Protestors storm capital
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Avery
Well-Known Member
I just can't fathom why anyone would want Trump back - it was an embarrassing four years for the country and I'd like to think we don't have the mind of a goldfish. We are very fortunate that January 6th wasn't worse.
If you're not a fan of Biden, and nobody would blame if you weren't, are we not capable of electing somebody who isn't on the wrong side of the average life expectancy? Can we actually get some new ideas and fresh blood? Why on earth would we run it back with the same group of has-beens?
If that's D, fine. R? Fine. Let's elect the best candidate regardless of the letter by their name, but good lord, a Biden vs. Trump rematch in 2024 is worse than somehow thinking a Jake Paul vs. Tyron Woodley is somehow telling us who the best fighter in the world is.
If you're not a fan of Biden, and nobody would blame if you weren't, are we not capable of electing somebody who isn't on the wrong side of the average life expectancy? Can we actually get some new ideas and fresh blood? Why on earth would we run it back with the same group of has-beens?
If that's D, fine. R? Fine. Let's elect the best candidate regardless of the letter by their name, but good lord, a Biden vs. Trump rematch in 2024 is worse than somehow thinking a Jake Paul vs. Tyron Woodley is somehow telling us who the best fighter in the world is.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Obama was pretty young. The backlash to a young black man was... Well Trump.
The reason why Biden won was because he was seen as a safe Obama supported pick who could beat Trump. There were plenty of candidates to choose from. Mayor Pete? Too gay. Kamala? Too black. Bernie? Too old and Jewish. Warren? Too smart.
We can bitch all we want about getting young and diverse candidates. But that won't matter if they're going up against an old white demagogue who receives overwhelming support from whites. The issue isn't with Biden; the issue is with the electorate. The electorate doesn't even know it wants tbh.
Hey we are only 3 weeks away from the 1st Anniversary of the attempted destruction of democracy in our country. And the trials are still ongoing.
www.cnn.com
After 50 rioters sentenced for January 6 insurrection, a debate rages over what justice looks like
Of the 50-plus defendants who have been sentenced for their role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, fewer than half were sent to jail for their crimes. Most received an assortment of lesser penalties, including brief terms of house arrest, a couple years of probation, four-figure fines...
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I don’t like this at all. The cavalier way Constitutional rights are being disposed with makes me deeply uneasy.
Liz Cheney said Mark Meadows had declared Executive and “other” privileges. That “other” privilege is the Fifth Amendment rights that all Americans have. Liz Cheney specifically cites Jeffery Clark refusing to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds and they voted to hold him in contempt on December 1st.
In this 9 minute monologue, Liz Cheney gives no reason why Mark Meadows does not have Fifth Amendment protections. She reads off a litany of sins that Trump has done as if that strips the Constitutional protections of anyone near him. It doesn’t. That isn’t how Constitutional protections work. This panel has effectively declared themselves above the law and that should worry the crap out of everyone despite it being used today against someone you may not like.
A similar thing is being done with Steve Bannon, who is one of the scummiest dirtbags to ever crawl the Earth. His trial is being conducted in total darkness with bizarre evidentiary rules that allow lawyers to see evidence but not have evidence. The prosecution is supposed to show documents to the defense lawyers but the defense lawyers are