and said she spoke with him often when she worked at the White House. “He definitely advised the president on many, many things to do. So it didn’t surprise me he was reaching out to Meadows or anybody else because that was something he did often to get a message to the president,” Grisham said.We can commend Grisham for her cooperation, and input. I am sure she as an insider would be able to fill in what on that day, and what lead up to that day. It does not surprise me that Hannity was an advisor of sorts, I think Trump used Fox to get out whatever he wanted to get to his supporters.
I hope more will just cooperate with the committee, it will be the only way we will ascertain some truth to what went on before and after.
It's very clear Trump will not stop saying the election was rigged. He has had more than enough time to prove his allegation, and it's time for American's to move on and accept the election.
It's unfortunate to see such a divide, due to some believing the election was fraudulent, without any evidence of widespread fraud.
Perspectives and Analysis on the anniversary America's 2nd Day of Infamy. Congress or Biden should pass a resolution recognizing this day as a national day of morning recognizing that democracy nearly died that day.
Analysis: https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/06/politics/ … index.html
Opinion: https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/05/opinions/ … index.html
Opinion from President Carter: https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/05/politics/ … index.html
FACTS: https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics/ … index.html
Analysis: https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/ … index.html
FACTS: Yes, Trumpers, there really was an insurrection! https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/03/politics/ … index.html
Opinion https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/opin … ittee.html
Poll: Only 1/2 of Republicans blame the insurrectionists. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/looking … whos-blame
Opinion: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … n-violence
Analysis[
b] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-dept … january-6/
[b]Analysis: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ … l-assault/More perspective on this day that will live in infamy.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/06 … urrection/Some of you on here tried to make a big deal out of Trump using the words "stay peaceful" in his first milquetoast tweet. It turns out, he didn't want to use those words but was forced into it somehow. If fact, he didn't want to tweet AT ALL, instead, he wanted to "let it play out".
We also now know from Grisham that Trump was "gleeful" (a term I was using derisively, but now will use truthfully) while watching the insurrection. He commented "‘Look at All Those People Fighting for Me" while rewinding the video to rewatch the carnage.
That is the man which some of you say is Fit For Office and the rest of us know is dangerously mentally ill as many mental health professionals have said.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/06/politics/ … index.htmlThis is an report on what the terrorist-supporting right-wing propaganda outlets were up to on this day of infamy.
It will sicken any patriotic American.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/06/media/jan … index.htmlI only heard parts of President Biden's speech yesterday, but from all reports, it must have been a humdinger. For example, we have this impression:
"In generations to come, his address may be viewed either as the rallying call that saved the American experiment or as a pained eulogy for the democracy that his predecessor and would-be successor seems determined to destroy."
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/07/politics/ … index.htmlMost likely the best speech of his career. He was fired up and gave a believable, empassioned speech. He stepped off the high road he normally travels to say what needed to be said. Here are some highlights:
"You can’t love your country only when you win,” he said at one point. “You can’t obey the law only when it’s convenient. You can’t be patriotic when you embrace and enable lies.”
Also: “A former president of the United States of America has created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election. He's done so because he values power over principle, because he sees his own interest as more important than his country's interest and America's interest.”
And: “The former president and his supporters have decided the only way for them to win is to suppress your vote and subvert our elections. It's wrong. It's undemocratic. And frankly it's un-American.”Regardless, regarding the other side presents only deaf ears.
The center left, progressives and even moderates need to realize the threat that January 6th represented and accept the possibility that the participants and those of like mind are beyond reason and reevaluate their illusion that they can be reasoned with....
When dealing with these "people", we need to take off the "kid gloves".That has been the subject of a couple of articles I have read. Basically, Americans are not understanding how fragile a democracy is, given that it exists only when trust, honor, and morality are present. Today, one major political party and the Trump adherents have tossed those qualities in the trash because they find them inconvenient in their quest for power. When nearly 1/2 no longer believe in the principals America was founded on, democracy will soon be dead.
Which country do you think will become the next bastion of democracy if Trump succeeds in destroying ours? Canada, England, France, Germany?I don't know, Esoteric
What happening here can happen in any of the Western Democracies you mentioned. There are certainly rightwing movements in Germany and France that are getting the headlines these days. We have been fortunate to have dodged the bullet for almost 250 years, has our luck ran out?
When the forces of Democracy are weak and conciliatory, it makes the rise of bullies more likely and even inevitable. There was an interesting article on Salon regarding the Bundy's and their sagebrush rebellion in Oregon and Nevada a few years back, case in point.Look at what has happened over the last decade in Hungary.
Viktor Orban has systematically dismantled Hungary’s free political system while many conservative intellectuals in America have come to see the Orbán regime as a model for America. Including
Steve Bannon, who has said that Hungary's strongman prime minister was "Trump before Trump." and Tucker Carlson who spent a week there broadcasting and cozying up to the leader.
It looks as if some of the GOP is waging war on American democracy, using tactics eerily reminiscent of the ones Fidesz (Orbans right wing party) successfully deployed against Hungary’s democratic institutions.
Orbán stepped aside after a loss in 2002 but he and his followers never really accepted the 2002 defeat as legitimate. When Fidesz returned to power after the country’s 2010 election, winning a two-thirds majority amidst the Great Recession and incumbent corruption scandals, the party set about seizing complete control of the Hungarian state, turning it into a machine designed to subtly lock the opposition out of power without having to formally abolishing elections.
Orbán took over the Fidesz Party, once a conventional “conservative” political party like the GOP, with the theme of restoring “Christian” purity and “making Hungary great again.” His rallies regularly draw tens of thousands.
He campaigned on building a wall across the entirety of Hungary’s southern border, a promise he has largely kept.
He altered the nation’s Constitution to do what we’d call gerrymandering and voter suppression in much the same way Texas is now trying to do and Georgia just did, ensuring that his party, Fidesz, would win a majority of the votes in pretty much every federal election well into the future.
He’s now packed the courts, particularly Hungary’s equivalent of the Supreme Court, so thoroughly that legal challenges against him and his party go nowhere.
Last month Hungary passed laws requiring “conservative” sex education in schools (“gay is bad”) and banning any positive portrayal of LGBTQ people on TV. In public campaigns they’ve conflated homosexuality with pedophilia. The latest anti-gay law passed the Hungarian Parliament by a vote of 157 to 1.
His party railed against teaching multiracialism and racial tolerance, instead rewriting grade school textbooks to say that refugees entering the country are a threat because “it can be problematic for different cultures to coexist.” Using this logic, he has locked up refugee children in cages.
When the Hungarian Helsinki Committee said “the indefinite detention of many vulnerable migrants, including families with small children, is cruel and inhuman,” Orbán said the influx of Syrian refugees seeking asylum “poses a security risk and endangers the continent’s Christian culture and identity.” He added, “Immigration brings increased crime, especially crimes against women, and lets in the virus of terrorism.”
Five years and one week before American Nazis rallied in Charlottesville and murdered Heather Heyer, a group of some 700 right-wing “patriots” held a torchlight parade that ended in front of the homes of Hungary’s largest minority group, chanting “We will set your homes on fire!” Orbán’s police watched without intervening. In 2013, Zsolt Bayer, one of the founders of Orbán’s party, had called the Roma “animals… unfit to live among people.” Orbán refused to condemn him or the anti-Roma violence.
Orbán has handed government contracts to his favored few, elevating an entire new class of pro-Orbán businesspeople who have now seized almost complete control of the nation’s economy, as those who opposed him have lost their businesses, been forced to sell their companies, and often fled the country.
Virtually the entire nation’s press is now in the hands of oligarchs and corporations loyal to him, with hard-right talk radio and television across the country singing his praises daily. Billboards and social media proclaim his patriotism. His media allies are now reaching out to purchase media across the rest of Europe to spread his racist, right-wing message.
He recently began dismantling the Hungarian Science Academy, replacing or simply firing scientists who acknowledge climate change, which he has called “left-wing trickery made up by Barack Obama.
Sound familiar?
Well Mr Trump offered this reelection endorsement "Viktor Orbán of Hungary truly loves his Country and wants safety for his people,” Trump said yesterday. “He is a strong leader and respected by all. He has my Complete support and Endorsement for reelection as Prime Minister!”
If anyone wants to know what another 4 years would look like under Mr Trump take a good look at Hungary.Thanks for the stirring example, not only does it sound familiar what is happening here is a mirror image to what's been happening in Hungary.
We are seeing political leaders and media personalities on the Right sing this Hungarian dictator's praises.
These "kinds" of people are the same everywhere and operate from a standard boilerplate. They have used the same approach going back to Hitler's Germany since. I would expect such an attitude and approach from "banana republics", but from the USA, never.
They are people who seem to believe that retaining power is more important than Democracy and its guardrails. I don't want those kinds of people in charge or any where near the machinery of government.
What do you have in common with anybody that promotes this kind of agenda?
There are CLEAR distinctions between one set of ideological beliefs and the other."many conservative intellectuals in America have come to see the Orbán regime as a model for America." - And that is what is so scary. Trumpers on this page are oblivious to danger and keep on excusing his actions and whitewashing the insurrection.
"It looks as if some of the GOP is waging war on American democracy, using tactics eerily reminiscent of the ones Fidesz (Orbans right wing party) successfully deployed against Hungary’s democratic institutions." - And the Trumpers on this forum are aiding and abetting this activity, even though they don't think they are. That is how blind Trump has made them.
"one of the founders of Orbán’s party, had called the Roma “animals… unfit to live among people.”" - Sounds much like the rhetoric used by Trump and his enablers today
Yes, it certainly can. But no other Western country is on the brink of losing its democracy like we are. There are others pretty close, such as Brazil and Hungary as they are run by autocrats like Trump.
Another seemingly bad day for Trump! At a hearing to determine if Trump is immune from any and all actions he took while (not as) president, the judge had some very pointed and penetrating questions of Trump's counsel.
A federal judge in Washington, DC, is questioning former President Donald Trump's actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.
During a court hearing Monday, Judge Amit Mehta pointed out repeatedly that Trump on January 6 asked the crowd to march to the Capitol, but that he didn't speak up for two hours asking people to stop the violence.
He added these observations as well:
"The words are hard to walk back," Mehta said. "You have an almost two-hour window where the President does not say, 'Stop, get out of the Capitol. This is not what I wanted you to do.'"
"What do I do about the fact the President didn't denounce the conduct immediately ... and sent a tweet that arguably exacerbated things?" the judge asked. "Isn't that, from a plausibility standpoint, that the President plausibly agreed with the conduct of the people inside the Capitol that day?"
Unlike a criminal trial, civil lawsuits, which this is, only needs a preponderance of the evidence to convict. Another way of saying that is whether it is more likely than not that Trump's words, actions, and lack of actions helped lead to the insurrection.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/10/politics/ … index.htmlIs that what it comes down to? If Trump did not tweet somebody in the riot to stop what they were doing it means he was part of an insurrection? A tweet that would never be seen by that rioter as they were otherwise occupied?
If so our "justice system" is more broken than I thought.It's comes down to the fact Mr. Trump watched a full blown riot happen on the Capitol for almost 2 hours and said virtually nothing to address it. We know that he was watching based on Ms. Grisham's testimony and we know that many, including his own family, implored him to make a statement. That silence could be viewed as agreement with those rioters.
Of course it can be viewed that way. It could also be viewed as acknowledgement that nothing he said would be heard or acted on. Or any of a dozen other possibilities.
That's what I meant; if an assumption is all that is necessary to declare guilt then our system is not just broken - it is damaged beyond repair.Only an assumption when you discount the actual testimony, which many on the right always do.
“All I know about that day was, he was in the dining room gleefully watching on his TV as he often did, [saying] ‘Look at all of the people fighting for me,’ hitting rewind, watching it again,” Grisham said. “That’s what I know.”
Silence wasn't exactly accurate. That was support." It could also be viewed as acknowledgement that nothing he said would be heard or acted on. Or any of a dozen other possibilities." - You are just trying (and failing) to excuse his depraved behavior. I guess I could say the moon will crash into the earth in the next two minutes. That is as sensible as the fantasy you just put forward.
Further, you fail at your suggestion because when he did breakdown and do something to stop the insurrection, they listened.
Yep, it certainly does - it comes down to justice. He had two hours to call off his dogs and he didn't do it. That is pretty damning in most reasonable people's minds - including the judge.
He sent them there, he should have called them back - it is a simple concept.
These states (which include NY and NV) have made it harder to vote with laws they passed in 2021.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … 3c6609db4bUnfortunately, the current Republican party has nothing left except gerrymandering and voter suppression.
They have no real ideas or plans for governance; they simply represent the interests of giant corporations and billionaires and so their singular focus when they get power is slashing protective regulations and cutting taxes on rich people while jacking up taxes and fees on average working people. Remember the 2020 GOP platform? There was none!
When it comes to offering anything that might benefit average working Americans or the increasing ranks of the poor who have been economically marginalized by 40 years of Reaganomics, the Republicans “ain’t got nothing.”
So they have to resort to “regulating” peoples ability to cast their ballots.
Just one little example of what is happening in the country:
Arizona is assigning people to one, singular voting location, even when other polling places may be more convenient for them, on their route to or from work, or even closer to where they live, and then mid last year argued before the United States Supreme Court that when those people vote in other, more convenient or nearby locations, their votes should be thrown out.
The Arizona Republican’s attorney stood before the Supreme Court and said that failing to further complicate their voting systems in places like heavily Hispanic Maricopa County, where the number of polling places was recently reduced by 70%, “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.”
Instead of coming up with new and better ways to rebuild America and revive America’s middle class, Republicans are focusing all their efforts instead on how to make it harder for people to vote. It's shameful.
Let me just leave you with a flash back for a moment on some Republican strategy history:
Paul Weyrich, the co-founder of ALEC said in 1980 when he was helping run the Reagan campaign, Republican chances in elections go up as the number of people turning out to vote goes down:
“I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/ … comes-homeThere is truth in this, but as is so common it is only half the truth.
The other half is that Democrats wish everyone to vote; alive or dead, citizen or foreigner, one time or three, nothing matters as long as there are lots and lots of votes. We already see some locations allowing foreign citizens to control how parts of our country is run through their voting, and that WILL spill over into national elections...something that will please Democrats. The party cares nothing about security and limiting the vote to Americans with the right to cast that vote - only that people vote.
Democrats have no plan for governance, either - their only concern is in growing their power over the people. They have done nothing for the average, working class of people in this country except dig into their pockets to spread their hard earned wealth to others. They do not recognize that the business they work so hard to destroy are what feeds and houses America; only that those businesses are a source of ready cash and that demonizing and over-regulating them pleases a small number of voters that think they are islands and don't need jobs to stay alive.
Neither party truly represents the people of this country any more; only their party and their own personal power.'The other half is that Democrats wish everyone to vote; alive or dead, citizen or foreigner, one time or three, nothing matters as long as there are lots and lots of votes. We already see some locations allowing foreign citizens to control how parts of our country is run through their voting, and that WILL spill over into national elections...something that will please Democrats. The party cares nothing about security and limiting the vote to Americans with the right to cast that vote - only that people vote.'
Your perception about Democrats beliefs is as delusional as those that believe there was fraud in the 2020 election."The other half is that Democrats wish everyone to vote; alive or dead," - And there we go again with the lies. No wonder only your side pays attention to you since they survive on lies while the rest of us search for truth.
Sorry, but as Democrats wish to remove nearly all safeguards and security on voting I don't see any other conclusion but that they want everyone to vote. Just as I said.
You will claim otherwise of course, but the fact remains that Democrats do not wish ID checks or any other real security at the voting booth. In addition they most certainly ARE inviting foreign nationals to participate in local elections to determine how to run our country.'Nearly all safeguards?'
Again, serious exaggeration. Voting was expanded in 2020 due to the pandemic and there was very little fraud at all. Just because you deny the data on fraud to believe the conspiracies on fraud, does not mean elections are not secure.
Here's some history on immigrant voting:
'Most people are quite surprised to learn that it was common practice in the United States for immigrants to be able to vote. Folks might remember that the criteria for voting historically was not citizenship per se, but it was whether one was white, male and a property owner. So it was race, gender and class that mattered in terms of who is a member of the political community and had voting rights formally.
So, yes, 40 states - when we didn't even have 50 states - at one point in time, allowed immigrants to vote from 1776 until 1926, not just in local elections, which is what's happening in New York City and Maryland and in Vermont and San Francisco, but also in state and federal elections. And immigrants could also run for office.'
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/10643859 … -electionsThis is what has been proposed for protecting voter rights:
The Freedom to Vote Act is a trimmed version of the For the People Act the House passed at the beginning of this congressional session. It establishes a baseline for access to the ballot across all states. That baseline includes at least two weeks of early voting for any town of more than 3000 people, including on nights and weekends, for at least 10 hours a day. It permits people to vote by mail, or to drop their ballots into either a polling place or a drop box, and guarantees those votes will be counted so long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day and arrive at the polling place within a week. It makes Election Day a holiday. It provides uniform standards for voter IDs in states that require them.
The Freedom to Vote Act cracks down on voter suppression. It makes it a federal crime to lie to voters in order to deter them from voting (distributing official-looking flyers with the wrong dates for an election or locations of a polling place, for example), and it increases the penalties for voter intimidation. It restores federal voting rights for people who have served time in jail, creating a uniform system out of the current patchwork one.
It requires states to guarantee that no one has to wait more than 30 minutes to vote.
Using measures already in place in a number of states, the Freedom to Vote Act provides uniform voter registration rules. It establishes automatic voter registration at state Departments of Motor Vehicles, permits same-day voter registration, allows online voter registration, and protects voters from the purges that have plagued voting registrations for decades now, requiring that voters be notified if they are dropped from the rolls and given information on how to get back on them.
The Freedom to Vote Act bans partisan gerrymandering.
The Freedom to Vote Act requires any entity that spends more than $10,000 in an election to disclose all its major donors, thus cleaning up dark money in politics. It requires all advertisements to identify who is paying for them. It makes it harder for political action committees (PACs) to coordinate with candidates, and it beefs up the power of the Federal Election Commission that ensures candidates run their campaigns legally.
The Freedom to Vote Act also addresses the laws Republican-dominated states have passed in the last year to guarantee that Republicans win future elections. It protects local election officers from intimidation and firing for partisan purposes. It expands penalties for tampering with ballots after an election (as happened in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the Cyber Ninjas investigating the results did not use standard protection for them and have been unable to produce documents for a freedom of information lawsuit, leading to fines of $50,000 a day and the company’s dissolution). If someone does tamper with the results or refuses to certify them, voters can sue.
The act also prevents attempts to overturn elections by requiring audits after elections, making sure those audits have clearly defined rules and procedures. And it prohibits voting machines that don’t leave a paper record.
Now, what does everyone find in there that is not reasonable?I can't speak for everyone, but since you asked . . . and with the caveat that I am `shooting from the hip', (as in relying on your presented information . . .)
I think these points are unreasonable:
"That baseline includes at least two weeks of early voting for any town of more than 3000 people, including on nights and weekends, for at least 10 hours a day:
I think these are arbitrary parameters that the Federal government has no authority to mess with.
"It requires states to guarantee that no one has to wait more than 30 minutes to vote."
What the hell . . . 30 minutes? I think it is nuts that the Federal government thinks it can dictate how long someone stands in line. Just as I think it is central government overreach to step on a state's Right to control their elections.
(Ha! Look at that. The hypocrisy police contributing something besides a credibility jab.)
GAIt's good to have you back from your stint as a policeman to someone who contributes original thoughts.
I also looked at the 30 minute line and gave it some serious side-eye. Maybe set it as a goal would be a better way to look at it. Even in my middle sized town, 30 minutes is pushing it a bit. An hour could be doable around here during the general election.
Wouldn't limiting in-person voting to just normal business hours discriminate against some Americans working second shift jobs?Yes, I think voting only during business hours would be a limiting factor. However, I also think that, although technically correct, "discriminate" is not the best word choice. Too much baggage.
Is that happening somewhere—voting limited to business hours? I haven't heard of it.
I think voting is important enough to have a national day-off on election day. I also think voting is important enough to require a little effort. If its significance to someone is no more than the significance of having a 24-hour convenience store for impulse purchases then that's on them and their apathetic butts.
My perception is that between mail-ins, early voting days, and election day, everyone has at least two weeks to vote. Two weeks. If one's vote isn't important enough to find time somewhere in that two weeks, then once again, that's between them and their apathetic butts.
And just to finish with a chuckle, consider an illustration of American voter values: some will wait through snow and rain on cold windy sidewalks in all-night lines, (and take the next day off, or call in sick), just to be in the first ten to get through the doors to grab a Black Friday big TV deal, but want a 30-minute line and 24/7 access to cast their vote—when it's convenient for them. Geesh.
GAThe new Georgia law gives them the option of 9am to 5pm or 7am to 7pm. We will need to see what certain voting districts choose to see if they do suppress the hours. Giving an option to suppress them seems at odds with providing access to the polls though, does it not? They did add a pair of Sundays to the schedule, maybe as an off-shoot.
Your point about two weeks and finding a time to vote if you want to vote is valid though.
If you recall back to the Constitutional Convention, our Founders were very explicit in their dismay about how states did not serve their citizens well. That is why they toyed with these ideas:
1. They considered, but discarded, the idea of doing away with the states entirely; that is how much they distrusted the states from doing the right thing.
2. James Madison fought VERY hard to give the federal government VETO power over state legislation. He almost got his way, but in the end he didn't. Why did he want to do that? He stated many times how terrible many of the state governments were.
3. Their distrust of the states doing the right thing did lead to the Supremacy Clause.
There is a lot more along this line, but I have to go back to my research.
Today, the Red states are at it again, screwing with their citizens right to vote. So, in the spirit of our Founders distrust of states, of course, the federal government SHOULD set a baseline of fair voting standards.No need for looking back, I am familiar with your point. The result was the formation of a nation, a federated nation. The only `shoulds' are the ones in the resulting `is'.
Those Founders you mention also had great fear and distrust of pure democracy. I don't think you would accept that "should" as an argument in the national popular vote controversy?
Hell's bells, you could even go a step farther with that logic: Hamilton favored an aristocracy/monarch-type construction. Look where one could go with that "should" as a rationalization.
GA"Those Founders you mention also had great fear and distrust of pure democracy. " - Yes they did, even more fear that of state governments. What the "is" is, is (no, I am not stuttering) a compromise that gave the states as little power as possible while producing a document that the states would ratify - a neat trick that conservatives almost killed. In order to get it by the states, the 10th amendment had to be added. But then that was watered down a little bit by the 9th amendment.
Well, that's progress, we see a little bit of common ground. I can see the logic and reality of the Supremacy Clause. Just as I support the Supreme Court as a Constitutional watchdog over states' actions.
It is probably our perspective about whether the finished compromise was the right choice. I think it was. When I think of the reach our central government has into every aspect of our lives, now, the possibilities that would have been if your "should" won the day is not the government I would want.
And look at their, (the Founders), failsafe: we can change the agreement if enough of us want to. There is the opportunity for your "should."
GANor I, as appealing as Madison's proposal was to me. But, based on how the Red states (and probably some of the Blue ones as well) are behaving, it is easy to understand why he fought so hard for the veto over state actions.
Unfortunately, several of the "safeguards" they built in to protect us from people like Trump, or the partisan Senate we have today were done away with by the states or subsequent amendments.
One of the best, albeit impractical, was the original Electoral College. What they had in mind was that Plato's "philosophers" would be elected and be honest brokers. I think that made it through on election before the states ran roughshod over who the electors would be. It wasn't intended that they be political hacks. Unfortunately, that is what it has morphed into.
Personally, and against my more pragmatic instincts, I want to keep the electoral college. Even though my side would win virtually every presidential election, the alternative (popular vote) is simply unfair. A Democratic nominee would win every time because of the demographics.
I do think most of the important parts of election laws need to be taken out of the hands of the states. It is clear they cannot do an honest job. The ONLY thing that kept things in check for these many decades is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Unfortunately, the conservative Court (and an unresponsive Congress) killed that. What Roberts said wouldn't happen, has happened in spades. And that is before this onslaught of new Republicans laws to try to rig the election in their favor.Yep. We might have some quibbles about your closing thoughts, But we seem in general agreement on the rest.
I too think the Electoral college has been subverted, but I don't see the Voting Rights Act* as being as compromised as you, (and many others of the Left), portray. It is my impression that it is easier for everyone to vote now than in past years.
*the impact of gerrymandering on the Act is a different discussion that we would probably agree on.
GaRe: the Voting Rights Act - How can you not agree that it is no longer effective. The Supreme Court has eviscerated the enforcement mechanisms. Under this Court, the lawsuits DOJ has filed against several of these repressive Republican voting laws have zero chance of succeeding.
A law without enforcement are simple pretty words.An example of which? The evisceration or the suits the DOJ has filed.
A part you think has been nullified.
I am only vaguely familiar with the Act, (it's a time thing), and the charge you made. My recall is that some points mentioned as proof of the claim turn out to be legitimately arguable points—from my perspective. I also recall some that weren't very arguable.
So which evisceration example is the worst of the lot?
GAHere are some quotes from the attached article (please ignore that is from Vox, it gave a great history)
"But Roberts has shown no such moderation on voting rights. Among other things, Roberts dismantled much of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), and he’s joined decisions making it much harder for voting rights plaintiffs to prove they were victims of discrimination. [/i
[i]Broadly speaking, the Voting Rights Act created two separate procedures to stop racist voting laws. Section 5 of the act laid out the preclearance regime I described above, while Section 2 permitted voting rights plaintiffs to bring lawsuits challenging racist laws that are already in effect.
That amendment banned any voting practice that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Thus, even if a plaintiff could not prove racist intent, they could still prevail if the law had a disparate negative effect on voters of color.
It was this amendment that the young John Roberts fought so hard to kill. As the voting rights journalist Ari Berman writes, “Roberts wrote upwards of 25 memos opposing an effects test for Section 2.”
It’s not hard to imagine the frustration conservative Republicans must have felt each time the act was renewed. Those Republicans elected sympathetic presidents, and they had every reason to believe that those presidents and Republican lawmakers would hear their concerns. And yet, in each case, a Republican president sided with liberals over their own conservative supporters.
Roberts’s majority opinion in Shelby County posits that the United States simply isn’t racist enough to justify a fully operational Voting Rights Act. ROFL
[i] “the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.”[i] - AND I will argue that is because these laws were in place. Everybody saw what happened when Roberts killed Section 5, a tsunami of Red state voting laws to limit Black's from voting or have their votes be effective. That was then. Now they have done it again, making Section 5 much more necessary. Roberts was wrong, Institutional Racism is alive and well and growing in America.
What the DOJ is now relying on is Section 2. But given this Court who thinks it is bed of roses for Blacks and other mamoties *including Thomas), I have come to the conclusion that the DOJ will lose and we will return to the days of Jim Crow.I revisited the Court's decision, (including the dissents), and my recall became more clear. I will stand with my first thought that the claim, (against the decision), is legitimately arguable. However, even as I agreed with the decision, I also agreed with the dissent. I think they are both right.
That is not a position of `fence-sitting' or that `cake' thing. I think the affirmative was a reasoned Constitutional application. I agree that the application of a 1964 stated intent to the different world of 2006-7 does cross the, (my?), line.
However, the dissents, (particularly Ginsburg), present, in degrees, the undeniable reality of politics, (especially true of our time but probably true of all time). I agree with many of their statements.
Since I think the affirmative decision was, at the least technically, correct, the only way I could accept the dissents as correct is to accept the rationalization that `the ends justify the means,' which rarely works for me.
And it shouldn't work this time. Consider the times Congress had to address that problem. They had multiple opportunities to amend things, so they had equal opportunities to fix a known issue that a timeline of Court decisions had made clear to them could be a Constitutional problem.
I agree with the Court's final determination: `It's not the Court's job to fix or `update' legislation.
Congress can fix this. It also appears, (in reference to Court mention of programs improvements since the Act), that there are newer and possibly better mechanisms for the job.
I agree with the desired `end', but it shouldn't be met by incorrect means. (yes, we both know that stuff happens all the time, by my reference is to decided Constitutional issues)
GAI forgot to include the Vox article - https://www.vox.com/21211880/supreme-co … ction-2020
While I go back an refresh as well, I am not sure, after reading the history, that the majority was correct in asserting that Congress hadn't fixed/updated it. It seems to they did many times over the years.As I read it, they did not "fix" that sec. 4b, which was the part that was found unconstitutional. I think their amendments were in the expansion of sec. 5 which only one dissenting judge found to be unconstitutional. Although . . . if the parent is unconstitutional there would seem to be a line of logic that says the child, (sec. 5), must also be unconstitutional.
GA
https://www.suremecourt.gov/opinions/12 … 6_6k47.pdf is what I will be referencing.
The District and D.C. Court of Appeals found that:
The D. C. Circuit affirmed. After surveying the evidence in the record, that court accepted Congress’s conclusion that §2 litigation remained inadequate in the covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minority
voters, that §5 was therefore still necessary, and that the coverage formula (Section 4) continued to pass constitutional muster.
The Supreme Court (to my surprise) did not find Section 5 to be unconstitutional, but only the formula's in Section 4. That said, without Section 4, then Section 5 is toothless. Now, the lower courts found Section 4 to be constitutional but the conservative Supreme Court led by a man who has been opposed to Voting Rights his whole life, broke with precedence and decided Section 4 was, in fact unconstitutional. What were the reasons given to support his well known bias against Voting Rights?
The majority states that Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way.
I have to disagree because:
- in 1965, Congress initially found good reason, as the majority noted, to target specific jurisdictions
- in 1970, Congress found reason to keep these restrictions in place. In doing so, Congress modified Section 4 to update it.
- in 1975, Congress did the same thing as they did in 1970. Not only did they update Section 4 again, they found it necessary to protect other minorities.
- in 1982, Congress extended the law once again for 25 years, but without the significant changes found in the other extensions.
- in 2006, they repeated the process, again determining no need to change Section 4 or 5.
- in 2013, the conservative Court decided Congress hadn't been doing its job properly (which I didn't know was in the purview of the Court.}
(Courtesy of https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-secti … rights-act)
When looking at Section 4, the conservatives noted that Coverage today
is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.. And here is where activist conservatives step in to do the legislatures job, in my view. The effect of ruling Section 4 unconstitutional was that the Court, overruled legislative intent. In reading the opinion, I looked for where they what part of the Constitution that Section 4 violated. Maybe you did, but I couldn't find it.
Instead, I found this reasoning - [i]In 1965, the States could be divided into those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were[//i] - I have to ask, is that the job of the Supreme Court - to substitute their judgement on the state of discrimination in place of that from Congress. A Congress, supported by Republican presidents, who apparently determined that the "Nation STILL is divided along those lines..
Further, they seem to base their whole opinion on 1965 being the standard the gov't was using. If fact, that is not true, at least according to the history I read. On TWO occasions Congress updated Section 4, yet the conservative majority did not refer to those updates.
What those updates tell me is that Congress WAS sensitive to the changing times. They were also aware, as was I since I lived through it, of the repeated attempts by those same sanctioned states doing their damnedest to put things back the way they were prior to 1965, a point the majority did not discuss.
The proof that their reasoning was wrong, obviously, is that as soon as the Court took the breaks of states reverting back to the bad old days, they immediately started doing just that, passing law after law trying to restrict minority voting.
Personally, I think the conservative Justices have never believed in a national voting rights bill and finally got their way.
To summarize. It seems to me that
- the already biased conservative majority paid lip service to the Constitution as a basis for reversing Section 4
- the conservative majority instead substituted their own judgement as to the state of discrimination in America for the considered judgement of the whole of Congress
- as a result, the Court chose to legislate from the bench rather than interpret the Constitution, which is their charter.
The consequences of this decision was to set voting rights back decades - and it hasn't stopped yet.
-Well, this is something we have probably never seen before; two reads of the same material come to different understandings. (snicker)
It seems, to me, that in all of the amendment efforts—the updates you mention, added to sec. 4 but left intact the original problem; the 1964/72 statistics parameters. That's like adding a sunroom to a house with a failing foundation.
Although I would argue against the multilingual requirement I generally support the first clause of sec. 4. but have problems with the rationality of the second clause—which is the one that sets the bar for determining the need for the first clause and inclusion in the preclearance group.
As I read through the various amending efforts they generally made sense to me. But leaving the rotten floor of the second clause seems a legitimate concern. If it's worth doing it's worth doing right.
That "doing it right" point is also my weak objection to the multilingual stuff. It seems realistic to expect one trying to become naturalized to make the effort to learn the national language. Of course, that requires effort and desire, two things I think should bear on the applicant's desire to become a citizen. It should take effort, it achieves a valuable reward.
That is where I think we are in the most disagreement. My perception is that Democrats want to give away the prize of voting Rights, (and any other citizen rights), to all that breath. I prefer to give them to all that make an effort to achieve them.
I don't think the Court's decision is a statement on the continued need for the Act, I think it is an admonition telling Congress to get it right.
I also don't think that agreeing with the Court's decision means not supporting the goals of the Act. I support both.
GAYep, for sure, and here is an example.
"That's like adding a sunroom to a house with a failing foundation." - I would like to think that 72 refurbished the older 65 foundation. And to carry the analogy on further, after Congress looked at the foundation again in 1975, they refurbished it again. Then, in later years, Congress looked again and it must be assumed they found the foundation stable.
Now, for some reason, the Court saw fit not to bring up the 1972 and 1975 fixes - at least I didn't see them if they were there. That, for me at least, raises red flags. And that leads me to ask again, why did the Court see fit to substitute its judgement for that of Congress? At least that is what it looks like to me.
Maybe you can point out the constitutional argument they made.
Part of my problem is that hindsight is 20-20. Roberts didn't know (and may not of have cared) that the Republicans were going to destroy his reasoning by not waiting even a year after his decision to dismantle long established voter protections.
And then, after the pandemic gave a way around the roadblocks with mail in voting, the Republicans again moved quickly to diminish the effectiveness of that avenue to make voting easier. (That one in Florida even affected my wife and I. Now we have to jump through hoops not to have to go to the polls on voting day and vote from the comfort of our own home.).
"I think it is an admonition telling Congress to get it right." - [i]And that is what Roberts said out loud, I think. But then we are back to him substitution his judgement for Congress' who thought they did get it right.
BTW, my response time seems to be getting slower because I can no longer do two things at once: think about and type these comments and watch TV.I looked around for the details of your 1970/1975 amendments. The only thing—with bearing, that I see was the `updating' with 1968 numbers instead of 1964 ones. That isn't exactly "refurbishing" to me.
As for Justice Roberts substituting his own judgment. . . that is well beyond my level of understanding. Especially so when the question is expanded to include 5 justices' opinions.
Nope, I ain't qualified to make that call.
GA
"Sorry, but as Democrats wish to remove nearly all safeguards and security on voting " - That is another lie, Wilderness
Here are more lies you just made:
"but the fact remains that Democrats do not wish ID checks "
"any other real security at the voting booth"
And this one is out and out misleading because it conflates apples and oranges.
"ARE inviting foreign nationals to participate in local elections to determine how to run our country"
First, you conflate "local" with "national", that is decietful.
Second, I thought you were a conservative who believed in states-rights? Guess I was wrong since you won't allow states and local governments to set their own rules.
I am glad they did it, but I can't believe that, save for the four years Trump controlled the DOJ, they never stood up a domestic terror unit to try to take down one of the most dangerous groups to American democracy - right-wing extremists groups. Since Trump supported their cause, it is no surprise he wouldn't let DOJ go after them.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/11/politics/ … index.htmlDo you remember when, not too long ago, the Trumpers on this site were happily whitewashing the insurrection and calling it not a big deal because DOJ had not determined what happened on Jan 6th was an insurrection?
Well now they have!!! ELEVEN Oathkeepers have been indicted with seditious conspiracy ... with more to come. This is one step closer to reigning in Trump.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/ … index.htmlRevelations from the seditious conspiracy charging documents of the Trump led, attempted coup on Jan 6.
1. Trump whitewashers, including those on this forum, falsely cried that Jan 6th was not an insurrection because DOJ "didn't go there". Well, "They Went There"
2. Trump whitewashers also falsely, as it turns out, claimed there was no "planning", no single person (a ridiculous requirement) responsible for the attempted coup. Now we know it was, at least, Oathkeeper leader Stewart Rhodes. The question now is - did any part of this conspiracy extend to anybody in Trump's circle of enablers?
3. Again, the Trump whitewashers, claimed there were "no guns" present at the insurrection. We already knew that claim was not true, but we did not know the extent of it. There were plenty of guns there and many, many more close by if wanted.
4. This was much more than a coup on a single day. The Oathkeepers were planning on a long-term effort to subvert our government.
5. Who are the "bigger fish" that may come to light as some of the 11 start to flip? I am more certain than ever now that DOJ is investigating Trump. Maybe not for this specifically, but for his role in the insurrection.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics … index.htmlAnd, of course, being charged is an absolute indication of guilt as no court trial with a jury of peers is necessary for liberals to convict.
Just as the statement there were "There were plenty of guns there and many, many more close by if wanted.". There was one (one) gun found on the capital grounds. All it takes for a liberal is to want to have "plenty" and one becomes that "plenty".Christopher Alberts was arrested leaving the Capitol grounds on January 6 while trying to flee from officers after they suspected he was carrying a firearm on his hip. Alberts was carrying a loaded pistol and 25 rounds of ammunition, according to court documents.
Guy Reffitt has been charged with illegally bringing a handgun on Capitol grounds on January 6. Reffitt allegedly told family members he "brought his gun with him" in the Capitol attack.
Mark Ibrahim, who at the time was an off-duty special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration, has been charged with bringing his service weapon on Capitol grounds during the insurrection as well as lying to the FBI about why he was at the Capitol.
Mark Mazza, 56, is the latest of about half a dozen Jan. 6 defendants charged with bringing a gun to the Capitol. In this case, Mazza allegedly carried a Taurus revolver known as “The Judge,” which is capable of firing shotgun shells — two of which were in the chamber, along with three hollow-point bullets. A Capitol Police sergeant obtained the weapon after allegedly fending off an assault from Mazza. He told investigators that if he had found Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “you’d be here for another reason,” according to court documents.
While driving to Washington, D.C., on January 6, Cleveland Meredith sent a text that said, "Hauling ass, 3.5 hours from target practice."
The day after the Capitol siege, prosecutors said, Meredith was arrested in D.C. with an assault-style rifle equipped with a telescopic sight, a Glock firearm with several high capacity magazines and over 2,500 rounds of ammunition — including at least 320 "armor-piercing" rounds. He arrived too late to attend the rally, but the following day, authorities said he sent a text threatening to shoot House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the head.This is all news to me; after searching a while back for the number of guns found on the capital grounds during the riot I found exactly one. Thanks for the information.
But arresting someone outside the grounds for carrying is not the same. Nor is arresting them after having a third party say they claimed they would be carrying. Nor is finding someone the next day with a rifle and a glock. That leaves two apparently found with a gun on the grounds during the riot.
Island, I'm sick of the gross exaggerations designed to convince someone that a lie is true. I've been told that there were "truckloads" (exact words) of guns found at the riot, with the speaker literally throwing his arms up in distress when I said that wasn't true. Now Esoteric claims there were "plenty of guns" at the riot. Neither statement has a shred of truth it; both are gross exaggerations of the truth. Even your list of a tiny handful of charges doesn't come close to what was claimed.
Can't we simply produce the truth (as you did) rather than promote such exaggerations as being true? Do we HAVE to use loaded words (insurrection, for instance), give pure opinion as fact, make assumptions without evidence and promote that as fact, etc.? Can't we just provide true statements and let it go at that?"Island, I'm sick of the gross exaggerations designed to convince someone that a lie is true." - Then you should stop doing it.
"use loaded words (insurrection, for instance)," - THAT statement is called "whitewashing" among other things. And, isn't that what they are being charged with? We all correctly used the term earlier because we can understand the definition of "insurrection" and apply it to what the world saw. You do understand your "whitewashing" of the truth (another example "tiny handful") is providing aid and comfort to terrorists and traitors, don't you?
BTW - later reporting adds to Islands list. But in any case, it is impossible to tell, only surmise. Why? Because the crowd wasn't Black (which probably saved a lot of lives). Since it was a White riot, not very many of them were arrested at the scene. But, given who was doing the rioting, it makes perfect sense that many of them were armed with guns, let alone the other weapons they brought with them or stole from the police to bash them with.
You need to revisit your sources for the "one-gun" falsehood (or read IslandBites facts below) and maybe read the charging document before sticking your neck out.
I am becoming less and less convinced all of these attempts to overturn the election aren't coordinated. There are now too many to be coincidental.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/ … index.htmlStatement from the article -- "In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College "
"No impact on the outcome of the election"
National Archives... I would assume however sent these false documents could be in some form of trouble? Not sure if there are laws to cover this kind of dishonesty. It sounds like these persons performed some form of personal protest by trying to put misinformation into the archives.
I am sure they will be charged if they broke any laws. And the archives corrected, as should be.
Not sure why you felt this gesture would have overturned the election?
Why? As you article claimed --- "The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election",
At best it appears those that did this hoped to subvert -- undermine the election.The fake certificates were created by Trump allies (who for the most part seem to be in positions of power) in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate.
Michigan's attorney general is asking federal prosecutors to open a criminal investigation into 16 Republicans who submitted false certificates stating they were the state's presidential electors.
This was dangerous desperation.
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2022/01/0 … countable/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto … s-82263515"The fake certificates were created by Trump allies (who for the most part seem to be in positions of power) in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate."
Yes, and sent them to be set in the archives. By no means would it have affected the election. It certainly could affect our chronicled history.
I have not seen any statements from the people that are being accused.
As I said -- and thought I was clear about my view
" I am sure they will be charged if they broke any laws. And the archives corrected, as should be."
I don't think it was dangerous, it does show desperation, yes, and clearly dishonesty. Luckily, the archivist caught the deception, as they should.
Not sure what the DOJ will do with this? I would think some laws were broken on a Federal level.
"Dana Nessel, a Democrat, disclosed Thursday that her office had been evaluating charges for nearly a year but decided to refer the matter to the U.S. attorney in western Michigan.
“Under state law, I think clearly you have forgery of a public record, which is a 14-year offense, and election law forgery, which is a five-year offense,"
Perhaps Nessel should do her job, instead of bringing her complaint to the media. I find this problematic. She should charge them accordingly. This would seem the president thing to do. And let the Fed Gov handle their end.
It will be interesting to see if there are laws that cover this kind of deception.
Some laws had to be broken because a few of these are forged documents. Given that they went to the National Archives and these were State certificates, I would think both State and Federal laws were broken. You saw how long it took DOJ to finally charge sedition, hopefully both State and Federal law enforcement are processing these as well. That said, I am not sure some of the States would be pushing it since the Attorney Generals are Trump Republicans.
As to lone wolf actors, I would normally agree. But, as I said, this appears to be part of a larger conspiracy to destroy our democracy. There are simply too many of these types of activities, from the massive numbers of frivolous lawsuits, to the fake audits, on up to the insurrection not to believe there is an organizing element to it. It just simply doesn't make sense otherwise.
The point isn't "that the documents had no impact on the outcome of the election", it is that this kind of activity appears to be part of a larger pattern to sow doubt about the efficacy of our elections - and THAT DOUBT can (and has) bring down democracies.Yes, apparently a law was broken in Michigan. Nessel is a Democrat. Not sure of the other AG in the other states. There should be nothing holding her back from charging however did this in Michigan.
"Dana Nessel, a Democrat, disclosed Thursday that her office had been evaluating charges for nearly a year but decided to refer the matter to the U.S. attorney in western Michigan.
“Under state law, I think clearly you have forgery of a public record, which is a 14-year offense, and election law forgery, which is a five-year offense,"
Perhaps Nessel should do her job, instead of bringing her complaint to the media. I find this problematic. She should charge them accordingly. It seems she should do her job, and let the Fed Gov handle their end.
More details emerge about Trump's other probable criminal activity - fraud.
In new filings seeking testimony from Trump, Ivanka, and Trump Jr. about their knowledge of ""misleading statements and omissions" in documents used to obtain loans (I presume there is a parallel track being pursued regarding fraudulent tax payments. Specifically, they have found that the "misleading statements and omissions" dealt with:
- The size of Trump's Trump Tower penthouse;
- Miscategorized assets outside Trump's or the Trump Organization's control as "cash," thereby overstating his liquidity;
- Misstated the process by which Trump or his associates reached valuations, including deviations from generally accepted accounting principles in ways that the statements did not disclose;
- Failed to use fundamental techniques of valuation, like discounting future revenues and expenses to their present value, or choosing as "comparables" only similar properties in order to impute valuations from public sales data;
- Misstated the purported involvement of "outside professionals" in reaching the valuations; and
- Failed to advise that certain valuation amounts were inflated by an undisclosed amount for brand value.
Further, the new Manhattan DA said he will continue focusing on Trump, et al as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics … index.htmlHOW TO RIG AN ELECTION to perpetuate the Coup.
"Election officials in a rural Georgia county are weighing plans to close all but one polling place ahead of this year's elections, alarming local voting and civil rights groups.
But Wednesday's vote by the Lincoln County elections board has reverberated far beyond this Georgia community of roughly 7,700 northwest of Augusta. The county is one of six in this battleground state that have disbanded or reconfigured their local election boards in the last year, thanks to recently passed bills by the Republican-controlled Georgia General Assembly.
Several Democrats have been tossed off the boards. One reconstituted board eliminated Sunday voting during a recent municipal election -- an option popular among Black churchgoers, a key Democratic constituency."
Hopefully, lawsuits are flying left and right to prevent this usurpation of Democracy.Sharlee - I think you have said you live in Georgia. Let me ask, why would you bother to vote when the Trump Republicans are going to determine the outcome. Seems like it would be a waste of your time since you already know the outcome.
I live in Michigan. In Michigan, The legislation changed a few rules. They established stricter requirements for voter identification and banned election officials from sending out absentee ballot applications unless they are requested by voters.
The Senate bill mandate that in-person voters present identification for their ballots to count and that those voting absentee submit their driver's license number, state personal ID number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Which gave a good selection of ID"s. And political parties and other organizations have a fair opportunity to have challengers present during the counting of absentee ballots.
in Regard to drop boxes- The boxes require continuous video monitoring.
Otherwise, all stayed the same as prior to 2020.
I have no idea f Trump will run or who will run against him. When 2024 rolls around I will (as I always do) make my pros and cons list on candidates, hoping to determine who will do a better job at problem-solving.
Woo - Hoo!! SOTUS (except Thomas) slapped down Trump's attempt to hide the truth. A trove of documents are now heading to the House.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/ … index.htmlIf I remember correctly you were also over the moon when NY finally got Trump's taxes. How did that work out?
Trump has left more egg on Dem's faces than one could imagine.So far it is working out great, didn't you read my earlier post where the NY AG has found them to be misleading and inaccurate - in other words, fraudulent.
Better to have egg on ones face than to be unpatriotic and against democracy like the Trump Republicans are.No in her words "N.Y. Attorney General Outlines Pattern of Possible Fraud at Trump Business" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/nyre … james.html
"NEW YORK, Jan 19 (Reuters) - New York state's attorney general has accused Donald Trump's family business of repeatedly misrepresenting the value of its assets to obtain financial benefits, citing what it said was significant new evidence of possible fraud." https://www.reuters.com/business/ny-att … 022-01-19/
We have heard the word "Possible" from many that have accused Trump of a myriad of crimes.
One need not be pelleted with eggs if they dot their I's and cross their
T's before accusing one of a crime. Just not acceptable to accuse one of a crime, and then try to find a crime and evidence of that crime.
That is not patriotic, that's treacherous.And now you play word games to defend Trump? Even your own quote tells the story that she means much more than "possible" (a term she must use since he isn't convicted yet.) You are trying to hide the truth behind semantics. Let me quote again what you just quoted:
"citing what it said was significant new evidence of possible fraud." - While you toy around with the word "possible", I focus on the much more meaningful words "SIGNIFICANT NEW evidence". Words you apparently wish to ignore because it puts your boy in a bad light.
Besides mob bosses, how many people do you know of that has been accused, with good reason, of so many crimes as Donald Trump has. There is so much smoke surrounding this man, it is impossible to see through to the fire that is at the center of his core.
What is unpatriotic and treacherous is being so blinded to the truth that you will allow yourself to be sucked into his black hole of deceit.SIGNIFICANT NEW evidence that could possibly be true? Really
I would think if this possible evidence is true Trump should be soon charged with a crime. Just like all the other possible crimes...LOL
It would seem more to be you to have entered some form of the dark hole. Always looking for tidbits of maybe and it looks to be true. You don't get it. I don't hang on what if or if comes. It seems somewhat futile, and --- oh well I better leave it at that.That does seem to be quite a difference. You demand truth and proof. Others only require that the Democrats crank up their smoke gun to declare guilt. No fire necessary; just smoke from liberals.
I have yet to see an investigation into Trump where, in the end, the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming. The fact that enough Republicans decided to play politics rather than protect America from him doesn't alter the truth of the matter.
"I would think if this possible evidence is true Trump should be soon charged with a crime." - You kept saying that about sedition and insurrection, didn't you? If you recall, just recently people were charged with just that. Why don't you think Trump will after the investigation is complete. (Sorry it is not fast enough for you. For me, I prefer all of the 'i's are dotted and 't's crossed.)
"I would think if this possible evidence is true ..." - Do you have any doubt it isn't true?
You think President Biden had a bad week (and no question he did), but Trump and his minions are having a worse one.
First, Trump lost his bid to hide his public records from the public
Second, the plot to overturn the election keeps unraveling as it was reported that fraudulent elector certificates were sent to the National Archives.
Third, it seems the reason they were sent is because of a Giuliani and Trump Campaign personnel actively sought to substitute FAKE electors for real ones.
"We fought to seat the [FAKE] electors. The Trump campaign asked us to do that," Meshawn Maddock, co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party, said at a public event last week that was organized by the conservative group Stand Up Michigan, according to a recording obtained by CNN.
Forth and most significant from a news report I heard on the radio, the Jan 6th Committee apparently have connected some of the dots between Trump tweets and increased violence at the Capitol on Jan 6th!!!! They have testimony from rioters that as soon as the rioters heard from Trump that Pence was not going to break the law, they took that as a signal to get even more violent. (I am looking for the written report about that)
Fifth. the Fulton County, GA DA requests a special Grand Jury to probe Trump's election interference
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/ … index.htmlHere is a nice summary of the Fake Elector-gate episode. It concludes with - Team Trump attempted to usurp that Electoral College process and, quite literally, steal the election in those states. Nullifying elections, in this fashion, is nothing short of an attempted coup.
What is not clear - yet - is how deep Trump was into this plot. What is clear, based on many statements he made about substituting his electors for the real ones, is that he was aware of it. The only question remaining is how much was Trump part of the nuts-and-bolts of the operation.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/23/politics … index.htmlSean Hannity, friend, propagandist, and counselor to Trump, is certainly a dubious character. While PUBLICALLY and vocally supporting Trump's anti-democracy Big Lie, BEHIND THE SCENES he is frantically trying to get Trump to stop it. (In this case, Trump hasn't listened to him)
This is an article about the contents of a text message Hannity sent to Kayleigh McEnany, Trump's 5th(?) press spokesperson, about trying to contain Trump and the "crazies" around him. (I wonder if he was referring to himself? Probably not)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … -committeeThe long, slow arm of the law is coming after you, Donald Trump, mob boss extraordinaire. The Atlanta DA has asked for, and just received permission from a panel of judges to form a Special Grand Jury to specifically investigate Trump's possible voter fraud crimes against the State of Georgia.
The difference between a Grand Jury and a Special Grand Jury is that the former can issue enforceable subpoenas AND indict someone. The later can only issue enforceable subpoenas and leave it to the DA to do the indicting. Apparently, in Georgia, DA's can't subpoena anybody.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/24/politics/ … index.htmlIT IS ABOUT TIME!
Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/25/politics/ … index.html
This whole things is quickly unravelling for the anti-American, anti-democratic Trump Republicans.
He absolutely tried to subvert a legitimate election to stay in power. He laid out a roadmap for a more competent politician to follow:
1.) Install those willing to go along with a coup in key positions at the Pentagon, DOJ, and General Services Administration.
2.) Fabricate enough conspiracy theories to confuse GOP legislatures to throw out the popular vote and send their own electors under newly created laws.
3.) Win a majority in the House, so that they only certify electors if they provide the GOP candidate with the victory.
4.) Coordinate with violent right-wing militias in order to use force should all else fail.That sums it up nicely, although I would point out he is still 'trying".
Here is a recent interview with a couple of experts who predicted in 2019 that Trump would try a coup if he lost in November.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … -politics/
And Homeland Security again warns of Trump-inspired violence this month when he doesn't return to office.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/politics … index.html
I notice how you purposefully left out the mention of Fusion GPS all throughout that post. Clinton's campaign and the DNC contracted with an American company to do background research.
Saying Clinton used foreign sources is just plain false as it cannot be proven she even knew that Fusion had sub-contracted with Steele.
And the claim was that the Trump Campaign conspired with Russians - a claim that has been completely confirmed at this point. Manafort shared polling data with Russian Intelligence.'Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia.
Steele’s sources told him the Russian government was working with Trump to try to help him beat Clinton, including providing hacked emails. That unproven allegation is among those being investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-cour … le-n897506
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/p … ained.html
I quote Mueller in regards to Manafort
"Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” the report said.
For Manafort, the Mueller report cited his sharing of internal polling with his longtime employee in Ukraine, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI believes is tied to Russian intelligence.
“The Office DID NOT identify EVIDENCE of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts,” the report states."
I can only quote what has been reported. I don't deal with "maybe this happened".
Mueller did an extensive investigation, I choose to use his findings at this point as facts.And I quoted the Senate Intelligence Report that sharing a campaign's internal polling data with a hostile foreign government is clearly colluding with them. Just because Mueller could not establish what Russia did with that information does not mean that it was not clear collusion by Manafort with the Russians.
And that's nice to see that you can understand that Fusion used a British source, who used Russia sources for this report. That Steele had no clue who financed him does not mean Clinton's campaign had a direct link to Russian sources. Trump's definitely did as Manafort worked directly with Russian Intelligence.We differ in regard to who we trust when it comes to the Senate investigation. I found it a circus and political carnival. I am very much apt to believe the Mueller report over the senate investigation. Mueller had as long as he pleased to conduct his investigation, he dug deep and took all the time he needed using a professional team of true investigators. The Senators just did not have the experience or subpoena power.
" Just because Mueller could not establish what Russia did with that information does not mean that it was not clear collusion by Manafort with the Russians." Again --- Mueller -- “The Office DID NOT identify EVIDENCE of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had ALREADY been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts,” the report states."
Hey to each his own... the fact the media had already reported the data before Manafort Aug 2 meeting. So who is the culprit --- Manafort or our own media? At the time of the meeting, the info was already out of the bag...The Senate investigation was a bipartisan report, hence why I chose to quote noted Trump brownnoser Marc Rubio confirming Manafort did collude when he shared the polling data. Many witnesses in the Mueller report chose not to testify or openly lied (Stone).
Regardless of whether sharing internal polling data led to interference, that does not exempt Manafort from colluding with Russia. Plus, you've already conceded earlier that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. Do you honestly think that they would not have found a use for the Trump Campaign's 2016 internal polling data?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/76831993 … ce-in-2016It is also known that polling data included information on ... you guessed it . .. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Go figure.
I certainly believe Russia interfered with the election, and in some fashion used poll data. I just am not sure how either candidate could have stopped them. They have interfered with our elections as well as many other counties' elections for decades. It is unfortunate that the media leaked polling information, and yes the info was also leaked by Manafort days after our media leaked it. Not sure how polling info was used other than giving Russia a heads up on what candidate was leading at that point.
I am not sure how Russia could be stopped in regard to election interference. Most are done via hacking, very hard to stop when you are up against people that are very good at it.
The Senate report in my opinion was constructed using subjective opinions without solid evidence IMO. All the witnesses gave opinion-oriented. testimony, on what could have occurred. It appeared Mueller's report was factual, he tried to leave out opinions, and just reported on what could be proved, and left out what could not be verified as fact.
Certainly, things could have happened that just could not be proved.
But is it ever fair to fair to condemn based on subjective opinions?I'm pretty sure that the government did a much better job stopping the Russia disinformation campaign during the 2020 election, likely by working with Facebook to identify fake accounts and pages.
The media also recognized, and not just liberal media, but outlets like Fox News, that Russia was feeding propaganda through Rudy Giuliani by way of Derkach.
As for Manafort, Mueller did note he met with Kilimnik and gave the internal polling data and talked about strategy for battleground states.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump … e21fce6ebf"and talked about strategy for battleground states." - I forgot about that which is clear evidence of actual conspiracy. I remember reading that and wondered why Mueller didn't charge him with that.
"I just am not sure how either candidate could have stopped them. " - Agreed, neither could have. I also don't believe that Trump personally helped the Russians but Mueller made it very clear that members of his campaign did. And it is also clear that Trump was deeply involved in the Wikileaks release of information.
"It is unfortunate that the media leaked polling information" - The media did not leak polling information - try again.
"It is unfortunate that the media leaked polling information, and yes the info was also leaked by Manafort days after our media leaked it. " - You are clearly misreading the Mueller report - it does not say that.
"Most are done via hacking, " - Again not true. Russia used disinformation to sway peoples' votes.
"All the witnesses gave opinion-oriented. testimony" - Doesn't mean much when ALL testimony, by definition, is opinion and is just a cop out.
The Mueller report was full of opinions.
"But is it ever fair to fair to condemn based on subjective opinions?" - it is done all of the time in courts of law. Lot's of guilty verdicts based on circumstantial evidence. It all boils down to whether the testimony is reasonable and believable.https://apnews.com/article/technology-j … d92b775d98
The media leaked polling information on Aug 2, and yes the info was also leaked by Manafort days after our media leaked it. " I quoted Mueller --
"Mr. Steele: Former campaign manager Paul Manafort and volunteer adviser Carter Page worked as a team to liaison with the Kremlin on election interference.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” the report said.
For Manafort, the Mueller report cited his sharing of internal polling with his longtime employee in Ukraine, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI believes is tied to Russian intelligence.
“The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts,” Robert Mueller
Circumstantial evidence or hearsay evidence is not allowed in a court of law at all...You didn't show me where Mueller said that Hillary and the DNC knowingly paid for the Steele dossier. Obviously, then, you are wrong. Admit it.
Circumstantial evidence is almost always used, to one degree or another, in a court of law. A lot of the evidence that convicted George Floyd's murderer was circumstantial as well as subjective opinions. And there are many exceptions to the "hearsay" rule.
As I pointed out before which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting refers to "Russia’s interference in the election" and NOT "haring polling data" as you claim.
Show me the news articles where the news media "leaked" internal polling data. BTW, even that wording is wrong. Assuming that the media had reported on it, it wasn't they who "leaked" it but somebody in the Trump campaign. So why blame the media for something they didn't do??
Finally, "“The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, " is absolutely meaningless as well as misleading. It is "Manafort’s sharing polling data" that is the crime we are talking about. We are not talking about what had already been reported in the media prior to Aug 2 that Russia was interfering with out elections - that is a different and separate crime."The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians and journalists, is officially debunked, according to a review of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page investigative report.
Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates." https://apnews.com/article/technology-j … d92b775d98
FBI releases documents showing payments to Trump dossier author Steele
Source -- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-cour … le-n897506
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … story.html
The DNC and the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. They never even disputed that fact.
We were discussing the Dossier. I am not interested in discussing Manaford other than what was in the dossier. Old news we all know he was charged with several crimes. Water under the bridge. He was convicted and is doing time.""The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians a ..." - Why do you keep quote the words of a far-right columnist?
Both Valeant and I already provided the evidence where the DNC and Clinton campaign didn't know that Fusion GPS had hired Steele. I am not even positive that they even knew the lawyers, who were not their lawyers, had hired Fusion GPS.
Face it, your right-wing sources are lying to you.
"Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates." - [i]You are right, his sources did. And MANY were proven correct and NONE were proven incorrect.
You like "proof", so where is it? Where is the PROOF that any of the things Steele put in his raw intelligence was incorrect? You don't have any. All you seem to have is the unsubstantiated "opinion" of a right-wing columnist writing for a right-wing newspaper.
"The DNC and the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. They never even disputed that fact." - Tell me - how do you dispute something you don't know about?? What THEY disputed was having any knowledge that was what some of their money was used for.
Come to think of it, you can accuse me of paying for the Steele dossier (some of which was proved true) since I contributed to the DNC and Clinton campaign.Once again here are some of Mueller's quotes in regard to the Steel dossier
"SORRY FOR THE LONG LIST --- BUT ONCE AND FOR ALL HERE ARE MUELLER"S FINDING'S --- The facts as Mueller reported
Here are 12 of Mr. Steele’s 2016 conspiracy charges that were in the dossier, as compared with Mueller's factual findings.
Mr. Steele: There was an “extensive conspiracy between Trump campaign team and Kremlin” and a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them and Russian leadership.”
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he wrote.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump and his team set up a hacking operation in the U.S. Mr. Trump funded hacking teams overseas along with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. The Mueller investigation found no such illegal activities.
Mr. Steele: The supposed U.S. hacking operation was funded by the Russian Embassy in Washington. It skimmed cash off pension payments to emigres. The Trump team was involved.
Mr. Mueller: No such evidence was presented.
Mr. Steele: Former campaign manager Paul Manafort and volunteer adviser Carter Page worked as a team to liaison with the Kremlin on election interference.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” the report said.
For Manafort, the Mueller report cited his sharing of internal polling with his longtime employee in Ukraine, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI believes is tied to Russian intelligence.
“The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts,” the report states.
Mr. Steele: The Trump campaign received a regular flow of anti-Democratic Party intelligence from the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller: Not true.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump exchanged information with Russian intelligence for eight years.
Mr. Mueller: Not true.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump knew of and supported WikiLeaks’ alliance with Moscow, which fed stolen Democratic Party emails to the anti-secrecy group. It released them in huge batches during the campaign.
Mr. Mueller: Weeks before the election, evidence pointed to the Kremlin as the hacker. There is no evidence that Mr. Trump supported the illegal activity.
Mr. Steele: The Kremlin told Mr. Trump it had incriminating evidence on him but would not use it.
Mr. Mueller: No evidence of conspiracy.
Mr. Steele: Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen secretly traveled to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Putin cronies to devise a cover-up of the conspiracy and pay off hackers. This is one of Mr. Steele’s most sensational charges.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false,” the special counsel wrote.
Mr. Steele: Carter Page, while on a public trip to Moscow in July 2016 to deliver a commencement speech, met with two powerful Putin associates. Mr. Page agreed to a huge bribe in exchange for lifting U.S. economic sanctions on Russian businesses and figures.
Mr. Mueller: Investigators couldn’t determine everything Mr. Page, an energy investor, did during the trip. Mr. Page repeatedly has denied the Steele tale. He wasn’t charged. Mr. Mueller cleared him of any election conspiracy.
Mr. Steele: Russian intelligence has material on Mr. Trump’s sex escapades in The Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow during the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant, which he co-owned with NBCUniversal.
Mr. Mueller: His report contains no evidence. Rumored tapes of the encounter with prostitutes are “fake,” Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a U.S.-based businessman, told the FBI. Mr. Rtskhiladze was an early player in the Trump Organization’s 2015-16 bid to build a Moscow hotel.
Mr. Steele: Russian entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev, owner of the web-hosting service firm XBT, hacked Democratic Party computers under pressure from Russian intelligence. Mr. Gubarev categorically denies the charge and has sued Mr. Steele in London.
Mr. Mueller: His report depicts Russian military intelligence officers as the lone hackers, working out of boiler rooms at a Moscow headquarters. There is no mention of Mr. Gubarev.
These are the facts as Mueller discovered in a twp year investigation.
There was no evidence that Trump conspired with Russia to win the election. Mueller did find Russia did interfere with the election but were non-related to conspiring with the GOP or Trump.
It is disheartening to see many still spread conspiracy theories and
make claims that Trump worked with Russian's to try to win the election. There is only one person that did that --- Hillary Clinton she bought and paid for the information that was reportedly from Russians.
Again the FBI, as well as Mueller, confirmed the DNC and Hillary Clinton used campaign funds to pay for the dossier. I guess you can continue to believe whatever you please. Here again, is another couple of sources that show the facts in regard to who was paying for the dossier.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … story.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics … index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41752908
Mueller as well as the FBI proved the dossier was much made up of fabricated lies. Steel admitted that he could not prove any of the BS in the dossier. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics … index.html
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ … le-dossier
This dossier was just another cheap old political Dem ploy. They skirt around in mud...
"We differ in regard to who we trust when it comes to the Senate investigation. I found it a circus and political carnival." - You do know, don't you, that the Senate investigation was a Republican led effort. The real circus was Nunes over in the House"
Yes, the Senate did have subpoena power.
You left something out (or your right-wing source did) when you claim "The Office DID NOT identify EVIDENCE of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had ALREADY been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting" - [i]1) you do know that the "ALREADY been reported" refers to the Russian interference and NOT the polling data don't you? and 2) Mueller WENT ON TO SAY "The Office was not, however, able to gain access to all of Manafort’s electronic communications (in some instances, messages were sent using encryption applications) - which is Mueller's way of saying he thinks there is EVIDENCE.
I love it when Shar posts the same exact thing over and over again after we have given her information that conflicts with the points she was looking to make. Like just reposting the same thing is some way of convincing us that her opinion must be correct.
Oh, well, you reposted it twice, it must be right then."The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians a ..." - Why do you keep quote the words of a far-right columnist?
Both Valeant and I already provided the evidence where the DNC and Clinton campaign didn't know that Fusion GPS had hired Steele. I am not even positive that they even knew the lawyers, who were not their lawyers, had hired Fusion GPS. "
The conversation was about who paid for the Dossier -- I provided ample proof that this is what the facts show. I have no idea if the DCN or Hillary knew Clinton campaign didn't know that Fusion GPS had hired Steele. I at no time associated payment to the knowledge of what Hillary or the DCN was aware of.
Not sure this matters, they paid, and should have been aware of what they were paying for, and if the person doing research could be trusted. That's my view. personally, I feel Hillary and the DNC knew all about Steele and that the Dossier was just a bunch of BS.'Not sure this matters, they paid, and should have been aware of what they were paying for, and if the person doing research could be trusted.'
By that logic, if the Trump Campaign paid Manafort for services, Trump should have been aware that he was colluding with Russian intelligence.
And they were aware that they were paying Fusion GPS, a company both Republicans and Democrats paid to do background research. Seems that both sides of the aisle trusted them just fine.Yes, Trump and his campaign associates should all know what was being paid for, as well as what was being done in the name of the campaign. I will stick with --- if you paying for a service you should be aware of who is working for the money, and the reputation of the person as well as his sources.
The conservative news website The Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion during the 2016 campaign. It first hired the firm that later produced a dossier of unsubstantiated information about Donald Trump's Russia ties. They never were aware of the dossier.
The Free Beacon obtained none of the dossier or any relevant info, and stop using the company early on.
Statement from Free Beacon --- "The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele," wrote the site's editor in Chief Matthew Continetti and chairman Michael Goldfarb."
So yes the Free Beacon did hire them but it appears they had no reason to trust or not trust them. They were aware of what was being produced and found it of no value, and let them go.
I would think the DNC should have knowledge of what Fusion was pursuing, and what was being found due to the research they were paying for.
Why don't you use your logic and blame Trump for 1) pulling babies from the arms of their mothers, 2) the Turks killing the Kurds he abandoned, 3) failing to prevent Covid from reaching our shores. etc? Whether he knew about any of that is beside the point, he was the president at the time and therefore should be held responsible for all of those atrocities.
How about this - an obviously drunk driver runs a red light slamming into another car killing the occupant. The passenger in the drunks car did nothing to prevent the driver from driving. Shouldn't the passenger be held liable for the death because he or she "should have" known this was a likely outcome? I see this as similar to your claim that Hillary and the DNC "should have known" that Fusion GPS was going to hire Steele to do the {b]legal[/b] oppo research.
BTW, I see I got drawn into a pointless discussion because what was done was perfectly legal, so I am not sure why Republicans are having a heart attack over it.
Trump is gone I think it's time to stop flogging the Deadhorse. There is a need to focus on the deeds of Mr. Joe Biden and his son who are selling everything to the Chinese.
Trump is far from gone buddy. He just had a rally on July 24. He actively tried to undermine the infrastructure bill by threatening current Senators despite 7 in 10 Americans supporting the bill. And he's still an active threat as he publicly promotes his big lie and foments additional violence - this according to Homeland Security that just warned of that they see his supporters as threats to national security.
We all understand why many want to change the topic to only Biden, but comparing someone who can get bipartisan legislature passed (not to mention legislation to combat climate change that even Manchin and Synema backed), has brought Covid deaths down from 76,000 per month to 8,000, and is also a competent steward of the economy as we add thousands of blue collar jobs by actually doing infrastructure is not going to go well for those that think Trump did a good job, despite 400,000 dead Americans, a net negative jobs gain, and an additional $7.8 trillion added to our national debt.
On effective leadership pertaining to infrastructure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Lstd--i2A
I've shown in other threads how the border 'crisis' is comparable to 2019 because of title 42 and the now 38% of immigrants that retry to enter the country versus the 7% two years ago during the same months. Inflation is as much about the limited amount of goods produced in 2020 when Covid shut down production, and the demand for those goods now that everyone has money and the economy is reopening. When supply is low and demand is high, prices will rise. When homes are not being built, and demand for them goes up, existing home prices will increase.U.S. border arrests top 1 million in fiscal year 2021
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ … 021-06-25/
The numbers are staggering anyway you one spins it. More than 800 unaccompanied kids stopped at southern border in single day.
Just a bit of news media does not feel you need to know about...
"US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stopped a whopping 834 unaccompanied minors at the US-Mexico border Wednesday, the most since the Biden administration began releasing a daily tally of apprehensions of children earlier this year.
The data, which was first reported by the Washington Examiner, come days after a top DHS official estimated in a court filing that more than 19,000 children traveling alone were picked up by immigration officers last month. That number would top the previous high of 18,877 in March of this year and works out to an average of more than 600 unaccompanied children being apprehended per day. Since then, CBP has apprehended 17,144 unaccompanied minors in April (571 stops per day); 14,137 in May (456 stops per day), and 15,253 in June (508 stops per day)."
Never in our history have we had this many unaccompanied children in our custody.
And in my view, it was not Bide that is responsible for the decrease in COVID deaths that credit goes to Operation Warp Speed, and Trump for getting the vaccine. The vaccine is what is bringing the death rate down.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/05/more-than … rn-border/
Heartbreaking' conditions in US migrant child camp...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57561760
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57149721
Biden has done nothing to try to solve the ever-increasing problem. He is letting using catch and relies on and flooding the country with people that could be infected with COVID. He has the borders wide open for people to continue to come to be processed into the country.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … year-high/
AUGUST 10, 2021
Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border are at a 21-year high
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … year-high/
As you can see Joe has pretty much made a huge mess at the border.
Expulsion rate
"Expulsions have become less common under Biden– and apprehensions more common – in the first months of President Joe Biden’s administration. In June, 58% of migrant encounters resulted in expulsion, down from 83% in January, when Biden took office.""U.S. border arrests top 1 million in fiscal year 2021" - Yet America keeps growing and not being affected by the border patrol doing its job. It is amazing how you can take a good thing (effective border control) and put a negative spin on it. You seem to have never understood that the number of people showing up at the border is out of America's control. And YES, Biden did stop many, but not all, of Trump's inhumane and un-American policies.
The vaccine is great, no doubt, but totally useless if people don't use don't get shots. Under Trump, it would have just set on shelves as he fumbled along trying to 1) making the vaccine widely available (which Trump didn't do) and 2) encouraging people to take it (which Trump is not doing even now).
Also, just look at who is mainly responsible for the spread of the Delta variant (as well as suffering the consequences of their stupidity) - Trump supporters! All you have to do is look at a county by county map of the unvaccinated to easily see that.
I will bet their intransigence will show up at the polls in 2022 with fewer conservatives being around (meaning alive) to vote. Many others who survived Delta will realize they have been lied to by the right-wing media and vote Democratic or not vote at all.You may have missed this comment in regard to OWS and how all was provided in regards to the distribution of the vaccine. It is unknown how Trump would have done with the rollout of the vaccine. IMO he was a problem solver, nothing went unnoted under Trump, he worked at solving problems. Biden works at ignoring problems. I would think Trump would have pushed that vaccine due to it was one of his great accomplishments.
He had a knack for getting things done, in good time. He never ignored problems and he took the brunt of anything he could not solve.He never ignored problems? Continual Infrastructure Week? Social Justice? The Deficit? The Spread of Covid? Russian Election Interference? The reasons why immigrants come to the US?
I don't like Trump yet Biden is worst.
More Americans have died of Covid than from Trump in as little as half the timeTrump: First death, early February. Left office in late January. Deaths during that time 400,000. Time: just short of a year
Biden: Began office in late January. In just under seven months time, 218,000 deaths.
400,000/11.5 = 34,782
218,000/6.75 = 32,296
Pretty sure your math is wrong in your claim.My fault it was around 320,000 in the US in 2020.
I was quoted world deaths under 2 million 2020 vs 4.3 million globe deaths to date
Still growing at a faster rate in the US.To make a fair comparison, you need to not count the first 6 months of the pandemic since it was just getting started while Biden took over with it running at full-tilt.
So let's look at the last 6 months of Trump and the first 6 months of Biden and see what we get.
There were 453,677 deaths by Jan 27, 2021 and 132,110 deaths by July 27, 2020. That means 321,567 people died in those six months.
On July 27, 2021, there were 628,787 fatalities. That gives 175,110 deaths in Biden's first six months. So let's compare (I won't bother dividing by six)
Trump - 321,567 dead
Biden - 175,110 dead, a 46% reduction under Biden.
I rest my case.
"Continual Infrastructure Week? Social Justice? The Deficit?
" Are you referring to Obama? He failed on all mentioned in my view. (Obama increased the deficit by 74% by adding 8.59 trillion...)
Russian election interference has gone on for literally decades now. I disagree that Trump had anything to do with Russia interfering in the election. We will need to agree to disagree on that subject.Solid deflection on issues Trump clearly failed on. (Trump added $7.8 trillion in half the time Obama did, so he was nearly doubly worse than Obama, but you continue thinking they were equally bad).
Only Trump denied that Russia Interfered in our election. Every other sane human being accepts it as fact."Donald Trump: As of the end of FY 2020, the debt was $26.9 trillion. Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt since Obama's last budget, a 33.1% increase due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic."
I beg to differ with your thought in regard to what part of the population feels there was Russian interference in the last election, 74,222,958 citizens voted for Trump. I would find it very hard to determine what people thought when making their decision on who to vote for.
Mueller denied finding any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-p … nt-3306296And this year's budget is still Trump's. Be sure to add in that deficit to then get to the $7.8 trillion. Your own article notes what FOUR years of Trump's deficits look like. How about stating the facts accurately:
In his FY 2021 budget, Trump's budget includes a $966 billion deficit.
FY 2020 - $4.226 trillion
FY 2019 - $1.563 trillion
FY 2018 - $1.272 trillion
You think 74 million people deny Russia interfered with the 2016 election just because they still voted for Trump? That's a stretch.
And if you wouldn't mind refraining from changing the statement from Trump denying Russian Interference to Trump colluding with Russia, that'd be great. Try and focus on what was said. Russia did interfere - you've conceded that. The Trump Campaign definitely colluded with Russia, no matter how many times you defer to Mueller and ignore the Senate Intelligence Report that confirmed this as an indisputable fact. And Trump, in Helsinki traitorously sided with Putin in denying that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign, going against every US Intelligence agency finding to the contrary.I was simply responding to your statement --- "Only Trump denied that Russia Interfered in our election. Every other sane human being accepts it as fact."
Just pointing out I find it a stretch that anyone who supports Trump's opinion is "insane".
"Mueller denied finding any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia." - WRONG - Mueller said he didn't have enough evidence that Trump conspired with the Russians. That is a far cry from "denied ANY evidence that Trump colluded" as you falsely put it.
As to the Debt, you failed to give CONTEXT:
Obama started out with a collapsing economy that was headed for a depression.
Trump started out with a stable economy that collapsed due to the pandemic in the last seven months, which Biden had to inherit.
Most of Obama's increase was due to bailing America out of a near depression - the impact of which demised substantially over time.
Most of Trump's increase for the first three years was from giving away the farm to the rich and powerful - an annual increase that was forecast to continue forever. Only the last 11 months of Trump's increase was due to the pandemic, granted, it was large - probably equivalent to what Obama needed to dig out from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Wrong, Valeant. She thinks Trump's deficit was good and solving a problem (the rich and rich corporations didn't have enough money) while Obama's was bad because it dug us out of a potential depression his Republican predecessor left us with.
Over 3 trillion was COVID stimulus that was needed while so many were out of work locked down. I do certainly feel that both of his COVID stimuli were needed, and help divert serious problems that would have occurred if he did not provide the stimulus cash... I actually support almost all of Trump's expenditures that added to the deficit. The budget expenditures were well thought out and benefited Americans.
Here is a link to what was in Budgets Trump signed. Note how very diverse these expenditures are. Trump had the backs of all Americans... No flower BS but money spent to make things better for American's and America. The sad thing -- not many paid attention to what Trump was actually doing as president, only concerned about what he was being accused of doing by the media. I looked further, never liked to be told what to believe.
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_policy_ … _2017-2018"The budget expenditures were well thought out and benefited Americans." - You FORGOT that Trump proposed a much, much smaller spending program initially and started to oppose the much larger Democratic (and I will admit Republican) plan that became the Cares Act.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal … SKBN22R1G9
"The sad thing -- not many paid attention to what Trump was actually doing as president," - ISN'T that because he didn't do much and most of what he did was bad for America?I guess it was hard to read the link of what Trump spent cash on. But facts are facts...
Trump did object to lots of stilly pork for the arts and such. I was so proud of him. The Dems showed just how truly ridiculous they are. The package was laden with ridiculous pork. Much was lobed off. However, Trump did end up signing the bill to help the American people.
I read the Cares Act it made me sick to my stomach to witness the Washington Dems taking advantage of a true crisis in the worst way. Almost like walking over the dead to get some cash for the arts. yuck. The Democrats in Washington are never shy about pulling off a cheap political ploy.
28, 2020) On December 27, 2020, President Donald Trump signed into law H.R. 133
Exhibit A: "Of the funds appropriated under title III of the Act that are made available for assistance for Pakistan, not less than $15,000,000 shall be made available for democracy programs and not less than $10,000,000 shall be made available for gender programs." Yep. $10 million. For gender programs. In Pakistan.
Exhibit B: Funds for "Resource Study of Springfield (Illinois) Race Riot." That riot occurred in (checks notes) 1908.
Exhibit C: "Statement Of Policy Regarding The Succession Or Reincarnation Of The Dalai Lama." We'll just leave that one there.
Exhibit D: There's actually a commission tasked with educating “consumers about the dangers associated with using or storing portable fuel containers for flammable liquids near an open flame."
Exhibit E: Another $40 million will be allocated "for the necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and security" of The Kennedy Center, which received $25 million in another COVID-19 relief bill earlier this year. Also in a related story, the Kennedy Center has been closed.
Exhibits F, G, H, I, J: $86 million for assistance to Cambodia; $130 million to Nepal, $135 million to Burma, $453 million to Ukraine, $700 million to Sudan.
Exhibit K: The bill creates a Women's History Museum and an American Latino Museum as part of the Smithsonian. Overall, the Smithsonian gets (checks notes again) $1 billion.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/531 … elief-billI thought you ignored "opinion contributors" like this and stuck with the facts rather than misinformation.
Not a single one of those so-called exhibits have any context included to judge the veracity of the claim.All true, all in the bill, all pasted...
Exhibit K: The bill creates a Women's History Museum and an American Latino Museum as part of the Smithsonian. Overall, the Smithsonian gets (checks notes again) $1 billion.
https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/ … m-american
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … /congress-
approves-smithsonian-museums-latino-and-womens-history
/4006109001/
here are a few more ridiculous add-ons that our Tax dollars are paying for.
$4 billion for New York’s MTA as part of bailouts for mass-transit systems.
$15 billion earmarked toward grant programs for live entertainment venues such as Broadway.
$7 billion toward expanding broadband access.
$1.4 billion for a construction of a wall on the southern US border.
A new law saying that violating copyright laws with unauthorized online streaming will become a felony punishable by five years in prison for first offenses and 10 years for repeat offenses. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) pushed the provision.
A rule saying the US Postal Service can no longer deliver e-cigarettes.
New museums on the National Mall that will focus on Latinos and women, which were pushed by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY).
A declaration condemning a possible role by the Chinese Communist Party in the selection of Tibet’s next Dalai Lama. The current Tibetan Buddhist religious leader is 85.
$500 million earmarked for Israeli defense purchases, including to equip the Iron Dome missile defense system.
$250 million over five years for Palestinian economic aid, which was pushed by New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey.
$101 million to combat “the transnational threat of wildlife poaching and trafficking.”
$2.5 million for “Internet freedom programs in closed societies”
$10 million for “gender programs” meant to help women get education and start businesses in Pakistan.
Read the bill --- yes we all got a bit of stimulus money, but have a look at what was paid out in ridiculous pork cash.
You can deny all you please all I have listed was in the bill, and the bill was pasted.
The bill is online, and I would think if you are disputing my comment you need to first scroll the bill...All of that pork was pork previously passed by Congress and signed off on by Trump.
Kennedy Center funding was designated in a bill back in 2019, for example.I am not saying pork is unusual in bills, but why was it necessary in these emergency COVID bills to add pork? America was and is facing a crisis, why add any funds that could work to sink our economy in a difficult time, and raise the deficit unnecessarily?
Trump should have never buckled and signed either of the bills on his watch... And Biden should have never considered a third bill filled with pork. I did not think my comment exempted Trump from blame.
The two bills Trump signed were filled with pork. What I listed in my comment were from the bills Trump signed. I was only pointing out the pork that was added by the Democrats in the two bills. Hey IMO in the end both Presidents shoulder the blame on the bills they signed --- My beef is with the Democrats that added the pork to these bills. I feel it was a cheap ploy due to the crisis the country was and is going through.
Maybe Congress could have put a hold on all the pork due to our Nations's historical crisis situation. These bills should have been composed of covid related projects and expenditures. Just my view.
Pork in our bills has been a problem for decades, but Congress should have been wise enough to see and govern differently in a true historical crisis.And again, this was money already passed years prior in a previous resolution. This was not added, it was already approved.
If Trump wanted a new resolution to remove the promise to fund this, he could have asked his allies in Congress for such a resolution.
But God forbid Congress follows the laws they actually pass previously."but why was it necessary in these emergency COVID bills to add pork?"
Because it won't be passed otherwise. If it can't be included in a bill that has a lot of support, unreasonable, unnecessary expenditures don't pass the vote. Definition of Pork spending.
"Maybe they could have put a hold on the pork due to our Nations's historical situation."
LOL Hey, you get a chance to spend other people's money in buying votes to keep your position, you do it! Ethics aren't a concern, and neither is the country.You got it! My point was the Democrats added a ton of pork on the past three COVID stimulus bills uncaring that we have a huge deficit and an economy that could falter in the next few years. In my view, they did know these bills would pass due to the emergency situation the country was under.
I look at this as inexcusable, a cheap political ploy like no other we have witnessed. They used a historic crisis to get all their pork into law, and yes a double whammy throw crumbs, and buy votes.
All very disgusting in my view.
"Trump should have never buckled and signed either of the bills on his watch..." - ARE you finally admitting that Trump made a mistake that was bad for America, in your opinion? LOL.
"I was only pointing out the pork that was added by the Democrats in the two bills." - What makes you think it was only the Democrats that added pork? Republicans are very good at it as well - remember the "bridge to nowhere"?
Never said they weren't. The amendments I posted were from Dems. Republicans do the same, just never witnessed this being done during a huge crisis. More or less shoved down the throat due to the emergency nature of those stimulus bills... Purely slimy --- hey just my opinion.
Thing is, most of those things of any significance you find objectionable, the rest of us see as needed. Besides, as the article pointed out, those were part of the omnibus and not the Heroes Act.
Which one of the following bits of pork is really needed to benefit America. "Most of us" is a stretch is it not. I doubt if many Americans would support one of the following. --- Let me remind you to begin with we were discussing the two stimulus bills Trump signed. Which these goodies were added.
Exhibit A: "Of the funds appropriated under title III of the Act that is made available for assistance for Pakistan, not less than $15,000,000 shall be made available for democracy programs and not less than $10,000,000 shall be made available for gender programs." Yep. $10 million. For gender programs. In Pakistan.
Exhibit B: Funds for "Resource Study of Springfield (Illinois) Race Riot." That riot occurred in (checks notes) 1908.
Exhibit C: "Statement Of Policy Regarding The Succession Or Reincarnation Of The Dalai Lama." We'll just leave that one there.
Exhibit D: There's actually a commission tasked with educating “consumers about the dangers associated with using or storing portable fuel containers for flammable liquids near an open flame."
Exhibit E: Another $40 million will be allocated "for the necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and security" of The Kennedy Center, which received $25 million in another COVID-19 relief bill earlier this year. Also in a related story, the Kennedy Center has been closed.
Exhibits F, G, H, I, J: $86 million for assistance to Cambodia; $130 million to Nepal, $135 million to Burma, $453 million to Ukraine, $700 million to Sudan.
Exhibit K: The bill creates a Women's History Museum and an American Latino Museum as part of the Smithsonian. Overall, the Smithsonian gets (checks notes again) $1 billion.
All silly, all added by Dems...And let me remind you that Trump "signed" what the Democrats (and for the Cares Act, Republicans) crafted.
All of those so-called Exhibits come from the The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. This Act contained many things. Some of which are some of the Exhibits you presented and others were for Covid relief.
Tell me, which of your Exhibits does the text say was for Covid relief? I suspect none of them. Aren't things similar to your "Exhibits" common in most Appropriation bills? Why do you find these unusual?
And NO, they all weren't added by the Dems. Exhibit K, for example, had Senators Graham and Collins, among others, as backers.As I said in a previous comment I felt and was disappoint Trump signed other stimulus packages. In my book, he should have not signed them.
Senator Bob Menendez proposed the bill for creates a Women's History Museum and an American Latino Museum as part of the Smithsonian. I have no idea who supported it, nor do I care.WE had more to worry about than a museum actually of any kind during a National crisis."I have no idea who supported it, nor do I care.WE had more to worry about than a museum actually of any kind during a National crisis." - So your solution is to stop all legislation while there is a pandemic going on. Do I have that right?
Especially since that funding was already approved back in 2019 in a separate bill that Trump had already signed off on.
And it, or something very much like it, was sponsored by Sen Graham.
But I think her point was that it is wrong to think about or act on legislation not related to the pandemic during the pandemic. Everything else gets put on the backburner until the crisis is past.As we begin to roll out vaccines and reopen the economy, some of those things will require funding if we hope to return to normalcy. It's funny how government support of the economy is only supported when their party is in control.
Not everything, but all I listed seem very unimportant at this point. I don't think many realize what goes into some of the bills Congress passes. How ridiculous some of the amendments are. The original infrastructure bill was so loaded with add ons it had to be de-porked, and another bill was constructed for all the social programs and lefts wish list. I don't think the Reconciliation bill will ever see the light of day.
Hey, you might be telling me "I told you so"... Who knows.
Absolutely. These stimulus bills (which is the subject) should have carried zero pork --- Zero.
Congress has the power to present bills and pass them. i am totally against adding pork to emergency stimulus in an economic crisis that was caused by a historical pandemic.
I never claimed that Congress needed to stop legislating, it's clear Congressional business can't come to a standstill, for example, budgets and even the infrastructure bill which as I think I said both sides added pork, and I find it unnecessary at this point again due to all the increased COVID stimulus that was necessary. As I said both sides need a political boast that they got from the infrastructure bill. It was a gimmie -- said it would pass it did, said there would be bilateral pork, there was..."Absolutely. These stimulus bills (which is the subject) should have carried zero pork --- Zero." - EXCEPT we weren't just talking about stimulus bills, were we? We were talking about an omnibus appropriations package that contained some stimulus, among other things. You know, appropriations to keep the government working.
All bills contain pork, always, even though most of your exhibits can not be classified as "pork". Just a clue, "pork" is not things you don't approve of. Pork is a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" kind of things - your exhibits were not that.Pork barrel, or simply pork, is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. ... Scholars use it as a technical term regarding legislative control of local appropriations.
Again, Congress has the power to present bills and pass them. I am totally against adding pork to emergency stimulus in an economic crisis that was caused by a historical pandemic."Pork barrel, or simply pork, is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. " - PRECISELY!
Now show me how each of your Exhibits fits that definition. I don't see it.
Your museum piece, according to your source, was not part of the CARES Act.
I am sure all of those things were in "some" bill, but were they in the CARES Act? Besides, that whole list of things you produced seems like obvious things to spend money on to help recover from the ravages of the pandemic. I am not sure what your problem is with any of them.
I am not sure you know what "pork" is, based on what you wrote. Pork is when a congressperson slips something into a bill that benefits their constituents.
You said that Trump opposed the Cares Act because of all the pork in it? Are you conflating the Cares Act with the Heroes Act?
Also did you know why conservatives mislead everyone about the "pork" in the Heroes Act? It was because "Lame duck President Donald Trump and a scattering of mainly populist conservatives call the HEROES Act a poor excuse for a national relief bill, and in fact more like a sneaky budgetary turducken – COVID relief inside an appropriations bill inside a Democratic pork barrel. This reaction observes the truth that the COVID relief bill was tied to a government funding omnibus, and so contains many items unrelated to the pandemic."
When you don't provide context, is it any wonder nobody trusts what you write?
Yet Trump put Obama to shame and he had a good economy to start with while Obama did not. Context matters when twisting facts.
"Russian election interference has gone on for literally decades now." - Actually, that is NOT true. Especially with the level of sophistication we saw in 2016 and again in 2020.
Trump or Trump's campaign? The claim (and proof) is that it was Trump's campaign that colluded, especially Manafort. (But then, using your Clinton/DNC logic, that is one in the same, isn't it?). Where Trump was directly involved was with the Stone-Wikileaks connection (not to mention Trump asking the Russians to investigate Clinton's emails, which they did.)
"how all was provided in regards to the distribution of the vaccine." - THIS was not the case. Trump provide "some" of the logistics but left most of the hard lifting to the states.
Biden took the approach that the federal gov't needed to lead, which he did. Given how poorly many of the Red states have done, it is a very good thing he did. Otherwise, we wouldn't be at 50% fully vaccinated. Under Trump, that would probably be 25% - almost all them Democrats.
"IMO he was a problem solver, nothing went unnoted under Trump, he worked at solving problems. " - ALL I can say is I am ROFL.Please tell me what you mean by Biden using " federal gov't needed to lead"?
He added nothing new to what OWS planned to do for months before he was in office. What do you feel he did differently than what was already planned?
I would give him credit if it were due. But I did not see him implement anything.The federal gov't needed to lead the effort to fight the pandemic. Trump, for the most part, shirked his duty. Even worse - Trump made everything worse than what it should have been. The ONLY thing Trump did right throughout the whole pandemic was sign off on OWS.
Beyond that:
- He politicized mask wearing
- He politicized getting vaccinated
- He politicized social distancing
- He downplayed the dangers of the pandemic
- He did not lead at all and left the states to flounder around on their own (which the Red states did and the Blue states figured out a way to mitigate some of the damage Trump did)
- He only had a [b]skeletal federal response[.b] to distribution but mainly abrogated his responsibilities to the states. Trump's primary plan was "let the states do it". Not much of a plan in my book.
Biden, on the other hand,
- Stopped the lies from the federal gov't about the pandemic
- Ramped up far beyond anything Trump had in the works the production of the vaccines
- Organized and federalized the distribution which Trump chose not to do
- Did his best, against fierce resistance from Trump and the Right, to get the message out that people needed to get vaccinated while Trump stayed silent.
In short, Biden led while Trump was basically absent.
Yes deeds, like getting the bi-partisan infrastructure bill passed in the Senate along with the budget resolution that will allow the other half of a much needed boost to human and other infrastructure.
As to the Chinese, you listen to too much Russian and American right-wing propaganda.
'And in my view, it was not Bide that is responsible for the decrease in COVID deaths that credit goes to Operation Warp Speed, and Trump for getting the vaccine. The vaccine is what is bringing the death rate down.'
Who is currently not taking the vaccine? Less than half of the GOP. Trump does deserve credit for funding vaccine research. But then why would Trump get vaccinated in January and not tell anyone? That's actively working against getting people vaccinated.
Trump's OWS planned to dropped vaccines off at airports and not coordinate with states beyond that. Biden's implementation of OWS has been quite the success. It would have been better if the right in this country wasn't actively working against OWS and trying to prolong the pandemic.Implementation was well planned out months before Trump left office. A guessed you missed the day-long summit that OWS had with speakers that were from the many venues that would be giving the vaccines company spokesmen from most that were putting plans of action together to provide the vaccine to citizens. The summit was an entire day event. All the plans for distribution were laid out at that summit. Biden had nothing to do with obtaining venues where the vaccine would be distributed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yclESPhfIU
Distribution Dec 9 2020
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious … id19/90098
I do remember the glitch in several states with their poor lack
of planning.
I have done some research in regards to who is not stepping up to take the vaccine. The numbers in most states show black citizens are not willing to be vaccinated. Check this link -- it has an interesting chart that shows in the majority of the states and indicates that many blacks will not take the vaccine. Not sure if they are republicans, but it is certainly interesting that blacks lag so far behind in most states.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covi … phics.htmlYeah, I did miss the Covid summit, as did about 327,988,000 other Americans apparently as that video only has about 12,000 views. I will give OWS more credit than my original perception though based on watching the video.
And this rollout wasn't free. It was going to cost money to do. You remember who was against providing states the funding for it. I do. I'll give you a hint or two. 6'3", falsifies weighing 227 pounds, uses the word cofveve.
I agree with you that black American rates are also a cause of the surge in cases, maybe even more so than the GOP as only 25% of their population is vaccinated compared to 41% of the GOP. Considering many do vote Democratic, that's an area where our party needs to do some promotion as well.I won't argue that Blacks and Hispanics are way behind in getting vaccinated. There reasons, however, are very different than from conservative white Americans. The former are much more afraid of the vaccine, unreasonably so, while the latter are mostly against it because of politics.
Also, the problem with Bloomberg's analysis is he is using percentages. Now, I will admit that I am a big fan of using rates to analyze something and don't come within 10 feet of using raw numbers. That said, there is a time and place for raw numbers - and this is one of those times.
The spread of the virus is, with everything else being equal, totally dependent on the total number of unvaccinated people. The more unvaccinated people there are, the more the virus will spread - period.
So now the question is, who makes up the unvaccinated. The answer is largely white conservatives. Here is how you arrive at that conclusion.
- There are roughly 332 million people in the US
- 14.7% are kids under 12 who are ineligible for vaccination
- Therefore there are roughly 283 million who can be vaccinated.
- Of those 173 million are white, 34 million are black, 48 million are Latino, and 28 million are other.
- 196 million have received at least one dose
- Of those, 59% are white or 116 million
- Of those, 10% are black or 20 million
- Of those, 16% are Hispanic or 31 million
- Of those, 15% are Other or 28 million
That means:
- 57 million unvaccinated whites (largely for political reasons)
- 14 million unvaccinated blacks (largely out of fear)
- 17 million unvaccinated are Hispanics (largely out of fear)
- roughly all of the Others are vaccinated.
So it is easy to see what is driving the rapid rise in Delta cases - Whites
Corroboration:
Of the 10% of unvaccinated Americans who say they are going to "Wait and See"
- 14% are Democrats
- 45% are Republicans
- Presumably 49% are Independents
Of the 14% of unvaccinated Americans who say they won't get vaccinated
- About 18% are Democrats
- About 58% are Republicans
- Presumably 24% are Independents.
This is why I claim that white Conservatives are the problem.
'Biden has done nothing to try to solve the ever-increasing problem. He is letting using catch and relies on and flooding the country with people that could be infected with COVID. He has the borders wide open for people to continue to come to be processed into the country.'
Trying to solve the underlying reasons for people coming here is not nothing. The borders are not wide open as you claim, otherwise the reported numbers of encounters would be smaller. And the larger numbers are definitely the result of Title 42 and the now 38% of immigrants that are able to retry to enter the country, up from 7% just two years ago. Trump basically put up a neon sign that said, 'come on back, ya'll.' The reason the admittance numbers are higher is that Biden is showing humanity to the unaccompanied minors and those with legitimate asylum claims.
Covid is certainly an issue as so many people are packed into limited areas, but blaming them for the recently Delta surge is simply xenophobia. Especially when you consider that Florida is one of the states surging and no one's crossing the border from Mexico to enter Florida.It seems nationalism is on the rise throughout the globe.
I really wonder why.Because conservatism is raising its ugly head.
Prior to WW I - nationalism was on the rise
Prior to WW II - nationalism was on the rise
Prior to most violence between and within nations - nationalism was on the rise.What is the cause of nationalism? What makes conservatism raise its ugly head? I wonder.
I'm guessing world war three could be sooner than we would like.When you have right-wing authoritarians like Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Boris Johnson, Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin and others rise to power on a message of fear, you could very well be right.
"He politicized mask wearing
- He politicized getting vaccinated
- He politicized social distancing
- He downplayed the dangers of the pandemic"
All of the above are opinion-oriented. My opinion differs.
" He only had a [b]skeletal federal response[.b] to distribution but mainly abrogated his responsibilities to the states. Trump's primary plan was "let the states do it"."
Please watch the link of the OWS Vaccine summit you will realize the plan was well in place to distribute the vaccine before Trump left office.
OWS had a full-day summit in regard to how they planned to distribute the vaccine; With representatives, from all the companies involved with vaccine distribution. each explaining what their companies would be doing to make sure giving the vaccines distributions would go smoothly. Companies such as Meijers, CVS Walmarts, and many more. . All had websites up before trump left office to set up appointments as soon as the vaccine was available. Large Hospitals were on board to distribute the vaccines. I was notified by two large hospitals in my area that they would be sending me information to schedule an appointment when they received the vaccine. Both did notify me to choose an appointment date. Health departments were on board to give the vaccines. UPS Federal Express executives were also present at the summit, explaining how they would be making sure the vaccines were moved properly. I can't imagine a better more organized plan... It is apparent you did not watch the summit or are even aware of it. The full summit can be found on Youtube. I believe I posted the very link for you the other day.
In regards to the vaccine and the amounts ordered, and when it was ordered. All this was also accomplished by Trump and OWS. I realize Biden has lied about the number of vaccines frequently. Stated Trump did not have enough orders. Actually, he had an abundance of vaccines ordered before they were created. Biden
https://khn.org/news/article/fact-check … -accurate/
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/biden … ne-boasts/
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/po … 628285001/
"The Operation Warp Speed Contracts and FDA’s Process
As part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration entered into contracts with multiple drugmakers. The contracts were generally signed while potential vaccines were still in clinical trials.
Experts told us this was smart because the Trump administration didn’t know which vaccines from which drugmakers would work, how effective they would be or how quickly they could be produced.
“That was the whole approach of Operation Warp Speed,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “Not knowing which one would cross the finish line, the Trump administration took a portfolio approach and invested in multiple vaccines.”
Here’s what the Trump team’s contracts called for drugmakers to supply to the U.S. government:
Pfizer-BioNTech: 100 million doses (two-dose regimen)
Moderna: 100 million doses (two-dose regimen)
Johnson & Johnson: 100 million doses (one-dose regimen)
AstraZeneca: 300 million doses (two-dose regimen)
Novavax: 100 million doses (two-dose regimen)
Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline: 100 million doses (one- or two-dose regimen)
In all, the amounts agreed to under these contracts total about 800 million vaccine doses, or enough for more than 400 million people."
Sorry for the length of my post, but the facts need to be known over opinions.
Biden has done nothing it was all planned and carefully handled by OWS.
Biden has actually done nothing but talks his entire two months in office. IMO he is inept, and can't handle the job.
Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit. Dec 8, 2020, In full...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yclESPhfIU&t=144s
Opinions are fine, but facts are just better.- He politicized mask wearing
- He politicized getting vaccinated
- He politicized social distancing
- He downplayed the dangers of the pandemic"
These are all facts, not opinions. Feel free to disagree with the facts, but they are still the truth.
" He only had a skeletal federal response to distribution but mainly abrogated his responsibilities to the states." - Emphasis on "skeletal". I don't deny your link shows a plan of sorts, but it was clearly lacking and insufficient. It took Biden to federalize the effort and to ramp up production way beyond what that plan called for.
"OWS had a full-day summit in regard to how they planned to distribute the vaccine;" - One full day - WOW. Their plan clearly failed since it took Biden to create a plan that worked at the scale America needed.
"It is apparent you did not watch the summit or are even aware of it. " - That is true, I wasn't even aware of it - AND NEITHER was 99.99923% of Americans (using what I remember Valeant's figure to be). And I am one of the few who is quite aware of what is going on in the world. That summit appears to be a well kept secret.
FACT - Trump ordered 100 million Pfizer doses on Dec 20, on top of an additional 100 million ordered earlier.
FACT - That order had "options" for 400 million more doses. Problem is Pfizer had no way to deliver those as they were stretched to get what had already been ordered by July 1, 2021 -- long after they were needed.
FACT - All toll, Trump had 400 million doses of Moderna/Pfizer under contract by the time he left office. That is at least 200 million doses short. It also wasn't at all clear either company could deliver any time soon. (Which was absolutely needed because of the Delta variant that was just starting to spread)
FACT - Trump had no plans to use the DPA to increase production.
"As part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration entered into contracts with multiple drug makers. The contracts were generally signed while potential vaccines were still in clinical trials." - YES, I read that as well, but it is disingenuous since only TWO were approved for use. That statement is called disinformation.
"... it was all planned and carefully handled by OWS." - THE TRUTH is, it wasn't."- He politicized mask wearing
- He politicized getting vaccinated
- He politicized social distancing
- He downplayed the dangers of the pandemic" All subjective ----
How can you prove these opinions to be factual? Just because a media jock offers up these opinions certain;y is not any form of proof. Your examples to me appear subjective, influenced by personal feelings. and media.
I gave clear evidence of what the Trump administration did, I posted the article to prove what was factually done.
You have given no real concrete task the Biden administration took on, other than going along with Trump's plan.
The shipping problem did occur in Feb due to inclement weather Which was solved quickly by the CDC and the two drug makers that were providing vaccines.
Trump had a vaccine supply for every America and excess that he planned to offer to other countries. Biden did order more vaccines over and above what Trump ordered --- I would guess that's the excess we are giving to other countries. Trump had all we needed and more. Read the fact-checks I provided or my last comment it provides actual contracted numbers and points out Bide lied about not having enough vaccine.
Biden had no need but a political ploy to order more. In my view, that shows him to be spending taxpayers' money for political reasons.
You needlessly disagree with the abundance of facts I present. As you can see, I researched the subject in regard to what OWS was responsible for, as well as what Biden has done, which was order vaccines we don't really need and are giving away. I have no problem with aiding other poor countries that need the vaccine. I just don't like him lying telling Americans Trump and OWS did not order a sufficient amount of vaccine for the country, and some to help other countries.
Believe what you please I am satisfied I made my case.You have to be seriously in denial to not know how Trump politicized masks, vaccines and social distancing. And his own words are all the proof needed to hear how he ADMITTED to downplaying the dangers of the pandemic.
... for the sake of the economy: a percolating economy which is no longer percolating.
He is a positive thinker who wants people to proper and make money. He doesn't want people to suffer or loose businesses as they HAVE. What else is there to say? Hatred of Trump is unjustified.For the sake of his own re-election. His cult following is willing to accept whatever reality he draws for them.
That percolating economy stopped with Trump's mismanagement:
He took a 4.2% unemployment rate and left it at 6.3% when he left office.
He added $7.8 trillion to the national debt.
He is the only president in modern time to have a net negative job gain, meaning he lost more jobs than he created.
He isn't a positive thinker, he's someone unable to face hard truths because of his malignant narcissism. He'll lie to hide his failures, and his followers will defend those lies to be able to live in that false reality. Your own die hard love of a complete failure makes you accuse others of another false reality - that it's hate. It's not hate, it's a recognition that our country should never have such a lying, criminal in charge of anything."He is a positive thinker who wants people to proper and make money. " - I guess to conservatives, that is all there is - and Trump was anything but positive, lol.
"He doesn't want people to suffer or loose businesses as they HAVE." - is not quite right. He has proven many times over he doesn't give a s---- about anybody but himself. And so long as people losing businesses doesn't hurt him, he simply doesn't care.
As to hating Trump, I have always said, I can hate his policies and actions, but I can't hate the mentally ill.
"How can you prove these opinions to be factual?" - All you have to do is listen to his rhetoric.
MASKS - Early on he said things like “The C.D.C. is advising the use of nonmedical cloth face covering as an additional voluntary public health measure. So it’s voluntary. You don’t have to do it. They suggested for a period of time, but this is voluntary. I don’t think I’m going to be doing it.” - and he never stopped politicizing it.
Vaccination - While Trump occasionally tells his supporters they should get vaccinated, he is more likely to say things that go along like this line "Speaking during a rally in Phoenix, Trump touted the success of his administration's Operation Warp Speed vaccine rollout, and claimed that many Americans now do not trust Biden enough to be inoculated."
Social Distancing - At his rallies, he never enforced wearing masks or social distancing. In fact, he told the NC gov where he was going to hold a convention, he said “We can’t do social distancing,” the president said, according to the two people familiar with the call.
Down playing the dangers of the pandemic - This started from DAY One. Here is a time line of his denials. https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-upd … s-pandemic
There is nothing subjective about any of that, it is all factual and that is how you make a case.
"You needlessly disagree with the abundance of facts I present. "
- When your "facts" are wrong, I disagree.
- When you misstate your facts, I disagree.
- When you only tell part of the story, I tell the rest.
- When you overstate a fact (like saying Trump had enough vaccines doses, when, in fact, he didn't have enough approved ones), I correct you.
- When you say that OWS had it ALL planned out when they clearly did not, I correct this is as well.
When you say false things like "I just don't like him lying telling Americans Trump and OWS did not order a sufficient amount of vaccine for the country,", I have to correct that. The FACT is, Trump did not order enough approved vaccines, he was short by at least 200 million doses. Also, they couldn't produce the ones he did order fast enough to quickly protect Americans. Biden had to do things to speed up production.
He recovered from Covid 19. He wants us all to! Not live in moment to moment
F E A R ! ! !
Rock the World!
vs
Lock the World!I used those examples to show the idiocy of the amendments. There are actually many more that exhibits reps asking for ridiculous projects for their own states. I call it all wait --- pork.
If you want proof look at all three stimulus bills. It's enough to make one very angry. Like I said we were and still are in a historic crisis, and we have an inept man sitting in the White House, being rolled out here and there to read a speech or screw up the few questions press ask him.
It is clear we come from different views. And it has nothing to do with political parties. It has to do with a failing administration, and me being very dissatisfied with Biden's job performance. I would be more than fair and willing to give credit where it is due.Yes, Trump really tried to implement a coup, but only if we agree to pretend that the word has no longer has meaning. You can't have a coup without the military, or at least an armed uprising. J6 was a protest that got out of hand, when unarmed knuckleheads trespassed & vandalized a public building. Also, a bunch of FBI informants entrapped some morons with a plot to kidnap politicians, for media shock value. Cops & numerous federal agencies conspired to provide too few security & allow the breach of the capitol. Authoritarian liberals & corporate media acolytes dutifully demanded internet censorship, because it's competition for ad dollars, & authoritarian liberals yearn to empower feds & tech oligarchs to silence political dissent. Their hand-wringing over J6 is just part of a larger liberal project to censor the internet, just as they said Russia spread disinformation to collude with Trump, and just as they demand covid disinformation be censored
"J6 was a protest that got out of hand, when unarmed knuckleheads trespassed & vandalized a public building. " - I know many hundreds of police who would disagree with you. Also, you don't need military to have a coup. There are many examples of bloodless coups.
"Cops & numerous federal agencies conspired to provide too few security & allow the breach of the capitol. " - You must be a Qanon believer to believe that.
I guess he's just too stupid to realize his lies could inspire violence when he told his followers, many in well-armed, anti-government militias, to march to the Capitol just as Congress was certifying the 2020 election.
And when he gleefully cheered on the assault of police and occupation until news that shots were fired and people had died, that was not a dereliction of his duty to protect the citizens of the United States. An oath he took, and subsequently broke on January 6th.
Yeah, that's the guy so many want back in the Oval Office. Unbelievable.And he issued another lie (twice) before retreating. He told his supporters that he would march up the street with them - he didn't.
Meanwhile, down in Arizona...Nobody builds walls like Trump does.
In 2020, when Trump was still in power, experts warned that floodgates in some places along the 701-mile, $21bn wall would need to be left open during heavy rains and flooding, to avoid collapse amid surges of tons of water carrying rocks, sediment, tree limbs and other debris.
Because of their remote locations, many of the gates would have to be manually opened and left unattended for months at a time, the Washington Post reported – potentially allowing for the easy entry into the US of smugglers and migrants.
“Who could have predicted this? Ah yes, just about everyone,” author Brian Kahn wrote, linking to an article highlighting environmental threats the wall would encounter.News from the Arizona election fraudit: Biden beats Trump by more votes.
Then, Cyber Ninjas makes claims that are easily explained by people who actually understand elections:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-chec … 10695.htmlApparently Trump pressured Abbot to investigate counties Trump did poorly in. More wasted money. And it is odd, even though it has been announced, nobody seems to know what is going on. Typical of rabid Republicans.
I would say that Democrats fought for the Constitution. And the witch hunt proved there were witches within the Trump Campaign coordinating with members of Russian Intelligence, a hostile foreign government. So bringing that into the discussion doesn't really help your case.
So did the rioters, which you are well aware of. They may be mistaken (IMO they were very much mistaken), but the DID fight for fair elections.
The witch hunt started as attempting to prove (which you also know) that Trump collaborated with Putin to fix the election. Democrats fought to control Trump's access to politics, just as the rioters did. A different methodology, to be sure, but they fought and that was the point of the comment. Trump asking followers to fight does not mean he asked for violence or destruction any more than Democrats fighting did.The rioters set aside all ability to reason as the courts, election officials, the FBI, and the Department of Justice all noted there was no fraud in the 2020 election. They chose to listen to a known liar in fighting against a fair election that he lost because his own malignant narcissism prevents him from being seen as a loser. They heard the words fight, were organized by Trump himself to show up right when the election was being certified, and told to go there. Either complicity or stupidity to not understand who was in that crowd - either way a dereliction of his oath of office.
The Mueller Investigation was started (by a Republican - Rod Rosenstein, mind you) because of Russian interference in the 2016 election. It was prudent to see if their preferred candidate helped that interference as a national security measure. Mueller (another Republican) spent over 200 pages detailing contacts between the Trump Campaign and the Russians, and Mueller noted 10 instances where Trump Obstructed Justice to hide the truth of what happened. While you Republicans were more than willing to excuse an attack on our elections, many are not."So did the rioters, " - OH give me a break. If they actually thought that, then they are very stupid AND ignorant AND gullible. By no stretch of the imagination, even yours, can anybody presume what they did was Constitutional. Their whole goal was to overthrow the Constitution, just like their Master was telling them to.
The REPUBLICAN investigation into the Trump campaign (it didn't even start out with Trump himself until he fired Comey!) was very real and necessary. I know you know that, but can't say so.[/b]
The REAL witch hunt is Trump's futile search for a stolen election. A witch hunt TRULY based on a pack of Big Lies{/b]
And there you go again attempting to draw False Equivalencies.
And besides that:
"Democrats fought to control Trump's access to politics, " - Is a Lie
"Trump asking followers to fight does not mean he asked for violence or destruction any more than Democrats fighting did." - It [b]absolutely did. But because you are blind to context, you will never appreciate the difference, it doesn't seem to be in your DNA.""Democrats fought to control Trump's access to politics, " - Is a Lie"
Of course! How could anyone doubt that the goal of impeachment was to remove him from office and keep him from ever running again? How foolish to think such a thing!
(Sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it)
Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the Jan. 6 committee, presented evidence on Tuesday that Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, had “advanced knowledge” of the day’s events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLHwoTCnGiIWell written article on this topic:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/roadmap-coup … 02124.html
“The events of 2020 were unprecedented,” said Ned Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University. “A sitting president was trying to get a second term that the voters didn’t want him to have – it was an effort to overturn a free election and deprive the American people of their verdict.”
For Foley, a picture has come into focus of a “systematic effort to deny the voters their democratic choice. It was a deliberate, orchestrated campaign, and there’s nothing more fundamentally undemocratic than what was attempted.”The article was informative, and it is very clear beyond the article that Trump was not willing to accept the outcome of the election. From the day he lost he indicated a flurry of laws suits, that for one reason or another did not go in his favor. It would appear as Jan 6th approached he was hoping to hang his hat on the Constitution turning the tide.
It would seem he pulled Eastman in to do just that. I think Eastman came up with two scenarios that although he offered them he was not strong on either working. I feel at that point Pence picked up on the fact Eastman was very unsure of the legalities of either of the two scenarios and decided not to put either of the suggestions from the memo into play. Hence the Trump-Pence split.
If I stand back and look at Eastman's two scenarios I wonder if the second might have been worthy, and could have it perhaps put a good end to the Big Lie? But, I digress, because many of the states in question did recount several times.
"His favorite was that the vice-president could adjourn the joint session of Congress on 6 January and send the electoral college votes back to states that Trump claimed he had lost unfairly so their legislatures could have another go at rooting out the fraud and illegality the president had been railing about since election day."
The very bottom line --- The 2020 election broke a record in regard to how many voted. yes, there were some minor acts of fraud found in the recounts. I don't think anymore to less than we have as a rule in our prior elections. We had a winner, and yes many of us did not like the results and had individual reasons for being dissatisfied. In my view, we needed to move on. It does no one any good to be bitter or foment hate. Normally after an election, people do move on. However, it is more than evident this no longer be a tradition or value for some.
So many changes have occurred in the mindset of way our society. One can't really stop this rock from tumbling down the hill. Not sure where this all ends up, other than in a division that is unrepairable.
In my view, I moved on, if evidence shows a coup was planned by our highest Government I will be as disappointed as many that are feeling very much a coup was planned. I will want justice. However, conspiracies need to be proved to be believed. I consider these kinds of conspiracy poisons that tear at our very common sense and make us a lesser society... If there is a witch, less not burn that witch, and then search out her actual cauldron and potions.
It is clear Trump is still claiming he won... He has been unable to prove his claim. I will trust American's to use common sense in the end. Some will never believe Biden won, many have just moved on, and look forward to 2024.Your last paragraph is refreshing to hear.
Your third to last paragraph is where I become a single-issue voter - in that you seem to be supportive of throwing the election back to the states despite them having already determined that no fraud existed, all based on the rantings of the loser. Rantings he had been claiming long before the election and had tried previously in 2016 to soften his bruised ego at losing the popular vote to a woman.The Eastman theories were interesting. Let me go deeper into why I thought the Eastman's second action may have and let me repeat may have benefited us. Could it have immediately slowed down all of the rhetoric around the fraud accusations? Could it have in the end satisfied the concerns of the base? Stopped the big lie quickly? Instead, it has now grown. My opinion is these are the citizens that were demanding answers, feeling that fraud occurred. If this would have been considered on Jan 6th. I do feel that this problem would have been behind us within a short time. Instead, the problem grew with court cases, months of accusations, and the lie remains with us, does it not?
For me, my common sense told me the election was fair. I felt a certain amount of fraud would be found, as it always is in the majority of our elections. So, my thought is that maybe Eastman's second scenario may have worked to move the nation on more quickly.
So yes many were ranting, my point could have their rants been stopped? You must consider they are still ranting today, and louder. We are dealing with rather new mindsets in our society. We may need to handle some things a bit differently. I am old school, we are pretty much in tune when it comes to not respecting the majority. But do we not need some form of solution. We will go into the 2024 election with the same problems. Could have we solved the problem with a quick investigation, that surely would have put the big lie to rest?You really think that halting Biden from taking office by kicking the electoral results back to the states or allowing the House to cast votes would have diminished Trump from claiming fraud with pure speculation and zero actual evidence?
Or his followers from hanging on his claims like members of a cult hang on whatever far-fetched ideologies their leaders claim? The idea that people could detach themselves from reality, then claim to need to be taken seriously (and to actually have government officials buy that argument) about their fake reality is the truly troubling part.
This was pure subversion of our democracy with zero actual evidence of fraud. What Trump called fraud was states trying to allow their voters to exercise their rights while remaining safe during a pandemic.I think a quick Congressional investigation perhaps could have helped some move on. I was just tossing around the Eastman suggestions from the memo. I would not have been on board with prolonging Biden from taking office. The keyword in my comment was quickly -- " my thought is that maybe Eastman's second scenario may have worked to move the nation on more quickly."
We can't go back. At this point, all is pretty well set in stone. Many at this point feel cheated, and believe the election was fraudulent. Many become angry as they feel the Country is faltering, becoming bitter, and angrier.
For many, it is painful to witness Biden even try to give a speech. He is clearly not comprehending what he is reading... He is not up for the job. This morning he offered a speech that was so discombobulated it was sad to watch. He stumbled from word to word and mispronounced word afterword... He brought up his BBB bill, which his own party will not pass... This to me looks very foolish, all words have nothing to back up his rhetoric. The majority of Americans have taken note that he can't do the job.
IMO, they need to bring him home, he does not belong on the world stage. Perhaps they will. He was sniffling into a tissue this morning as he gave his speech. Maybe setting up an excuse to bring him home. Hopefully, it has become painful to watch him try to pull off a speech.Nothing Congress does is quick. They have the lowest approval of all the branches of government because they cannot accomplish anything due to the partisanship. So that would have solved nothing. Either you believe in the elections or you don't, and right now, a large majority of the GOP believes in fairy tales and conspiracies.
As for your claim about Biden's speech today, I just watched some of it. Nothing what you claim was evident at all. If anything, I find you to be the one discombobulated to even make that claim.
And BBB is moving towards completion. It will need to be smaller than originally planned to get Manchin on board, but that's part of the give and take of government. Start with high goals and pare them down to what everyone can agree upon.
The speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJhz5hqMtJII see your point, and all ring true in regard to Congress. You feel "Either you believe in the elections or you don't, and right now, a large majority of the GOP believes in fairy tales and conspiracies." This could be true, what is shocking --- I just read an article on how that is alarming. The article offers a poll where 30 percent of Republicans say violence may be needed to save the U.S.
So maybe our Congress should have seen that this would become a serious problem- I mean a bunch of American's rioted at the Capitol. Maybe they should have realized the seriousness of this all, and got off their butts, and did some quick problem-solving.
I would guest our thoughts about Biden's demeanor is individual. I come from a different mindset, nurses pick up every little thing, just part of what we do, we are trained to observe, and chart every little thing we observe.
I had hoped BBB would not pass. I am on board with the infrastructure bill. I have a few complaints about that bill. However, if they pass BBB it's water under the bridge. It will be interesting to see if American's will like what it offers, or will it collect ire from the public as it plays out.
I certainly think it unfair not to offer this bill to the public before it is voted on. Most bills are printed in the Congressional Record, generally, on the day they are introduced. It gives anyone that wants to have a look that chance. This BBB has not come up online as most do. I don't feel it needs to be rushed through without Congress even having the appropriate time to read it.
Manchin, just come out with a scathing statement. Looks like BBB may be in big trouble.Yeah, I saw the 30% figure as well. Definitely concerning.
Also concerning is this statement:
The GOP remains boxed-in by Trump’s false assertion, which deservedly is known in D.C. as The Big Lie. More than two-thirds of Republicans believe it. For those who watch Fox News, that number is 82%. For consumers of far-right news—think Newsmax and OAN—that number reaches near universal belief, at 97%.
These numbers are courtesy of a new study, out today, from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution. The findings follow a similar May survey from the same pollsters and suggest a hardening of the belief that Trump is the rightful winner of the 2020 vote. In other words, the grievance is growing and the misinformation metastasizing.
The BBB is like Trump's tax cuts. Neither were very popular with the opposing party. Trump's tax cuts did not pay for themselves as we all knew they would not after watching 30 years of the same failed policy attempts.It is clear even by ratings a huge majority of American's are tuning into Fox nightly. And I surmise that it is the preferred network for Republicans. At this point, I am also feeling that many more are comparing the country under trump, and now under Biden. So, more may be coming over to think more moderate at this given time. I don't think a majority of Republicans have bought into the "big lie", but are entrenched in the rep party. Those that may have voted for Biden may be having remorse, due to simply comparing job performance.
When Trump lost the election, one could see all this coming. At that time I felt some form of Congressional investigation should have been done to look at the complaints. I felt at that point it would have showed a bit of respect to those that were buying into the fraud theory. I did feel this would snowball into what we see today. Myself, I excepted the election but did hope the various complaints made by poll workers should have been looked at and addressed at the time. I also felt the recounts would help early on, but people were just fired up, and not willing to trust the systems anymore. Not sure if an immediate investigation would have helped, but it might have. It might have provided the facts, and people might have picked up their marbles and gone home.
So, where from here? We certainly have many people not thinking clearly about just moving on until the next election. That is what we have done previously. It is very unfortunate that any American would consider violence might be an answer.
The Trump tax cuts worked out well for some, and some not so good. But is that not pretty much status quo? My own thought is the country, as a rule, works well under a moderate president. We have more stability. We all get along better. We are on a pretty bad downward spiral in regards to American's being able to come together on anything. I can only imagine the 2024 election. I hope that two really normal middle-of-the-road individuals run. This might shock the country back into some form of normalcy."At that time I felt some form of Congressional investigation should have been done to look at the complaints."
Might not have been a smart move for Democrats. While I think there was insufficient fraud/errors to change the election I could be wrong...and had Democrats really looked into both fraud and errors we just might have had Trump back in office. Unthinkable for Democrats...so don't do anything more than a cursory check and shout out that there was no fraud at all.I don't think it would have been a shout-out that there was no fraud. We know by the various recounts there was some fraud. I don't agree that there was enough that would have changed the outcome of the election. Just a thought but could have both Democrats and the Republicans have had a bipartisan moment if they would have agreed to a Congressional investigation. The problem had now has grown, and further split America. We pretty much were left with unanswered questions., and this has worked to create lots of anger.
No, it wasn't a shout-out. Which is a major reason Democrats refused to actually investigate; had they found significant fraud their Candidate would have lost and Trump would have retained the white house. Horrors!
You make a good point. I feel Trump's base has at this point grown. So, it would seem the Democrats shot themselves in the foot when refusing to investigate the 2020 election. Just leaving it out there to fester has certainly worked in Trump's favor.
I agree. That Democrats simply shouted down any mention of fraud, without ever checking, did not sit well with a great many folk. Whether they thought there was enough fraud to change the election doesn't matter; what matters is that winners refused to check when the claims were made.
Bingo... in the days after the election I was concerned with all the allegations from poll workers. many of which were on my local news in Mich. I was concerned, and I wanted these people to be listened to. They claimed to be willing to swear to their accounts. I wanted a Congressional investigation. Congress works for us. They ignored our voices, now we still have many dug in, and madder than hell. We the American people were treated poorly. This mess created a permanent split. Perhaps this was coming for a very long time.
it is my opinion that we have already had all the shocks we need to start making some changes tomorrow when a lot of us mail in ballots, or go to our voting places. Yes, Virginia has seen to dollars flow in from both major parties, and it may be a bellwether, but there are other states and municipal elections that will tell more ot the story for anyone who is really anxious about the state of our disunion.
Nothing that would have been done would have:
a.) appeased Trump, and thereby, his base unless it ended in the result Trump wanted.
b.) found any fraud, as was shown with multiple audits, including a truly partisan one in Arizona that still found that Biden won but this time by more.
All that continues to be proven is that Trump's base, through targeted manipulation on far-right media such as Fox and OAN/Newsmax, will choose to live in whatever false reality that he creates for them. Even when all evidence is to the contrary. It's a full on cult at this point, following a man that created an extra $7.8 trillion in national debt and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans when his administration ignored warnings back in 2018 about the Wuhan Lab.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … rpt-474322
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/ … -response-
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kleel … n_post.pdf
And that same brainwashing that is convincing people to believe the Big Lie is the same sourcing selling them that Biden and the country are faltering. Problem is, those same people listening to that horseshit are too dumb to realize the source is tainted.You missed the point entirely; hindsight is usually perfect (until history is changed), but at the time there was no hindsight. Therefore there was a chance, however slim, that there was significant fraud, and enough to keep Trump in the White House.
This was intolerable to Democrats, who don't care one iota if there was fraud or not - just that Trump was removed. Therefore, no serious checking would happen even though we knew some states violated their own election laws with massive mailed ballots. Personally, I would call that fraud, but is has been skipped over as if it didn't happen.Like I said, BS. You, and cultists like you, just ignore the audits, the rulings that all the evidence was simply supposition, the multiple government agencies that looked into the elections and found zero fraud, to listen to a known liar.
And as for the states that chose to make it safe for voters to exercise their rights during a pandemic, something you call violating their laws and fraud, despite the courts upholding the legality of those changes in every case that was brought - that's just more evidence of the point I make - that you are willing to set aside reality, in this case, court rulings, to back your cult leader.
And while over 30 states made changes to voting to make it safer, you ignore the ones where Trump won to insist it was only fraud in the states he lost, but was legal to make those changes in the ones he won. The double standard is laughable and makes your argument idiotic.As you say, horseshit. The day Trump lost there were no audits, and Democrats refused to make any for weeks and months. It is that period that I'm speaking of, before any audits (beyond perhaps a simple recount) were made.
Is there a reason you insist there were audits showing zero fraud before there were any made?
Can you show me where I "insist it was only fraud in the states he lost, but was legal to make those changes in the ones he won" < changes to voting procedures that were outside the state law>? That would be very interesting, to say the least.Can I show you? Sure. I've looked it up. As any functional adult should be able to.
And what a huge lie to insist there were no audits. Most states have laws in place that conduct audits of their elections, states like Georgia for example. They conducted their audit right after the election, before being asked to do a hand recount as well.
The misinformation you post to this site never ends.You didn't show where I said that. Perhaps because I didn't, or is it that "functional adult" coming to the front?
You have a huge propensity for claiming people said something they did not. You need to work on that, as it destroys anything you might have to say. But you are right in that "the misinformation you post to this site never ends.".You noted that massive mailed ballots - a change that occurred to make it safer for voters to vote, a change that was done without being done by the state legislatures, was, in your view fraud. And I noted that over 30 states made the same types of changes, without their legislatures, to make it safer.
So are you now claiming that the statement that no audits were done is not blatant misinformation? Nice deflection by the way.Yes, I mentioned those mail in ballots with their mass mailings. A move that in some states was against state rules but done anyway without state congressional approval. It's wonderful it was safer (if it was) but the fact remains it was against state law in at least some of the states that did it anyway.
What I did NOT mention, but you claimed I did, was some garbage about where Trump won I was OK with but not where he lost. A blatant lie, for I have never mentioned such a thing.Again, the courts ruled the changes were allowable, so your claim that it was against state law is also a lie.
I'll concede you did not specifically argue the same thing Trump argued in that the fraud was only in the few states he lost that made the changes and not in the ones he won. I assume since you defend the big lie that is your position.Wrong assumption - pretty common for you as you always to simply assume that people said what they did not as long as you can claim it had something to do with supporting Trump.
What's common is the multiple falsehoods you spew until you can catch someone in a verbal trap. As if those three lies it takes to get there would be ignored.
You and I usually devolve into this kind of argument, it's why I do try and avoid you whenever possible.I agree. Which is why I seldom reply to one of your posts. It was just that this one was so obvious...whereupon you took off on a tangent that had nothing to do with my post.
I think you missed my point --- Perhaps a Congressional investigation started right after the election would have offered answers to citizens' questions. More would be apt to trust a Congressional investigation than months of legal fights. Perhaps more citizens would have been satisfied with the outcome of this form of bipartisan investigation. Just a What it...
Can you offer a reason why the majority of nightly TV watchers are tuning into Fox? You might want to realize the tide may have turned. More are seeing they are not satisfied with being availed of only half the news.
We can agree to disagree on Biden. I follow what's current, and it's clear the country has many problems that are being ignored, and a president that is not fit to do the job. It is also clear the majority of Americans have this very same opinion. My gosh, have you watched his antics at the G20. He is in my view an embarrassment. The world now has seen him in action. And the fallout will soon play out with foreign media. I hesitate to say --- In my view, this man shows several symptoms of being buffed daily with Adderall or Ritalin to try to keep him somewhat oriented, and appropriate. He exhibits side effects that are common with both of the mentioned drugs. I would think Congress would look into his mentation, and request a cognitive test. This should be a bipartisan concern.
The scenario I offered would have been an "If Come" at best. At the time when Trump was claiming fraud, I think a Government investigation may have in some respect worked to still the waters with citizens. Nothing was or will stop Trump from promoting his view. He still claims he won.Sure, none of us on the left now worry about Biden running the country into the ground so we don't need to watch cable. Viewership dropped right after he took office, but was at an all-time high in early January when the insurrection took place.
And what your Fox News people crowing about being atop the ratings ignores is that their viewership was also down the same mid-30 percent that MSNBC dropped over the same period through June.
In Q3 primetime, all three networks were down at least 30%. Gee, what happened since then? Well, we have started to move past the pandemic so people are active again and not sitting in front of TV's.
Yeah, I watched the G20 and think you're inventing things. I even posted the video of his speech and there was nothing in there outside his usual stumbles from his speech impediment.
So, at what point do you use that medical background to note that Trump is delusional if he keeps thinking he won in 2020? What do they call people that have this severe of a break from reality? I hear the term Psychotic works.I did actually claim a few things about Trump in regard to his psychological drawbacks. Personality disorders to be more specific I feel he is narcissistic. I did not note any problems with his cognitive abilities or his health, other than him being overweight.
I don't feel Trump is delusional. He never seemed paranoid to me. People who are delusional can't tell what's real from what is imagined. He never seemed to not know what was real and was never one to skirt a problem. In fact, he was more like a bull in a china shop, jumping in quickly to solve problems.'People who are delusional can't tell what's real from what is imagined.'
Trump cannot tell that he lost the 2020 election. He imagines he won. Classic psychotic break from reality.I will give this one to you --- he does by all accounts) think he won the election to this day. If only we nipped this all in the bud... I do feel an investigation would have been beneficial. We could have all moved on. Trump would have not had the benefit of the doubt that many are now giving him still today in regard to fraud.
Many more might have moved on.And again, without Trump himself moving on, none of his followers will. He can look at the Arizona fraudit results that upheld Biden's win and still think he somehow won. He's mentally gone.
The Arizona audit just gave him fuel. Yes, they found some fraud, but not anywhere close to the numbers that would have been needed to change anything. But any fraud is fuel. This will all go down in history as the election that split the country in two and will be a great conspiracy that will grow bigger through the decades.
The Arizona fraudit did not find any fraud. They just showed they have no concept of how to evaluate elections. Karen Fann, who led the Senate call to conduct the audit, is set to retire because her credibility is shot and she is now liable for Cyber Ninjas failing to turn over documents.
This election will go down in history where 66% of the Republican party followed their party leader into that psychotic break.
Many are starting to take notice that the GOP is being led by someone with severe mental issues.Yes, I agree and I wish Trump and his supporters lived in it. Can you imagine that so many millions of Americans are so brainwashed by Trump and the right-wing propaganda outlets that they actually believe Trump won the election?. If that is not living in a fantasy world, I do not know what is.
Illegally campaigned prior to the coup:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/13-high-leve … 00592.htmlAnd there's motive...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-called … 09889.htmlAnd this is worrisome - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 66254.html if true.
The evidence against Trump is so persuasive, I have a hard time believing DOJ isn't investigating this. Somebody must hold Trump accountable for something - he has broken so many laws. Just because he is a twice impeached, disgraced, one-term, EXpresident shouldn't matter. America is strong enough to handle the turmoil.
On TV - it's Black Lives Matter!
Text - Please have Trump call off his supporters!
You are being blatantly lied to by these people.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/destroying-h … 45866.html
And here is also what we now now. Meadows says he made the case to Trump to call off his supporters after Don Jr. texted repeatedly. Yet, another 187 minutes passed before any action was taken. So Trump was aware that Congress was under attack and did nothing. That says either complicity or a complete dereliction of his oath of office.Prosecuting actual voter fraud: https://www.yahoo.com/news/3-florida-re … 00739.html
All Republican.
BTW, Sharlee, the name of that NV Republican is Donald Kirk Hartle. {i]A man who once described a ballot being cast in his dead wife’s name as “sickening” and was cited by the Nevada Republican Party last November as evidence that massive voter fraud swayed the results of the 2020 presidential election has been charged by prosecutors with voter fraud.[/i]This is ridiculous childlike behavior. I will leave you to converse with those that you have lots in common. I am tossing in the towel. Should have a long time ago... Have fun
You derisively asked for a name and I supplied it. What is wrong with that?
Biden's poll numbers have already jumped a bit (in 538 polling) as people understand exactly how much Trump and his cronies did to undermine democracy and subvert the 2020 election. Even Fox News polling had Biden at 47% approval.
It's especially damning as conservative firebrand Liz Cheney reads the transgressions. And it looks like she wants to establish the same charge many of those who invaded the Capitol are being charged with, Obstructing an official Congressional proceeding. This is the same one the Qanon Shamon got 41-months for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40afj05WZM4Just in: Ellipse Rally Organizers state that they testified to the January 6 Committee that the plan was for the crowd to stay at the ellipse all day and if electors were seated, they expected Trump to give concession speech at the ellipse.
The plan was never to march to the Capitol. Trump sent the crowd to the Capitol.
See the damning details starting at 8:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffMhOZQqsU
In essence, Trump unleashed his supporters on the Capitol in the moment.Not only THAT, "Organizers say they were in "dozens" of planning meetings with congressmen and White House staff"!
Deleted
Those seem like some good questions for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who have been charged with conspiracy. They seemed ready to invade the Capitol, regardless. What would have happened had the rally just stayed at the ellipse as it was planned? And was there coordination between those groups and the White House prior to January 6. What about the reports of scouting tours being conducted for those groups by members of Congress? Should be interesting to hear those get tied in there.
Not only does Trump face a reckoning, I think multiple members of Congress could potentially face expulsion for their actions in this investigation.Yes, very interesting. And this is why we have a Jan 6 Select Committee - patriotic minds want to know what happened.
As jaded as I am, it has gotten so much worse than I had guessed. I guess it was that early planning by Trump's cabal that opened my eyes wide. I can easily see this happening now:
1. Meadows and group meet to plan the way forward on how to steal the election back.
2. They conceive of this massive rally on Jan 6
3. They decide not to tell the organizers they plan to send the troops to the Capitol.
4. All goes as planned and the organizers are sitting there fat, dumb, happy, and conned, and then Trump sends his troops marching promising to be with them while they do. He then goes to watch what he has wrought on TV.
Seeing the word cabal thrown about today. Media is trying to rename the group the Freedom Cabal, as many were in the group trying to undermine the 2020 election.
Sounds about right, but my reference came from the Blacklist, lol.
Do you think Fake Fox so-called News will survive the various investigations into Trump's coup?
They lost to Dominion in their defamation case. The judge found Fox was so one-sided in its coverage that the bar for liable was met. Now Dominion can move onto the very embarrassing discovery process.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/media/fo … index.html
Speaking of embarrassing. Another judge set a date in January for the civil trial against Trump et al. by the Capitol police and others to determine if the case should be dismissed. This will be the first test, even though it is civil, of the case for insurrection.
Since preponderance of the evidence is the legal bar that must be met, I can't see how the judge would rule for dismissal.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics … index.html
The Trump admin. engaged in “deliberate efforts” to undermine the US response to the coronavirus pandemic for political purposes, congressional report concludes.
https://coronavirus.house.gov/sites/dem … 2021V1.pdf
That was obvious.https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/12 … 639759286/
A congressional report released on Friday says that officials in former President Donald Trump's administration made "deliberate" efforts to undermine the federal response to COVID-19 after it arrived in early 2020, mainly so that the crisis wouldn't harm Trump politically.
The 46-page report was released by the Democratic-led House oversight committee's select subcommittee on the coronavirus.
The panel said Trump's administration performed various efforts to influence or downplay the coronavirus outbreak. This included blocking health experts from speaking publicly about the dangers of the virus, playing down testing guidance, attempting to interfere with public health guidelines and other "staggering" acts of political interference.
"The select subcommittee has continued to uncover evidence of the Trump administration's deliberate efforts to undermine the nation's coronavirus response for political purposes," the panel wrote in the report.
Dr. Jay Butler, deputy director for infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the committee that he was directed by Trump's White House to give "softened" guidance to religious and faith communities.
Clearly, it was a directive, but that was a real struggle as I felt like what had been done was not good public health practice."
Butler added that he was "very troubled" to understand that Americans could die or become very sick because of the interference from administration officials.
Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, was so upset about one meeting with a group of "fringe doctors" that she told her colleagues she would not attend, according to the report.
Specifically, Birx was infuriated over a proposal to let the virus spread unchecked throughout the United States to achieve herd immunity, which she said the doctors supported. The proposal was leaked to news media and universally condemned in the medical community.
Friday's report said the radical herd immunity strategy would have put "millions of lives at risk."
"These are people who believe that all the curves are predetermined and mitigation is irrelevant -- they are a fringe group without grounding in epidemics, public health or on the ground common sense experience," Birx wrote in an email, according to the House report.
The oversight committee investigated the efforts and actions of Trump administration officials for more than a year to compile the report, which said that Trump's efforts to fight the pandemic effectively disappeared after he lost the presidential election to Joe Biden.
"The select subcommittee also uncovered evidence showing that Trump White House officials neglected the pandemic response to focus on the 2020 presidential election and promote the Big Lie that the election results were fraudulent," the report states."Democratic-led House oversight committee's select subcommittee on the coronavirus"
Tells me all I need to know and why I will ignore it.So You're accusing the entire committee of colluding to lie? And what of all of those who gave testimony through the 46 page report? Were they coached to lie? Were they given a script? Who organized this event? Who was the ringleader And how did he or she convey to the multitudes of others how this fraud in your opinion would be pulled off? How did they get their stories straight? Can we get their text messages? Handwritten notes? Emails? Or do the Democrats operate in a more stealthy manner, hand signals in hallways maybe?
Let me ask you this, have you always been this dismissive of the Democrats or just when Mr Trump let you know you needed it to be?Yeah, the only legitimate source of information for Mike is Donald Trump himself. That's how a cult works.
Why does nobody want to talk about Ray Epps and his role in January 6?
"Myriad footage shows Epps appearing at different times and in different places, on January 5 and 6, actively and openly encouraging people to breach the Capitol. Indeed, at 12:50 P.M., while Trump was still speaking to a huge, peaceful crowd, Epps was the person who orchestrated the first breach of the Capitol barricades.
The FBI originally included Epps on its Most Wanted List. However, the DOJ never filed charges against him despite knowing who he was. When both The Revolver and The New York Times raised questions in June about Epps, the FBI responded by purging him from its online files."
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 … lpers.html
This makes it clear why democrats only wanted RINOs and not Republicans on the committee. They would have to answer some uncomfortable questions. Ray Epps would be one of them.Ray Epps was NOT seen inside the Capitol nor has any video emerged showing he committed any act of violence. Yes he crossed the police barricades but to date NO ONE has been arrested for only crossing the barricade line.
A real agent provocateur would have never used his real name. A real Fed plant would have used a fake name and a made up backstory. If Ray Epps had been an undercover agent for the FBI they would have never given him a number or put his face on their website in the first place.
Which do you think is more likely: that Ray Epps is a federal agent provocateur, or that he was questioned and released by the FBI for lack of evidence?"The FBI originally included Epps on its Most Wanted List. However, the DOJ never filed charges against him despite knowing who he was."
How do you go from being on the FBI Most Wanted List, to being dismissed? You don't make that list without a good reason such as orchestrating the first breach of the Capitol barricades. There were approximately 52 people charged with conspiracy who did not go into the building. So, why was Ray Epps dismissed?
Why wasn't the committee interested in finding the truth about this? Is it possible that Epps and others were in the crowd to instigate the storming of the capital on behalf of the government?
Again, this is just one reason among many the committee is just a soviet-stye show trial and nothing more.After Jan. 6, videos emerged showing some of Epps’ actions in Washington. During an Oct. 21 House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., showed clips of Epps encouraging protesters on the streets of Washington to “go into the Capitol.” Among the scenes he showed at the 5:03:00 minute mark of the hearing:
The video doesn’t show Epps participating in any of the violence.
Massie suggested that Epps may work for the FBI and he asked Attorney General Merrick Garland whether the government sent agents to “agitate” protesters into entering the Capitol. Garland responded that the Justice Department doesn’t comment on pending investigations.
From Epps himself: When the newspaper asked what he meant in videos by “go into the Capitol,” he said, “The only thing that meant is we would go in the doors like everyone else. It was totally, totally wrong the way they went in.”
As far as his picture being gone, he was located interviewed and probably case closed. Everything isn't the conspiracy it's made out to be these days.52 other people were charged with conspiracy. Why not him?
none of the rioters were charged with seditious conspiracy.
Instead, more than 440 people have been charged with crimes ranging from entering a restricted building to criminal conspiracy.
Mr. Epps never entered the building and apparently he does not meet the threshold of criminal conspiracy either.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen … 021-06-03/"Apparently he does not meet the threshold of criminal conspiracy either."
But he DID meet the criteria to be on their most wanted list. I wonder why?
."Criminal conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or to perpetrate an illegal act."
Like, maybe, storming the Capital building?
IF this committee was worth anything, they would subpoena the law enforcement paperwork attached to Epps. They would want to interview the people who made the decision to let him go. They would look into any connections between Epps and FBI or other government entities. Why he was placed on the most wanted list and so easily removed would be explained.
BUT the committee isn't after the truth of anything. It is more proof this is a soviet style show trial and nothing more.As always, the explanation is simple. He was on the 'most wanted list' until the article identified him. People are on that list until they are identified. Once interviewed and it became apparent that he did not enter the Capitol and they weren't going to file charges, he was removed from the list since he had been identified and determined that no charges were warranted.
Now I'm going to really ask you to do something hard and think of this logically. If he was FBI, why would they have even put him on the FBI most wanted list in the first place? If they knew who he was and he was there, as you conspire, to instigate things at the behest of the FBI, why would they have put him on the list at all? That makes zero sense.You only have assumptions and no proof of anything.
That doesn't work for me.
"If they knew who he was and he was there, as you conspire, to instigate things at the behest of the FBI, why would they have put him on the list at all"
To me that is like having an undercover police officer being arrested by the police, so he doesn't blow his cover. That happens in law enforcement all the time.The hypocrisy of you claiming a known member of the Oath Keepers is actually a member of the FBI or government asset is also an assumption and no proof of anything. You whole post is supposition devoid of any real proof.
And it's not an assumption that the most wanted list was a list that existed to identify people. He was clearly identified on the day before he was removed from the list by The Revolver.
It's easy to make the assumption that someone who was heard trying to protect Capitol police might have gotten the benefit of the doubt on being charged.
Just like in the voter fraud cases, there are simple explanations for all your conspiracies. But you're so far gone, you refuse to accept them.Can we agree that the January 6th Committee has the power and authority to put to rest any alleged "conspiracy theory" regarding Epps?
" Oath Keepers is actually a member of the FBI or government asset"
Why not? There was a government plant in the Proud Boys. It's standard part of law enforcement tactics.
"Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was an FBI informant
Extremist leader repeatedly worked undercover for investigators after his arrest in 2012, former prosecutor and court files reveal."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … -informant
Here is a New York Times article about an FBI informant on January 6
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/p … rmant.htmlDo they? Epps could just invoke his 5th Amendment rights.
And your claim that Tarrio was a plant is not accurate. His was an informant for two years from 2012-2014, but was then and still is a Proud Boy first and foremost. He 'cooperated with local and federal law enforcement, to aid in the prosecution of those running other, separate criminal enterprises, ranging from running marijuana grow houses in Miami to operating pharmaceutical fraud schemes.'
Do you know of any arrests that Epps has had that would put him in a similar situation?"Do they? Epps could just invoke his 5th Amendment rights."
You are absolutely right. That is why the January 6 Committee should not ask Epps to testify. They DO have the power of the subpoena. They can subpoena of ALL records associated with Epps being put on the FBI list and the paperwork associated with having him taken off of the list. The list should be extensive and include emails, texts and more. Once those are obtained, the government officials responsible for putting him on the list and being taken off of the list should be made to testify before the committee.
IF this were to happen and it proved to be nothing, it would send shock waves through the Republican/Conservative world. People would be completely stunned.
I don't think it's going to happen. I think the only purpose for the January 6 Committee is to put on a show for the liberal/democrat base. Then go back to their doners with a message of we're trying to get to the bottom of January 6 but we can't unless you support our people in congress...etc.
See how it is to their benefit to ignore the accusations concerning Epps?
Sadly, it's how politics works.
Is there really a difference between informant and plant? Don't they both do pretty much the same thing?I doubt any conclusion that the Republican/Conservative world hears would shock it as you claimed. First off, you've already stated that far-right conspiracy theorists like yourself won't believe anything from the January 6 committee.
And instead of keeping an open mind to their conclusions, your solution is to guess that they haven't already looked into Epps and for them to investigate the FBI instead of numerous others who organized the insurrection.
As Eso notes...just pure deflection.Let the Committee provide the proof that Epps was NOT a government plant. But the truth is NOT the reason for the committee. It isn't even a legitimate Congressional committee.
It has departed from its own enabling resolution, which requires that it have 13 members, with five from the opposition, the latter to be appointed in consultation with the House Minority Leader. Today, the committee has nine members — seven Democrats, two Republicans — after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected the Republicans nominated by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
So, the committee and its findings are pretty worthless.Yes, the idea was to have the commission as you described but was blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Seems they didn't want to look at Jan. 6 at all.
"Bipartisan legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol failed in the Senate, as Republicans staged their first filibuster since President Biden took office to block the plan."
That commission was set to follow the "gold standard" of the 9/11 commission. We ended up with a select committee instead.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/10005248 … pitol-riotAnd, truth be known, they are still trying to follow that gold standard regardless of the hurdles the Republicans throw in their way.
So? Republicans knew how democrats would bastardize the process. It is a partisan committee designed to further the democrat agenda and nothing more. It is an illegitimate committee that can't even follow its own rules. Republicans were right to not support this show trial.
It's a partisan committee because Republicans rejected the bipartisan commission. It is of their own doing. There was no reason to be uncooperative with the formation of the bipartisan commission. Well other than they really didn't want to examine January 6th in depth.
I disagree. There was no reason for pelosi to ignore the Republicans recommended by the minority leader of the house. The democrats had no desire to have a bipartisan committee. Their actions prove it.
"There was no reason to be uncooperative with the formation of the bipartisan commission"
Oh, yes there was. They knew the democrats would bastardize the process and this has been proven to be true.No reason? Jim Jordan was one of the plotters to undermine the election. That seemed pretty obvious even before the commission was formed. That would have been like letting the fox into the hen house. He was an admitted material witness at the very least, having admitted to talking to Trump on January 6. If McCarthy had any morals, he would have excluded him for that reason alone. Instead, he left it to Pelosi to make that determination.
Only in your mind would a 50-50 split of democrats and republicans 'bastardize' the process. Basically, what you are saying, again, is that no formation of this committee would convince you of something different than what you already believe.A 50-50 split? On the democrat January 6 committee? I'm afraid you are wrong. It is made up of seven democrats and two RINOs.
I bet it would be amazing if we could see the personal text messages of the democrats. Especially when it comes to the 2020 election fraud. We do need a committee to investigate that one.
Hey, Jim Jordan did nothing wrong. Nothing illegal. You are free to discuss what you want to discuss in personal text messages.
If biden was successfully kept out of office our country would be in much better shape than it is today.I think you're still missing the point that it is the Republicans who voted down the idea of a 50/50 commission to look at January 6th just like the commission that was created to look at 9/11.
So? A committee of 7 democrats and 2 RINOS? What person in touch with reality could trust anything they say or do? More proof this is a show trial designed to ignore the truth and further the democrat agenda and nothing more.
I love that you still choose to call Liz Cheney, one of the most conservative voters in all Republican voting circles a RINO. Talk about being out of touch with reality. And for someone still hellbent on believing the big lie, you have zero right to lecture anyone on what the truth actually is.
I'm going to go out on a limb here without fact checking and say that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger has been a lifelong members of the Republican party.
I can also say that factually Mr Trump has changed party affiliation 5 times since 1987. Actually leaving the Republican party on two separate occasions. That doesn't show a whole lot of commitment.
Maybe there should be a label or actually just a new party for the followers of Mr. Trump.Liz Cheney? She is so hated and despised by Republicans they took away her leadership position on
"Representative Liz Cheney was removed Wednesday from her leadership position among House Republicans. She was ousted as conference chair in a voice vote by House GOP members shortly after their closed-door meeting came to order, and the meeting was adjourned within 20 minutes."
Republicans hate Kinzinger and Liz Cheney. They want them removed from the committee.
"Over 50 leaders of conservative groups called on Kevin McCarthy to boot Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney from the House GOP conference.
"As duly elected representatives, Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger are free to serve in the House, but they should no longer do so with the privileges granted to members of the House Republican Conference," the letter reads. "They should no longer be given access to the benefits of a conference they actively seek to undermine."
The letter went on to say that the January 6 committee "has no formal representation from Republicans" since both Republicans serve at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
https://news.yahoo.com/over-50-leaders- … soc_trk=tw
"Mr Trump has changed party affiliation 5 times since 1987. Actually leaving the Republican party on two separate occasions."
So? He is a real Republican now and that is all that really matters.So real Republicans now believe in:
-Fiscal irresponsibility to the tune of $7.8 trillion deficits over 4 years
-Allowing their campaigns to coordinate with hostile governments
-Coddling dictators
-Ignoring laws like the Emoluments Clause, Hatch Act and lawful Congressional subpoenas
-Lying to the American people about a deadly virus
-Fighting against basic public health measures during a pandemic
-Xenophobia
-Denying systemic racism exists
-If you're not with us, you're against us mentality
Yeah, that's not Republicanism, that's full on Trumpism.If you say so. It's okay. I hope you have a nice day and Merry Christmas.
Valeant is not "saying so", lol. It is the patriots among the American public who is saying so.
"She is so hated and despised by Republicans they took away her leadership position on" - [i]All that shows is how far out of mainstream conservative thought most of the Republican caucus is. They are so extreme now that they are as much of a threat to our democracy as Trump is.
The response proves you are devoid of rationality since you can't even address the subject at hand.
I think Mike knows perfectly well that the 50/50 commission was scuttled by Republicans. He is just too ashamed to admit it.
The discussion was about the formation of the process, which was originally 50-50. Pelosi denied Jordan and Banks and then McCarthy pulled the rest of his appointments, leaving Pelosi the power to make all the appointments.
Whether they charge Jordan with crimes is yet unknown, but it's clear he was assisting in undermining the results of a free and fair election. And your suggestion about democrats and their text messages about election fraud is your latest voyage into conspiracytown.
Seek help. Seriously."The discussion was about the formation of the process, which was originally 50-50. Pelosi denied Jordan and Banks and then McCarthy pulled the rest of his appointments, leaving Pelosi the power to make all the appointments."
Again, more proof they wanted a show trial.
"And your suggestion about democrats and their text messages about election fraud is your latest voyage into conspiracytown."
Sorry, I could literally provide thousands of links to stories about the fraud committed in the 2020 election. I would welcome an investigation into it. Would you? Let's have that committee be 7 Republicans, Joe Manchin and another Democrat.
'In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, 56% of respondents said, "It’s likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 41% who say it’s ‘very likely.’”
Have you gotten help for your TDS? There is help available if you are willing to take the first step."Sorry, I could literally provide thousands of links to stories about the fraud committed in the 2020 election." - And not ONE OF THEM would be legitimate! Hell, even that fake AZ audit group couldn't find anything.
I can't find a poll that backs up your Rasmussen claim. Everything I see refutes it.
How do you know Jordan didn't do anything wrong? It is certainly starting to look like he did - that he helped plan the insurrection.
Mike doesn't even know we aren't talking about the current Select Committee. We are talking about the 50-50 truly independent 9/11-style commission Pelosi put forward that your side blew out of the water.
Why aren't you criticizing the Republican for doing that unpatriotic thing?BTW, it is your side who "bastardized" the process by voting down the 9/11-style commission to investigate how and why Jan 6th happened.
What do you have to say about that? (I am guessing nothing)
You notice how Mike is silent when we point out it was the Republicans who blew up a truly bipartisan and independent commission because they were so afraid of what it will reveal.
Why aren't you criticizing the unpatriotic Republicans who did that? The world wants to know.
Why should they bother, they know it is pure deflection just as the rest of us do because the FBI found nothing there. Had they, then they might be calling Epps. Who knows, they sill might call Epps, but not to investigate but as a material witness against those who conspired to cause the insurrection.
"There was a government plant in the Proud Boys. " - Was the plant the president of a chapter like Epps was? I hardly think so. You must really enjoy being obtuse.
He is just having fun with us, Valeant; we all know he doesn't believe a word he says. (probably a closet liberal, lol)
A little thought would answer your question. Perhaps they saw the same things you did which got their curiosity up. But, unlike you, the FBI didn't stop there and investigated further, finding no there, there. That is also probably why the Jan 6 commission isn't interested in Mr. Epps, he is old, debunked news.
Could it be that the FBI didn't find any evidence of conspiracy that would lead to conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? (I find it ironic that you sing to the high heavens that Mueller didn't even prove collusion (which he did) let alone conspiracy with members of the Trump campaign, yet here you are with far, far less to go on having convicted Epps already. Very ironic.)
And your point? This Oath Keepers leader was never seen inside the Capitol on Jan 6th and the video of him is from Jan 5th.
You need to read this again.
"Myriad footage shows Epps appearing at different times and in different places, on January 5 and 6, actively and openly encouraging people to breach the Capitol. Indeed, at 12:50 P.M., while Trump was still speaking to a huge, peaceful crowd, Epps was the person who orchestrated the first breach of the Capitol barricades.
The FBI originally included Epps on its Most Wanted List. However, the DOJ never filed charges against him despite knowing who he was. When both The Revolver and The New York Times raised questions in June about Epps, the FBI responded by purging him from its online files."
Conspiracy theories abound with some on here.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/revolver … -epps-fbi/I can't respond to My Esoteric
Every time I read his reply all I see is "Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah"
For some reason.Which is your normal reply when faced with truth and you have no intelligent rebuttal.
From Historian Heather Richardson:
One of the big questions about January 6 is why it took the National Guard more than three hours to get to the Capitol after the Capitol Police had called for help. On Tuesday, Ryan Goodman and Justin Hendrix of Just Security published a deeply researched article suggesting that the Pentagon was concerned that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, which gives the president the power to use the military, including National Guard troops, to stop civil disorder or insurrection. Goodman and Hendrix suggest that military leaders worried Trump would use troops deployed to the Capitol in order to hold onto power, and they note that the Pentagon did not let the National Guard deploy until after Trump released the video telling supporters to go home.
While observers have attributed the Pentagon’s reluctance to let the guard help either to bureaucratic inefficiency or to a deliberate effort to help Trump, the idea that Pentagon leaders were concerned about Trump trying to use the military to keep him in office lines up with other things we know about that period.
Military leaders spoke out against the actions of Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark A. Milley on June 1, 2020, when they walked next to Trump to St. John’s Episcopal Church after soldiers had cleared protesters from Lafayette Square. Both Esper and Milley apologized publicly, with Milley saying: “I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”
The concern that Trump had plans for using the military to keep himself in power only grew after we learned that on June 1, Trump’s aides had drafted an order to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy thousands of troops in Washington, D.C. Then–attorney general William Barr, Esper, and Milley objected and talked him out of it, and from then on, military leaders were vocal about their loyalty to the Constitution rather than to any particular leader.
Immediately after losing the election, Trump fired Esper (by tweet), and Barr resigned on December 23, 2020, so they were no longer there to object should he try again to invoke the Insurrection Act. He and his supporters, including Alex Jones of InfoWars and one-time national security advisor Michael Flynn—both of whom have been subpoenaed by the January 6th committee—repeatedly suggested he could declare martial law to hold a new election or to stop Biden from taking office.
On January 3, all ten living defense secretaries were concerned enough that they published a joint op-ed in the Washington Post, reminding Americans that “[e]fforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.”
On January 5, Trump asked acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller to have 10,000 National Guard troops ready for the January 6 rally, and Meadows wrote in an email that the National Guard would “protect pro Trump people.”
Goodman and Hendrix make a strong case that Trump and his loyalists were at least considering using the excuse of chaos at the Capitol—as we know, they expected counter-protesters to show up, and appear to have expected violence—to invoke the Insurrection Act and prevent the counting of the certified ballots by force.Related to my last post is this thought. The vaccine mandate in the military might have one positive effect. Those being discharged for refusing to get the vaccine are likely the same people that have been brainwashed by far-right media. So the mandate is helping self-identify those that might put politics before their duty to defend the country.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-marines … 28432.htmlThat also sounds reasonable to me.
I wonder if enough Trump supporters will die between now and November to effect the election outcome.
By that time, another 360,000 will probably be dead on top of the several hundred thousand that have already died. Add to that the number of Trump voters who figured out Trump is trying to kill them after they suffered through a bout of serious Covid.
In his YouTube post, David Pakman describes how Peter Navarro apparently lays out the coup plan and which members of Congress they lined up to assist with it in his book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y9lAMoenrc
Nicole Wallace also lays out a summary of the plan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjKV0bf8UKgThere are enough public facts now to show a conspiracy. Is it an illegal conspiracy? We probably need to know a few more facts (which the committee might already know).
Really, that's all ya got in response to Navarro laying out the conspiracy to undermine a lawful election? I guess when deflection is all you have, you run with it. You always want to talk about problems the nation is facing, but never even mention the undermining of our democracy which many feel is the greatest problem.
Just making an attempt to lighten up the conversation. I just noted how much these two looked alike.
I did review your sources. Perhaps compelling, but only ones again conjecture. It's a wait-and-see. I know Navarro has refused to comply with a subpoena. Will they push it as they are with Bannon and others?It was a little funny, I have to admit. Not sure they really need Navarro to testify since he laid out the plan in the press and in his book.
At this point, I hope they follow all the leads and exhaust all avenues, and come out with a report that gives closure to this ugly situation.
Assuming Trump is clearly implicated, it is very sad to know that somewhere around 70 - 80 million Americans still won't believe the evidence right before their eyes. I hope you are not going to be one of them.
They actually do, don't they.
Very sad news, in case you haven't heard - Betty White just died, 17 days short of number 100.
I did hear about Betty... So sad... I wish she could have got her wish to live past 100. She is loved and will be so missed. My own mother just could never get enough of the "Golden Girls". Betty was her favorite. She was a treasure and will be remembered dearly.
I recently put what happened in sports terms also and here is what I came up with:
In many humans, there is a competitive spirit and the basest motivation of playing to win can be satisfying. Setting aside fair play though leads to one that is not competing, but cheating. In being convinced that your opponent is your enemy, the empathy to win with humility or accept defeat with grace disappears.
In every sport, there are unwritten rules about respect for the game. The dehumanizing of the game and one's opponent turns sport into something ugly.
In 2020, Trump disrespected the game. He refused to concede his loss. In his warped mind, the scoreboard had him as the winner despite losing by two touchdowns. The other team cheated despite the referees never calling a penalty and instant review validating each and every play.
Trump incited a riot that broke the norms of the peaceful transfer of power within our country. He refused to shake hands with the opponent after the game and congratulate them on a well-played contest. Instead, he encouraged his fans to attack the referees in the parking lot. He was a poor sport and sixty percent of the Republican party backs that horrible display of sportsmanship.
Even worse, they back Trump's move to install his own referees and replay reviewers that see the game exactly how he does. Ones that will declare him the victor even if the other team scores more points. This is what America should be truly scared about, the installation of those that follow a malignant narcissist into his alternate reality.Did the Re[ublican party do anything that was unconstitutional in regard to the doing their job in certifying Bidens win? They certainly beforehand, and on Jan 6th brought up objections, and many Republicans backed these objections. And ultimately were heard on the floor, the objections were voted down, and the certification was completed. Biden was certified.
You can say some Republicans backed a horrible display of sportsmanship, but in the end, after objections were heard on that very day, many voted against the objections their colleague made.Why yes, I believe they did violate the US Constitution in basing their objections without any evidence of fraud. Therefore, they were objecting without cause in an effort to allow the seizure of power by Trump. To me, basing an objection on something that does not exist is the example of fraud.
Had to think about that one for a bit. I suppose you are right to the extent they violated their oath to the Constitution.
My complaint, however, is that the section of the Electoral Count Act they (and the Ds, to prove a point) used would be found unconstitutional in a court of law. Why, because it flies in the face of the wording in the 12th Amendment. No where in the amendment does it allow Congress to vote on the electoral ballots. All that is required constitutionally is that the President of the Senate open the certificates up "in the presence" of Congress and count them. No more, no less.Is that not the way they do things now in Washington. Accuse, then look for evidence? I must think if the objections were unconstitutional their objections would have not been heard. The objections were heard and voted on. And tossed out. I believe Congress was being prudent, and following protocol, as well as their laws.
That's the way it's done on the right, for sure. The left has evidence and then the right ignores it.
Congress was not being prudent, many were behind the coup attempt to subvert the Constitution.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/liz-cheney-j … 21685.html
And what this testimony means is that Trump knew there was violence and refused to act on it. Or as Cheney puts it:
"Any man who would provoke a violent assault on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes ... is clearly unfit for future office," she added.
"He completely ignored the rulings of over 60 courts, including judges he had appointed and refused to send help, refused to tell people to stand down for multiple hours while that attack was underway."Cheney has a right to her opinion and clearly is tossing it around. Will she be able to prove her view? That's my question or will she end up not being able to prove her accusation? If so, she IMO will look somewhat foolish. hey, she has taken that gamble.
Trump certainly has not proved his accusations of fraud, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
He did quickly send out a tweet to try to stop the rioters to respect law enforcement. He certainly had no other way to reach these rioters other than a tweet.
I think the investigation will shed light on what was done and when it was done. What was said and what was not said."Cheney has a right to her opinion and clearly is tossing it around. " - What opinion? She has 1st hand testimony to the fact that Trump sat on his ass doing nothing while (gleefully, IMO) watching the Capitol get sacked like in some third-world country.
So, two hours of watching the mayhem is "quickly" to you? Only a die-hard defender of Trump would use that term.
He could have gone with them to the Capitol like he promised them he would do. But I suspect he chickened out because he already knew a riot was taking place there and just wanted to send more troops to the action.
"Is that not the way they do things now in Washington. Accuse, then look for evidence? " - It may be for Republicans
And why would you think "if the objections were unconstitutional their objections would have not been heard."? As we have seen over the centuries, Congress often does things later found to be unconstitutional. At this point (and I know I am repeating myself but it seems I must), it is my, based on scholarly articles and a reading of the 12th Amendment, opinion that those challenges would be found unconstitutional if challenged."It may be for Republicans"
I disagree I find it is the Democrats that accuse and then look for evidence. And might add so far they have batted Zero on all their crazy investigations, as well as impeachments.
"And why would you think "if the objections were unconstitutional their objections would have not been heard."?
What I meant is that it was constitutional for objections to be heard in the case of the Certifying a presidential election. it would be legally constitutional in regards to the rule for objections to be heard and voted on.
I am not interested in conversing about the 12th amendment. It's very apparent that you are looking far beyond what Congress did on the day they heard objections to the certification, and got the business of the day done. Too bad, they just were not as up on the constitusion as you. LOLThe formation of committees or select committees is the same for Democrat and Republican. Their formation is voted on in the House of Representatives.
You can directly compare the formation and work of the 2014 select committee on Benghazi and the select committee formed to look at January 6th.
May 2014, the House of Representatives voted to create the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi to investigate the 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. The committee spent more than $7.8 million on its investigation over two and a half years, issued its final report in December 2016. The committee was one of the longest, costliest and partisan congressional investigations in history, lasting longer than the congressional inquiries into 9/11, Watergate, the assassination of President Kennedy, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The committee's "most significant discovery" was Clinton's use of a private email server (which were utilized by several in Mr Trump's administration including his daughter) as secretary of state, which prompted an FBI investigation.
The committee's final report found no evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.
I don't find much difference between the two select committees. Each identified a need to investigate an issue , voted on it and acted within their powers of a select committee. I believe that at the outset of the vote to form a committee it is based on the need to look further and that would require more than random accusations for either party.I disagree I find it is the Democrats that accuse and then look for evidence. And might add so far they have batted Zero on all their crazy investigations, as well as impeachments. None of the Democrat's investigations into all that is Trump ended up proving anything and left them with eggs on their faces. As IMO will this Jan 6th investigation.
This statement has nothing to do with investigations pursy. All you mentioned certainly needed investigations. I in good faith could not compare any of the Trump investigations to even one of your examples. Do you compare the severity of 9/11 to any of Trump's investigations with the death we saw when our country was attracted? Or the Benghazi attack was a coordinated attack against two United States government facilities in Benghazi, where four Americans died... the assassination of President Kennedy and the attack on Pearl Harbor. My Gosh. Conversation over. I will agree to disagree our mindsets are miles apart.I only compared Benghazi and the January 6th committees because they are identical in the fact that they are/ were select committees that were voted on in the House of Representatives. The main difference? The Benghazi select committee was voted on under a Republican controlled house and the January 6th committee under a Democrat controlled house.
Speaker john Boehner (R) 2014 and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) 2020 both proposed The formation of a house select committee for further investigation of their respective issues. Each was voted on and the investigations proceeded. I don't see any difference in either of how or why they were initiated. The process is the same. Although I would say that these last two examples of select committees demonstrate how partisan they've become.
I mean are we to say that the Benghazi select committee was unjustified? A "witch hunt" because after 2 years there was no evidence supporting Hillary Clinton's culpability? The fact is they had the votes to form the committee.
I can say that just like the January 6th select committee that if there's a reasonable grounds for an investigation to begin and the house votes on a committee formation then it is sanctioned. It's within their purview.
We can't arrive at an ending conclusion unless the investigation is held. Otherwise we'd just draw uninformed conclusions from the beginning based on a lack of information.
Also, I'm not comparing the January 6th committee to any other committees mentioned other than in the way committees are formed and how they progress.
I don't find that either party is "accusing" without basis and then looking for information. I still have enough faith in government overall that these committees would not be voted through unless there was some decent foundation for further investigation. There are many, many committees that never meet the vote threshold.
Quite honestly though January 6th and the questions surrounding how and why it happened really do deserve to be answered.
I think there is a misconception and maybe the media fuels the idea that select committees are a trial of sort. This really isn't the function of a select committee. Of course Hillary Clinton was a central figure to Benghazi as Mr Trump is with January 6th but accusations have not been / we're not made toward either. Rather The committees are investigations of their respective event as a whole, including all who may have played a role.
"I disagree I find it is the Democrats that accuse and then look for evidence." - Give us an example. You can't use the Select Committee on Jan 6 because there is plenty of evidence for probable cause.
This would be unlike the Republican's witch hunt into Hillary Clinton and Benghazi. There was zero evidence but they pursued multiple investigations, starting a new one each time the last one exonerated her. What was the total? Wasn't it seven FAILED politically motivated investigations?
"What I meant is that it was constitutional for objections to be heard in the case of the Certifying a presidential election. it would be legally constitutional in regards to the rule for objections to be heard and voted on." - But we don't know that for sure, do we. As you love to say, it hasn't been proven in court.
Of course you aren't interested in talking about the 12th Amendment. Why? Because it refutes you version of reality."You can't use the Select Committee on Jan 6 because there is plenty of evidence for probable cause."
THE FBI just does not agree with you... Source
"Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources"
"
WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages." https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclus … 021-08-20/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 06060.html
"The FBI has reportedly found no evidence that far-right allies of Donald Trump conspired to overturn the presidential election during the January 6 assault on the US Capitol, according to law enforcement officers briefed on the investigation."
"Of course you aren't interested in talking about the 12th Amendment. Why? Because it refutes you version of reality."
It would seem that Congress did not bring up the 12th amendment before hearing the Objections from the Republicans. But, you feel it deems bringing up. Go figure."evidence for probable cause." Using a probable cause standard, the Prosecutor must show that a CRIME was committed and that the DEFENDANT committed it.
The 12th amendment -
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
On Jan 6th the Congress certified Joe Biden as President without denaturing the 12th amendment in any respect. The Congress carried out their task by the end of the designated day.
That's a fact.The Select Committee is gathering facts and asking questions about the violence of January 6th and its causes so they can make legislative recommendations and help ensure nothing like that day happens again. Basically unearthing how and why the event took place. They are not and cannot conduct a law enforcement investigation. They can make referrals though to the DOJ.
Narrowing the focus of the select committee down to one person is really missing the large scope that is outlined in the White House document detailing it's range.
Congress is obligated to conduct a full investigation of the most serious attack on our Capitol. I'd say they'd be derelict in their duty if they did not.
Furthermore this committee is structured similarly to the GOP-led select committee on the terrorist attack in Benghazi. I don't find anything unusual or "unfair" about the January 6th committee formation.ECO and I were discussing the 12th amendment in regards to the presidential certification.
I have no problem at this point with the Congressional investigation and will await the report.
Your beating a dead horse. The only thing I at one point objected to was that in my opinion, I wanted the investigation left in the hands of the FBI and DOJ. It is clear many Citizens wanted the Congressional committee
and I have come to see it as a fair hearing, due to the wishes of many citizens.
I found your examples hyperbolic, but that is only my view. I feel the FBI and DOJ have been doing a good job with their investigations, and neither thus far seem to have evidence that the Jan 6th riot was planned. Although that could change, they are still investigating.
You don't seem to take my opinion, you are becoming repetitive. I can assure you I know the many jobs of Congress. I just disagreed with this Congressional investigation due to our best law enforcement agencies were on the job, doing all they could. And I will also state if and when they found the need for a Congressional investigation I would have been completely on board to have Congress jump in.
It is very clear we will not agree on the need for this particular investigation in any respect. However, once again it is just wiser in my view to wait and see what Congress's final report reveals.I agree with you; leave the investigations to the FBI and DOJ. It is simply not possible for have any Congressional "investigation" that even pretends to be objective and honest - they will always be more concerned with politics than with truth. What events are considered, where the investigation goes, and the conclusions drawn (most important of all) are driven by politics rather than a honest search fur truth.
On the other hand the other two, while embedded in the political scene, come much closer to an objective, honest investigation.It's absolutely imperative that Congress does its own investigation because legislation surrounding the findings can only be brought by Congress. That is its function and it seems to be getting lost here. It's most important duty is to find where we may need legislation going forward to prevent something like this from happening again.
From the January 6th select committee formation document itself on its purpose and outcome potential:
"Corrective Measures Described.—The corrective measures described in this subsection may include changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations that could be taken—
(1) to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, including acts targeted at American democratic institutions;
(2) to improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex while preserving accessibility of the Capitol Complex for all Americans; and
(3) to strengthen the security and resilience of the United States and American democratic institutions against violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism."1. You really feel this investigation can prevent any further violence? How?
2. You do realize at this point are depleted number-wise? Do you think it might be wiser to work on hiring more officers? "About 200 officers have left the U.S. Capitol Police force since the deadly Jan. 6 riot, the department's inspector general Michael Bolton told a Senate panel Tuesday.
Flashback: A union chief said in April that the force was facing dwindling numbers and low morale, adding later that it would potentially take years to hire and train more officers to recoup its ranks."
The bottom line: The Capitol Police "lacks the infrastructure for training, the intelligence gathering, and expertise that’s needed to prevent future attacks and an overall cultural change," Bolton testified.
https://www.axios.com/200-capitol-polic … acc37.html
This is a problem a right now problem that is being ignored.
3. Half of the country doesn't agree that the Jan 6th riot was domestic terroism or domestic violent extremism.
Perhaps some ground could be made when some stop saying things they just can't prove to any large extent.
It always shocks me how differently Americans differ in opinions on what happened on that day. And how confident that individuals seem to be in their views on what went down. Your 1-3 all seems so unrealistic. To think that Congress could solve any of what you think the investigation will accomplish. They all sound very nice, pleasant, but how do you think would Congress could realistically solve your list? -- Really how?The 1-3 It's not my response. These are taken from the official purpose of the January 6th select committee statement of purpose/function as outlined in the document on the White House site.
It really speaks to the legislative purpose of Congress to look at what happened on that day and what needs to change so that It is not repeated. Basically a post-mortem, learn from mistakes, weaknessness, issues and make necessary changes. Just as committees did throughout history.
I'm not at all saying or implying that we can prevent violence but we sure can change our reaction to it. I do believe that they will learn a whole lot on how to handle a situation like January 6th were it to occur again. At least I would hope so. Doing what you've always done and expecting a different result is definitely a definition of stupid in my book.
It doesn't matter to me what January 6th is labeled, going forward the government needs to have a better plan to deal with such events. And Congress is in the best position to deal with that. That is their charge. It is uniquely different from that of the FBI or the DOJ. And yes, I expect them to do their job.
My biggest problem is not that half of Americans disagree on what to call January 6th; It's the fact that far too many Americans are living in an alternate reality where they believe Mr Trump's repeated lies that the election stolen from him.
It is very obvious the witchhunt president has been cast during Trump's time in office. All the crazy investigations that amounted to zero. The Democrats have set the stage for accusing and then investigating looking for a crime. This will most likely be what we will see time after time no matter what party is in power. In my view, this is very harmful to the Nation. And it is time to push back. I punched back with my view in regard to the Congressional investigation of Jan 6th. I don't feel that we need three investigations. The Congress realized there was no there - there... when as the FBI clearly was not finding what they wanted them to find.
So, I feel their investigation has become overkill. I don't think it will serve to prove anything, just further build on an unproven conspiracy theory. Is this what we as a Nation really need? Very disillusioned at what I see going on in this country. We have a split that in my book is not fixable. I can't respect what I see from the Democratic party and would feel very much unintelligent to support anything they are dishing up politically or ideology-wise.
Hey, just my truth.'Your' truth that the investigations amounted to nothing is not even close to be being correct. The investigations showed many Americans of both parties how many laws Trump had broken since declaring his candidacy.
Examples of the many Republicans who will not follow Trump down the rabbit hole to a new and false reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsLlRPe … b_imp_woyt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JWo4z … b_imp_woyt
And Congress has uncovered so much that the public gets to hear as opposed to the FBI and DOJ which disclose nothing. The right claims this is politics, but it's uncovering and exposing what happened to the American people, something neither the FBI or DOJ discloses.Also, Many are calling these investigations redundant or repetitive But not realizing that each branch or agency such as Congress, The DOJ or the FBI all have a different role or purpose. The FBI or DOJ cannot duplicate the role of Congress or vice versa. They each have a different function in terms of how they investigate January 6th with limitations on all of their roles.
"Your' truth that the investigations amounted to nothing is not even close to be being correct. The investigations showed many Americans of both parties how many laws Trump had broken since declaring his candidacy."
This is your opinion, I in no respect agree with that statement. In my view, nothing was proved factually in any of the Democratic investigations into Trump. So we are at very different ends...
What have you heard? Tidbits of he said, she said thus far. Speculation and most on the committee ended their statements carefully...
Thus far ---"The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot has received “firsthand testimony” that President Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, twice asked him to intervene, Rep. Liz Cheney said. Trump was watching the riot unfold on television while sitting in the dining room next to the Oval Office at the time. “We have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence,” AND what does this all mean in reality? Nothing until we hear from Ivanka on how the President responded.
"Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said on CNN that the panel had received “significant testimony” that the White House “had been told to do something” and ignored the pleas. “The only thing I can say, it’s highly unusual for anyone in charge of anything to watch what’s going on and do nothing,” Thompson said."
He certainly made no assumptions just offered a view on the oddness of what he knew. Again we have no idea what went on in the White House on that day as of yet. Do we?
Thus far from FBI --- " WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described "dirty trickster", and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.
FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclus … 021-08-20/
The FBI comes up empty-handed in its search for a Jan. 6 plot
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 … jan-6-plot
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/p … rmant.html
The 5 biggest takeaways from FBI Director Christopher Wray's testimony about the Capitol insurrection
FBI Director Chris Wray testified about the January 6 Capitol attack on Tuesday.
He said the FBI warned law enforcement partners of violence at the Capitol ahead of the attack.
Wray also shot down conspiracy theories about the siege and Trump's lies about the election.
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics … 301718.cms
Am I to ignore these facts for a conspiracy theory? So, are my sources to include Wray not even close to being correct?
You seem to be blind to anyone's opinion but your own even the FBI director.
I will stick with good resources.Nothing was proved factually?
Again, not true at all. At the very least, it was obvious that Trump violated both the emoluments clause of the Constitution and the Hatch Act. All one had to do was keep their eyes open to see that lawlessness - it didn't require any proof beyond that.
And yes, if you rely solely on the FBI for your sourcing, despite what else has come out since the January 6 Committee began releasing information, you, as you tend to do, omit crucial facts in formulating your opinion. Reposting the same story over and over again, while not factoring in other evidence such as the plan by the organizers to remain at the ellipse all day, that Trump then changed when he told the crowd to march to the Capitol. And yes, when our country is attacked and the person who is supposed to be in charge sits there and revels in the actions of the attackers, actions that personally benefit him, there could be various crimes he is committing through that inaction.
And again, I like how you call it your 'truth' when it's just your own opinion. An opinion that I found not to be truthful at all since it was easy to show that these investigations did show evidence of Trump's lawlessness, starting as far back as him being named as an unindictable co-conspirator in a federal conviction for campaign finance law charges."And yes, if you rely solely on the FBI for your sourcing, despite what else has come out since the January 6 Committee began releasing information, you, as you tend to do, omit crucial facts in formulating your opinion. Reposting the same story over and over again, while not factoring in other evidence"
Again, I have not omitted facts --- I have not seen any evidence other than a sentence here and there, that gave no evidence that was relevant to anything. Perhaps you should consider what I offered. It gives factual information. Not open-ended sentences that imply something was suspicious. Smoking guns at best.
It's your right to believe what you please. I remind you, Trump, thus far after all the Democratic charges is a free man, not charged with a
crime. I will leave it there.
"I agree with you; leave the investigations to the FBI and DOJ. " - That is NOT what Sharlee finally came to a conclusion about. The FBI has its role to play as does the DOJ. But so does Congress, a constitutionally mandated one. A mandate you apparently don't think they should have (but our founders did.
The problem is Faye, they don't think the attack was serious at all. They refuse to see how democracy is threatened by their actions and words. They are so deeply enveloped by the Trump cult of personality, that they don't realize that every word that they write defending Trump and trying to minimize his actions and what happened on that day of infamy that another chip of our democracy is thrown in the gutter.
It is beyond their understanding as to why true patriots like us who actually believe in democracy are so upset at their attack on it.
"Prosecutor must show that a CRIME was committed and that the DEFENDANT committed it." - Neither part is true, especially the second part. In both cases, at the outset, all that is needed is to show that a crime was PROBABLY committed and that the party being invested PROBABLY did it - hence the term PROBABLE cause. But what you REFUSE to comprehend is that we aren't even at the charging stage yet, as has been pointed out several times before by several people, we are at the investigating And that is what Congress is doing - their Constitutional obligation to investigate the Executive when they think a crime has been committed.
Was there a crime committed? Obviously. Did Trump and others commit that crime? There is ample evidence to suggest they did. Therefore, Congress is obligated to investigate it. Simple as that
"On Jan 6th the Congress certified Joe Biden as President without denaturing the 12th amendment in any respect. The Congress carried out their task by the end of the designated day." - Unbelievable!! You are going to continue to minimize and whitewash the attack on our democracy until the day you die, aren't you. I really do feel sorry for you that you are so divorced from reality.
What are we going with in a few days? Just want to be sure what to say to a few members of this site on the 6th.
or
Trump canceled his press conference, which was set to be held on Jan. 6.
In a statement, " “In light of the total bias and dishonesty of the January 6th Unselect Committee of Democrats, two failed Republicans, and the Fake News Media, I am canceling the January 6th Press Conference at Mar-a-Lago on Thursday, and instead will discuss many of those important topics at my rally on Saturday, January 15th, in Arizona – It will be a big crowd!”
So, it will just be Joe speaking on Jan 6th.And pretty sure his most brainwashed sycophants will eat it up as if the final year of the trainwreck that was the Trump presidency that caused so many issues never existed. Then he will siphon as much money as he can from those same people and change his mind when the polling comes in closer to the election that shows him getting beat again.
Well not sure America will be up for voting in a Democrat next time around I mean every month Biden's polls show American's are very displeased with his job performance.
President Joe Biden’s overall disapproval rating reached a new high in December as more voters signaled their unhappiness with his handling of the economy and the Covid pandemic.
Results from a CNBC/Change Research poll show 60% of respondents said they disapprove of Biden’s handling of the economy as he nears the conclusion of his first year in office.
A 55% majority of survey respondents also signaled disapproval of his leadership during the pandemic, an area in which he previously excelled.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/04/biden-d … -poll.html
https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/6-in-10-a … nomy-poll/And it's very easy to note that at this same time in the presidency, only one person had worse ratings. Again, look at historical trends before thinking this is something unique. It's been the norm and three of the last four presidents were able to overcome early sluggish polling to get re-elected. Only the one who set records for unpopularity did not.
But also something to note about Change Research as a polling firm:
The top 40 polling companies in the US all use “live” polling methods. This is the most traditional and accurate polling method. According to Pew Research, “The accuracy of a poll depends on how it was conducted. Most of Pew Research’s polling is done by telephone. By contrast, most online polls that use participants who volunteer to take part do not have a proven record of accuracy.” Change Research does all polling online.
According to FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings, based on the historical accuracy and methodology of each firm’s polls, the top 35 out of 36 polling organizations with an A+/A+A- rating exclusively use “live” polling methods. Live pollsters include trusted companies like: ABC, CBS, NBC, La Times, Mason-Dixon, CNN, and Gallop.Rasmusson gets a B rating and Trafalgar has an A-, but both have a high bias to the right.
"Results from a CNBC/Change Research poll show 60% of respondents said they disapprove of Biden’s handling of the economy" - Since the economy is actually pretty good overall, it shows you how effective propaganda is, lol. What is it, 12 great indicators and 2 poor ones?
He did? Glad to hear it. Someone with an ounce of reason must have broken through.
Beware of what's happening at your state levels. These people are incredibly disturbing.
The reasons why Mr. Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election failed is because there were state officials who refused to substantiate his claims of fraud, said Franita Tolson, an election law expert at the University of Southern California. These folks really are gatekeepers. But take a look at who's running now..
NPR: Here's where election-denying candidates are running to control voting.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/04/10692322 … rol-votingI had fun debunking all the items in the Navarro 'research.' He's so sure of all those falsehoods that he is comfortable going on national television and saying how they recruited 100 Congressmen based on his lies to undermine a legitimate election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghh_esKFyxQStephanie Grisham has agreed to meet with the committee. That could be interesting as she has already shown a willingness to turn on Trump and be honest about his failings:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-trump-pre … 35528.html
Seems as if more and more Capitol police officers put the blame on Trump for January 6.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-police- … 00301.html
"Trump's words and conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021, and his ratification through silence when words and action were necessary, and his further ratification by direct praise of the rioters, as set forth herein, demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for and a reckless indifference to Bobby Tabron and DeDivine K. Carter's safety and that of their fellow officers," reads the complaint from Metropolitan Police officers Bobby Tabron and DeDevine Carter.
These are not the first lawsuits filed by police officers on scene that day against Trump. Two Capitol Police officers sued him in March. And seven Capitol Police officers sued him and others in August. There are also other lawsuits against Trump and extremist groups for damages from that day.
-The hardest question for Trump to answer might be: Would any of the rioters have been at the Capitol on January 6 if you had not pushed the Big Lie that the election was stolen?"Seems as if more and more Capitol police officers put the blame on Trump for January 6." - What is it now, more than a dozen are suing Trump for his role in their injuries?
It also appears that Mike Pence is clearing the field for his 2024 run by allowing his staff to turn on Trump. Bold move, Cotton, let's see how that plays out.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mik … 46346.htmlHere is one opinion article I agreed with:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/voters-deman … 33489.html
There should absolutely be debate questions for every midterm candidate that ask:
1.) Was Joe Biden elected fairly
2.) What are your thoughts on January 6And if they equivocate on either question - DON'T VOTE FOR THEM because they do not believe in American democracy.
Does democracy include the use of "super voters" such as the Democrat party used to put Clinton in the race for the presidency?
Or was that a temporary aberration, to be put in reserve for use only when the public doesn't agree with the ruling elite?Are you referring to superdelegates? If so, they are used by both parties. The use of superdelegates in either party is determined by their own leadership.
Railing against "... the ruling elite" - sounds absolutely Marxist to me, rather than capitalistic where a "ruling elite" is the mainstay, lol.
Judge Mehta getting to the key point that is the elephant in the room for Trump and his liability to both civil and criminal charges:
“If my words had been misconstrued … and they led to violence, wouldn’t somebody, the reasonable person, just come out and say, wait a second, stop?” Mehta wondered.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-claims … 17047.html
Trump's lawyers seemed to want to argue that inaction is not a crime without acknowledging that the whole 'stop the steal' movement was created by Trump's own false claims. That he fomented the anger that led to the violence. Once that is proven, it does not look good for Trump on either front.Have to wonder just who he would have called. Did he personally know, and have a phone number, of any of the rioters? Did he know who was in the riot?
That is the definition of flailing and being obtuse and being ridiculous, but then you know that already.
His lawyer is wrong on two counts. The one that you mentioned - Trump sent them there in the first place and the one where he is a president with the DUTY to stop an insurrection at the Capitol. He had the obligation and the means to do that and he failed to carry out his oath of office. That is a crime.
It is sad to know that if a regular person sees a child getting raped, American law says they have no duty to do anything about it. But that legal theory does not pertain to someone who swore an oath to protect and serve. So, if that person watching a rape were a police officer and did nothing, they would be guilty of a crime. The president, in this case, is no different.
Republicans filed forged documents pertaining to state electors in three different states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq1HGGLWdEAAnd Mr. Trump is still at it. I'm very surprised that he agreed to this interview with NPR. An outlet he has a avoided for years.
https://youtu.be/ZyCBPEM-pHwI listened to the interview (thanks for offering it,it gives his words) it is clear he is very much convinced that there were problems with fraud in the 2020 election. I followed all that was reported after the election, and from most of what was reported there was some fraud, but not enough to change the election.
Not sure where this all will go? If the Republicans gain strength in 2022, they may take it up with a widespread investigation. Many know here I had hoped a short investigation would have been a good thing just after the election. I felt it may have given the American's that we're asking questions the respect they needed and deserved.
I do not think Trump will ever stop sharing his grievances in regard to the election.Do we really need more investigations on the 2020 election?
"Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-wide … 61a6c7f49d
I feel like it's time to put the 2020 election fraud claims to rest.
I still find it shocking that many continue to believe these mistruths and conspiracies.
Ultimately I think there are only two ways to look at it. Number one, Mr Trump is flat out lying for his own benefit. Number two, he believes what he saying which in my opinion is a bit delusional in light of the multitude of exhaustive recounts in multiple states. Either way it's a big issue.
I don't know how his followers reconcile this.You have hit on why I feel we need a Congressional investigation.
"I still find it shocking that many continue to believe these mistruths and conspiracies."
There are many American's that disagree with your sentiment.
This is why I had hoped a short investigation would have been a good thing just after the election. I felt it may have given the American's that we're asking questions the respect they needed and deserved. I myself was satisfied in the election, and do not need an investigation. But I am one person. I respect we are a Nation of individuals, and many were not satisfied with the election and felt there was fraud. I can't answer for those that feel there was fraud or could have been fraud. I think an investigation would have and still could work towards reconciliation.
Do we not need to put this all to rest once and for all? It is certain it will not just disappear.I think it is certain that it won't disappear after even a dozen more investigations.
GAWell, you have an edge, due to many in our society having well proven over the past few years they only believe what suits them, not facts, even if they bit them in the thumb.
But, can't I be a bit optimistic?Sure you can. It's the only smart choice.
GA
"You have hit on why I feel we need a Congressional investigation." - I have to ask why, when the answer has already been determined an a multitude of ways, not the least of which is the fact that zero of those who claim to have "evidence" failed to produce it. Making it worse, those fake, partisan "investigations" found zero evidence of fraud and the AZ waste of money ended up giving Biden additional votes. I simply don't see why a Congressional investigation is need to tell us 2 plus 2 equals four simply because Trump says it is three. Just my opinion.
"felt there was fraud." - What if me and a few million other folks maintained that the moon was made of green cheese (because Trump told us so)? Would that need to be investigated or would you simply conclude we are all idiots living in another dimension?" I simply don't see why a Congressional investigation is needed to tell us 2 plus 2 equals four simply because Trump says it is three. Just my opinion"
Simply because it is your opinion--- we have so many people that share the opinion, and believe there was fraud... I feel we need to respect them as American's, and address their concerns.
These citizens deserve to be heard as do those that wanted an investigation into the Jan 6th protest/riot. I think the majority of American's wanted that day investigated, which we have three going on at this time. Congress although the matter was being investigated by the FBI and DOJ felt they needed to do an investigation. So be it ...
You may not have the belief the election needs to have a Congressional investigation but many American's do believe one is needed.
It certainly would help put this all in perceptive, and perhaps put closer to the matter."we have so many people that share the opinion, and believe there was fraud... I feel we need to respect them as American's, and address their concerns." - WHY? Back to my green cheese analogy. Would you also say we need to "address my and few million other people's concern" that the Moon was made out of green cheese? It makes as much sense.
"but many American's do believe one is needed." - true, but not that many, mainly Trumpers who don't want to know the truth
How much time and treasure do you want to spend on what has already been repeatedly proven to nonsense concerns; ones believed by delusional people.
What I find "shocking" is that there are 50 to 70 million Americans who are so delusional as to still believe in the Big Lie. It makes me so very sad that so many who enjoy the fruits of our democracy are so willing to give it all up in the name of a demagogue.
Aren't "grievances" supposed to be based on something real? Isn't it called paranoia or worse, mental illness, when those "grievances" are based on fantasies and hallucinations such as what Trump's are?
As to "short investigations". Haven't there been many now, all coming to the same conclusion? Little fraud. The fact that you are STILL waiting makes me wonder how many investigations you will need to come to some conclusion that the Trumpers are full of it.Perhaps you missed my statement in this ongoing conversation with Faye.
" I myself was satisfied in the election, and do not need an investigation. But I am one person. I respect we are a Nation of individuals, and many were not satisfied with the election and felt there was fraud."
As always you're rudeness stands out.No, Sharlee, I read that passage. If you had left it at that, everything would have been copasetic. But you didn't. You followed it with what sounds very much like an apologist for what is going on today, excusing the false and improper reasoning of those who buy into the Big Lie. You said:
But I am one person. I respect we are a Nation of individuals, and many were not satisfied with the election and felt there was fraud. and I think an investigation would have and still could work towards reconciliation.
Doesn't that last statement contradict your earlier statement that "I myself was satisfied in the election, and do not need an investigation."?
You apparently have not followed the conversation Faye and I are haveing. In this comment I did not share my own feelings in regards to the need for an investigation, I did a few comments back. I shared that I did not have the need for an investigation, but felt other American's that were concerned deserved an investigation. So, the fact that you accuse me of something just because you can is rude and shows a lack of social skills
If you are going to jump into a back and forth conversation read all the comments that lead up to the one you are posting on. Context matters.
You owe me an apology. I have come to the conclusion that you compartmentalize, and belittle people unnecessarily. Why?
Is this the interview where I just read he hung up on the interviewer after being asked about the [b]Big Lie{/b]?
Good to see the courts recognize that a state that is fairly close in registered Dems and GOP should not have such a skewed representation for only one party. Even if one of the judges who voted for the partisan maps was the GOP Governor's son.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/inc … 51087.htmlYep, fortunately you had one principled Republican on the bench. It should have been a unanimous decisions given how egregious the map was. It took one Republican with guts to side with the Democrats to get a just result.
A sign of things to come?
A Florida Republican who was defeated by 59 percentage points in a congressional special election won't concede.
He filed a lawsuit before the election was called, telling CBS Miami "stuff" was "discovered."
Is this the new normal in Republican politics, in which the GOP sees election defeats as inherently illegitimate?
What if every losing Republican behaves the same way from now on? Once the 'respect the voters' norm is gone, then it's gone for good.
https://www.businessinsider.com/florida … ide-2022-1"In his second-ever solo White House press conference on Wednesday, Mr. Biden was asked if November's congressional elections would be legitimate if he could not pass his voting plans."
"It all depends on whether or not we're able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election," Biden stated. --- referring to stricter voting rules enacted by Republican statehouses. Source https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60063594And what is not true about "some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election"?
As I pointed out earlier with that article about Lincoln County, your state of GA is living proof to the truth of that statement. I would longer trust the outcome of any GA election given the foot Republicans have put on the results because of their new laws. It will more than likely be the unfreest and unfairest elections since the days of Jim Crow.I live in Michigan --- I have read GA new voting laws, and they are very fair, and actually, they are fairer than they have ever been in regard to making the task of voting easier for those that the LIBERALS have deemed to be dim-witted and unable to vote like other Americans.
In Michigan --- The legislation changed a few rules. They established stricter requirements for voter identification and banned election officials from sending out absentee ballot applications unless they are requested by voters.
The Senate bill mandate that in-person voters present identification for their ballots to count and that those voting absentee submit their driver's license number, state personal ID number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Which gave a good selection of ID"s. And political parties and other organizations have a fair opportunity to have challengers present during the counting of absentee ballots.
in Regard to drop boxes- The boxes require continuous video monitoring.
Otherwise, all stayed the same as prior to 2020.Sorry, that is right, I am not sure why I placed you in Georgia.
Tell me, how does collapsing 7 voting precincts down into 1 for a 250 sq mile county count as making voting easier.
How does limiting the time you have vote to something far less than what it was making voting easier.
How does making drop boxes almost useless making things easier to vote?
How does putting politicians in charge of counting votes make voting more secure?
All of that is in the Georgia laws you read or is being done as I write.
You clearly have a Pollyanna view of the GA voting laws.Please check out this link it offers a history of registered voters. It well shows that voter registration has grown substantially since 1998. It would appear that the people of Georgia have had a little problem registering to vote. And common sense should tell one, that if one registers they have the right to go to the polls and vote. Without the help of liberals.
https://sos.ga.gov/admin/uploads/Voter_ … 032021.pdf
Here is a fact-check on the other mistruths that you listed in your comment.
"How does limiting the time you have vote to something far less than what it was making voting easier."
"Biden Wrong on Early Voting Hours
As our fact-checking colleagues at the Washington Post have written, the president has repeatedly made the false claim that the new Georgia law would “close a polling place at 5 o’clock when working people just get off.” The new law sets the minimum hours for early voting on weekdays at 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; the old law said early voting “shall be conducted during normal business hours.”
County officials can keep early voting locations open for longer, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
On March 26, in a statement on the Georgia law, Biden said: “Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.” And in an interview on ESPN on March 31, the president repeated the claim, saying: “You’re going to close a polling place at 5 o’clock when working people just get off. This is all about keeping working folks and ordinary folks that I grew up with from being able to vote.”
To be clear, Biden is talking about hours for early voting, though he doesn’t say that. The voting hours on Election Day — 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in the state — haven’t been changed."
Drop Boxes--- the new law offers at least one box per county, which helps in smaller counties that before this new law had no drop boxes.
"collapsing 7 voting precincts down into 1 for a 250 sq mile county count as making voting easier."
I did not see this in the bill. I did see media toss it around as a "might" be in the bill.
Please offer proof this was included in Georgias new voting rules bill.
Read the bill, not CNN's slant on the bill...
IF one wants to vote in Georgia the new bill makes it easier to vote, in fact, they bent over backward.Just curious is 7pm really fair? The reason I say that is with my life that was a problem. I had to take the day off from work to vote and the only reason I was able to get the day off was because I was the manager making the schedule.
Also, to resolve my employees to be able to vote I had to select who would have the day off and set up a half day schedule for the rest while upper management and I had long discussions why I was doing it. It was an auto tire/repair shop opened at 7am until 9pm.
But, to be fair I see about half the states close at 7pm. Some at 8pm and one, New York at 9pm. (See list below at link) I don't get why the limited hours. I am in agreement with GA Anderson it should be a holiday. I also favor making voting as easy as reasonably possible.
Voting Poll hours by Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/State_Poll_Open … mes_(2022)Did the employees at your tire shop work from 7 to 9 (14 hour days) or were there two shifts splitting that period and giving all employees some of the time polls were open to vote?
I think if you read my post you see I resolved the issue with maybe one person off if requested and the rest a half day schedule giving them the opportunity to vote on election day. Company policy was a 5-1/2 day work week while everyone worked Sat. As far as did they work a 14 hour day, yes, at times. And, no there were no split shifts normally. No need to go into the nature of the business with all the varying forces at play with the main one being making money for all actors involved in the grand scheme of things.
Yet, back to the point I asked is 7pm fair? I don't think so. Eight may be better and nine is even better. Especially on election day itself. Some people have it pounded in their head for who knows why election day is the day to vote. You know what I mean? As far as that goes with early voting why close on Sunday? I am just curious more than anything else.The point here, I think, is the company had to make an accommodation so that people can vote. That shouldn't be necessary.
"Just curious is 7pm really fair? The reason I say that is with my life that was a problem. I had to take the day off from work to vote and the only reason I was able to get the day off was because I was the manager making the schedule."
Well --- what time would you like the polls to stay open? It would seem you would hope the polls be open very late into the night? I know how to solve your problem vote by mail... I have voted by mail for many years, just more convenient, and I don't need to worry about any time
restrictions.
Perhaps as the federal Government suggests in Biden's Voting bill we need to all have it a paid day off. As a business owner would you be good with that?
My son owns a rather large company long lunch hours are offered to
vote.
I think all should be able to vote, not sure how it became so hard, all of a sudden. I can honestly say I have never had a problem voting whether in person or by mail. It would seem we are now a society that needs a bit of help to vote. Not sure what changed?" I know how to solve your problem vote by mail... " - But many Red states have made that much more difficult as well. It has become such a pain in the ass to apply and get a ballot in Florida now, I will just go to the poll, since I have the luxury of time to do so.
As it should be. Voting without any personal contact at all, without firm identification in person with a photo ID should never be permitted.
I agree, not that is not reality. For a very long time in Georgia and elsewhere, it was sufficient to compare signatures. At the time of the original signature, all those other pieces of ID were required. Other than Trump losing the election, what changed? Why wasn't comparing signatures good enough any longer? There was little or no fraud in mail-in voting so what motivated the Republicans to make voting harder if not to try to rig the election in their favor. What other REALISTIC alternative reason is there?
Perhaps you are reading too much into what I was saying regarding how late to stay open. Reasonable was stressed! I gave the link to what states are doing offering there are different routes taken.
I am very adamant about people taking advantage of their right to vote. That is why as a manager I made an effort to provide a time allowance on election day for my employees to have the opportunity vote. And, stressed its importance in the workplace. If they took advantage of the opportunity that was their choice. I always stress the importance of voting even when I hear people bitch about stuff I ask, "Did you vote?"
Regard myself I did not know there was mail-in balloting until 2007 when I moved and went online to change my registration address. Alas, the wonders of what a computer and the internet provides us. My bust I was I was ignorant not to know. Why would I even want to know since there was no need.
I am happy with how voting is done here in Calif from registering to the actual voting process. Regard a time I think 8pm is much more reasonable than 6pm for closing, which some states are. Nine may be a stretch except maybe do so on election day itself. I am a big believer in opportunity.
I think some of the hub-bub stuff about voting is overreach and some valid. When all the Georgia stuff hit the streets curious I looked into it discovering for their primary voting tables by hour by location. Interesting and that is where I get my perspective besides 'my' common sense using business hours of operation as a guide.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/ … sOpenClose"I can honestly say I have never had a problem voting whether in person or by mail." - Put yourself in the shoes of a rural Black voter in a Red state and see if you can still say the same thing. I haven't had a problem either, but then we are both white.
"I think all should be able to vote, not sure how it became so hard, all of a sudden." - I think so to but based on my education, my reading of historic American politics, my observations of the centuries long fight to have free, unencumbered access to the ballot, I have to beg to differ about "how it became hard to vote, all of the sudden". It has always been hard for certain segments of American society. In 2020, it was the easiest it has ever been, but Republicans are trying very hard to reverse that. Hell, I am white and it is already harder for me to vote in Florida because of the new restrictions on voting. The only reason it isn't any harder for you in Michigan is that you have a Democratic governor protecting your right to vote.
There was a time in early American history where some states allowed women and even blacks to vote. The most liberal appears to be New Jersey who, around 1790, declared that you have to have about $9,700 in todays dollars in cash or property to vote. Beyond that, it didn't matter who you were.
But with the conservative (your side) take over of the federal government around 1804, pressure was put on states to restrict their voting rights. It wasn't too long before NO state allowed women or blacks to vote.
To vote then, you had to be male and the owner of property (and in some states, Christian) to vote. People have been struggling for the right to vote ever since then to include today.
The first breakthrough came in the 1820s when property requirements were relaxed so that more white men could vote.
The next breakthrough came in 1870, 80 years after America was created, when Blacks were allowed to vote via the 15th Amendment. But that was effectively nullified in all conservative states through various state laws. I believe this is where Republicans want to get to today if they could.
The next big breakthrough was with the 19th Amendment when women were allowed to vote in 1920, 130 years of long hard struggle. Fortunately, Republicans aren't trying to restrict a woman's right to vote just yet.
It took until 1965, 175 years after our founding, that Blacks FINALLY were allowed relatively easy access to the ballot box. Conservatives have been fighting to reverse that epic fail on their part ever since. The latest round, of course, is in 2021 and 2022 as they try to return to the time before 1965.
So no, voting for certain groups of people didn't "suddenly" get hard, it has always been that way to one degree or another.As long as the vote from Blacks, with Blacks and minorities lacking the numbers and desire to participate and white women basically on board with the Conservatives' objectives, today anyway, there was no threat.
The Right does not dare disenfranchise their undesirables directly, it is now covered up with verbiage like the "sanctity of the voting process".The Right is losing its grip on society as their numbers and its advocates decrease in the face of more determined efforts from minority groups to the use the ballot along with changing demographics away from rural to urban by ever increasing numbers. Is it any wonder that they are frightened? So, they are now forced to access their 'bag of dirty tricks'.
This "new" approach allows them to get back in control without being labeled racists. Everything that they have done and continue to do resists the will of the people (Electoral fraud) in favor of preserving all of their prerogatives in society.
It is a sinister attempt, and weakness in the face of this by the Democrats, the left and progressives is something that we do not have the luxury to expose.
First let's start with the very long history of voter suppression in Georgia (and other Southern States)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/voter-suppression
Then let's look at the law as WAPO did:
1. It shrinks the window for voters to request mail ballots. (why, there was little if any fraud in this regard?)
2. Counties and the state can send mail ballot applications only to voters who request them (why? There was little if any fraud in this regard
3. New voter ID requirements for mail-in ballots make it harder for Black votes to be counted because it is harder for them to meet the new requirements.
4. A limit on the number of ballot drop boxes during early voting. (Why? There were no problems here either)
5. Shortened early voting in runoff elections. (I guess by doing this, it will increase the chances of Republicans winning)
6. State lawmakers get much more power over county and local elections (Practically this means the Republicans can determine what votes get counted - this is the most democracy-killing laws on the books)
7. A ban on handing out food and water within 150 feet of a polling place, or within 25 feet of any voter.
Where did the law HELP?
1. An additional day of early voting in most rural counties (where most Republicans live)
2. More resources for precincts so lines don’t get too long. ."I did not see this in the bill. I did see media toss it around as a "might" be in the bill." - Then you missed the part that allowed Lincoln County to toss out Democrats on the election board and install Republican ones. After having done so, they they were to vote to collapse the precincts into one.
"Is this the new normal in Republican politics, in which the GOP sees election defeats as inherently illegitimate?"
Does Biden feel the same ? Biden yesterday in his press conference.
"In his second-ever solo White House press conference on Wednesday, Mr. Biden was asked if November's congressional elections would be legitimate if he could not pass his voting plans."
"It all depends on whether or not we're able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election," Biden stated. --- referring to stricter voting rules enacted by Republican statehouses.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60063594Oh this is rich!
"Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called Mr Biden's speech an attempt to "baselessly smear election integrity provisions".
As was the 2020 election integrity baselessly smeared by Mr. Trump? The hypocrisy of it, Ms. McDaniel.
I'd have to go back and listen to the comment within his speech for context. I'm not all together sure if this is contrived context by the media or if this was his actual intent. Admittedly he isn't the most clear speaker.
The only thing I can confidently say is that politics these days reeks to high heaven.On that most of us would agree, I think. Politics today, more than at any time in the past, reeks to the high heavens. Truth, honor, honesty - all have virtually disappeared from both sides of the table and, if we are honest, from a great many voters as well. It is all about what we can get from the pocketbooks of others and how much control we can exert over them.
"Politics today, more than at any time in the past, reeks to the high heavens." - Is actually not true. Politics in the election of 1800 was way worse; it almost led to a civil war. The mid-1800s was much worse as that division did lead to the Civil War. Then the period from 1868 to 1964 was a period of high turmoil and violence, the most famous being the frequent lynchings of Blacks (which the Right doesn't want taught in our schools any more, btw). Then we have the Vietnam period of riots and other violent strife. No, this period of discord is certainly less violent that any of those and the level and discord is less as well.
That said, other than the almost and actual civil wars, America has NEVER been this close to collapsing - our democracy is in danger without a shot being fired.
"Truth, honor, honesty - all have virtually disappeared from both sides of the table" - I absolutely disagree with that false equivalency. There is almost no comparison between the level of dishonest, lack of moral behavior, and lying of Trump Republicans and Real Republicans/Democrats. They are orders of magnitude different!
Rich, sweet, and just another example of `politics as usual'
.
This seems to be one of those issues where just a shake of the head is the only serious response. Over and over both political parties show us how dumb they think voters are. And what do we do . . . we pick a side. "My hypocrisy is truth, yours is just a lie."
Nope, they are both hypocrites. The R or D is just their color.
GAAs I just pointed out to Wilderness, there is no comparison between Trump Republicans and Real Republicans/Democrats.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with your "dumb" comment, but I observe that by and large most Real Republicans and most Democrats are honest and sort of truth-tellers. That simply cannot be said of Trump Republicans.It's good you see hope for the "dumb" thought, but my reference was to the politicians' opinion of the voters. That they too often prove them right is just icing on their cake.
GA
"Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called Mr. Biden's speech an attempt to "baselessly smear election integrity provisions".
I find her statement political, hyperbolic, misleading in many ways -- But, expected.
To give context to my previous comment -- In my view, he did share his VIEWS on what he felt would happen in the 2022 and 2024 elections if his Voting bill did not pass, the context was clear in my view. He was asked a direct question's ---
From Transcript on the subject -- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ference-6/
" Q Thank you, sir. I just wanted to clarify: A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2022 if some of these state legislatures reformed their voting protocols. You said that it depends. Do you — do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah, I think it easily could be — be illegitimate.
Imagine — imagine if, in fact, Trump has succeeded in convincing Pence to not count the votes.
Q Well, I —
THE PRESIDENT: Imagine if —
Go on.
Q In regard to 2022, sir — the midterm elections.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, 2022. I mean, imagine if those attempts to say that the count was not legit. “You have to recount it and we’re not going to count — we’re going to discard the following votes.”
I mean, sure, but — I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit. It’s — the increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these — these reforms passed.
But I don’t think you’re going to see — you’re not going to see me and I don’t think you’re going to see the Democratic Party give up on — coming back and assuming that the attempt fails today."
He seemed to become very angry when questioned about previous statements he made in past speeches. he certainly was not truthful in several tomes about things he said. I won't pretend to know why he
would tell mistruths about what he has said --- all his speeches, and statements can be located on Cspan or youtube.
And having an aid walk his clear statements back, in my view is very hurtful to his reputation.It was a confusing, jumbled line of thought. I think he had the scenario of Trump convincing Pence not to count the electoral votes in his head and he wasn't able to express his line of thought accurately. He isn't an eloquent speaker. But does He really believe the upcoming elections will be or could be illegitimate? I don't really find a lot of evidence over his career that shows him to be that incendiary. But he sure does have a long history of struggling with words to accurately express himself.
First, "He seemed to become very angry when questioned about previous statements he made in past speeches." - Is a total mischaracterization of his demeaner during that question. I was listening to it live and did not pick up on any anger what so ever. I don't remember what it was, but he did get mad about some other question (actually two, I think) but not about that one.
As to the quote you printed out - what was untrue about any of it. Now that I read it, it makes even more sense than when I heard it. Now follow this logic:
Q: A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2022 if some of these state legislatures reformed their voting protocols. You said that it depends.
A: Oh, yeah, I think it easily could be — be illegitimate. As we are seeing right now in Georgia, that is clearly true.
Why do you make these broad, sweeping generalizations like "he certainly was not truthful in several tomes about things he said. I won't pretend to know why he would tell mistruths about what he has said" and not provide any examples of what you are talking about? Clearly, nothing he said in what you reported was untruthful.
All of that said, I was not impressed with his answers, but they were a damn sight more coherent and truthful than most of Trump's conferences.I in no respect mentioned Biden's demeanor when he answered the question I quoted in my comment. What I said --- First, "He seemed to become very angry when questioned about previous statements he made in PAST speeches. So, no he did not appear angry when he answered that question.
I was responding to a specific comment to Faye. I was not intending to layout an entire two-hour press conference. I offered her the link to the transcript for her further review.
At any rate here are several of his mistruths with a source that fact-checked his press conference.
In a nearly two-hour press conference, President Joe Biden stretched the facts and left out important context on vaccinations, funding for lead pipe removal, child poverty and much more.
1.Biden exaggerated his administration’s progress against COVID-19, saying that the U.S. is “adding about 9 million more vaccinations each week.” That number has been around 7 million to 8 million doses, and more than half of them are booster doses.
2.Biden claimed that “thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure bill,” workers will be “removing lead pipes” so that “every American can turn on a faucet and drink clean water.” But the new law doesn’t include nearly enough funding to remove all lead pipes in the country.
3.The president had a point that the “bottom 40%” of wage earners “got a raise,” even when accounting for inflation, which he didn’t mention. But overall, inflation-adjusted wages have declined while he has been in office.
4.On the topic of Russia potentially sending troops into Ukraine, Biden wrongly suggested that “it hasn’t happened since World War II” that a “nuclear power” invaded another country. That’s false; Russia invaded Ukraine as recently as 2014.
5.Biden said that “we just made surprise medical bills illegal in this country,” but he needs to share credit with the previous administration. The bipartisan law was enacted in December 2020 and took effect this year.
6.Biden said child poverty had dropped by “nearly 40%,” citing an estimate due to an increase in the child tax credit. But that increase in the tax credit expired in December.
7.“Seventy-five percent of adults are fully vaccinated,” he said. “We’ve gone from 90 million adults with no shots in arms last summer down to 35 million with no shots as of today. And we’re adding about 9 million more vaccinations each week.”
According to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 19, 73.6% of adults were fully vaccinated, a bit less than Biden claimed. (The figure is 63% for the total U.S. population.) The number of unvaccinated adults is now down to about 33 million (assuming a total adult population of 258.3 million), according to agency statistics. But the real number is likely higher.https://www.factcheck.org/2022/01/factchecking-bidens-press-conference/
I will save you some time -- I am going with the fact-checkers, so no need for any form of rebuttal.Oh come on, Sharlee. When you write "But I don’t think you’re going to see — you’re not going to see me and I don’t think you’re going to see the Democratic Party give up on — coming back and assuming that the attempt fails today."
He seemed to become very angry when questioned about previous statements he made in past speeches." - How am I to know those two statements are not connected? You provided a series of quotes from Biden and then follow that up with him sounding angry. To me, they are connected.
1. Seems to me you are trying to make a mountain out of, well nothing. First, Biden used the word "about". And, how do you know the data a president has available to him didn't say 9 million? After all, it is not that much different from 8 million.
2. Again, there you go again with semantics that have no particular meaning. And since you are being picking, show me where President Biden said that EVERY American's lead pipes will be replaced? He didn't. So, if he replaces all of the lead pipes that currently exists (not everybody has lead pipes, btw) in America, then you can fairly conclude that ALL Americans will have lead-free pipes.
3. You need to go look at your data again. President Biden was correct - according to Jason Furman, an economist and professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. -
Furman calculates that the bottom quarter of workers have seen wage gains outpace inflation. He goes on to say that the next lowest quarter ALSO beat inflation until JUST RECENTLY.
4. Define "invade" for me and let's discuss. And do you differentiate between "invade" and "incursion" (which is what Russia did in 2004. So, if you mean trying to take over another nation, President Biden is correct. If you mean sent forces into a neighboring country, then he was incorrect.
5. I guess you are "technically" correct. The bill was signed in Dec 2020, a few weeks before President Biden took office. But, it didn't go into effect until a few weeks ago. So, you win on a pointless technicality.
6. And how is President Biden's statement incorrect? Did child poverty jump up dramatically in the last 17 days? Again, pointless.
7. President Biden rounded to the nearest 5% (75% to 75%). Give me a break! Don't you feel silly now?
You may go with the fact-checkers but I do not go with your cherry-picked parts of their analysis.Biden's off by a few percentage points here and there. There's a majority of a political party that still thinks they won the 2020 election despite losing by 7 million votes and 74 electoral votes. And the person that they want to run in 2024 lives in a completely alternate reality right now.
Nitpicking Biden when the figurehead of the party you tend to vote for is completely off the reservation is pretty laughable. If you're willing to accept such blatant lies from your own leaders, not sure you should aim for the moral high ground with a few slight exaggerations.Whatever offered up a fact-check on his mistruths. No more no less. Like I said, take it up with them. Or better yet believe what you please. I will stick with the fact-checkers.
Esoteric: "I will save you some time -- I am going with the fact-checkers, so no need for any form of rebuttal."
Welcome to the club..
Rachel Maddow notes how Pence changed the script on January 6 pertaining to the counting of electoral votes due to fake electors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfcI9WYZzQMaybe the new Manhattan DA should focus on the horrendous crime in New York. He as those before him are wasting time and taxpayer's money investigating Trump. How many years has New York AG's been investigating Trump? Looks very foolish in my view.
I'm in NY. They can use my taxpayer money to investigation white collar criminals and I'm good with that.
One, it is no waste to bring down what is effectively a mob organization. The only difference between Trump and other mobs is he orders less murders.
Two, it is the DA's job to prosecute all crimes - which I gather in not high on your list to do.
Related Discussions
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 9 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 19 months ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 19
Manafort to Cooperate with Mueller
by J Conn 5 years ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
- 339
15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...
- 17
John Durham Indicts Second Operative InTrump Russian Probe
by Sharlee 9 months ago
In May 2019, Attorney General William Barr tapped Connecticut’s U.S. Attorney John Durham to look into issues related to the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. Durham is a longtime federal prosecutor in Connecticut known for leading organized crime and public corruption cases.Aug 2020...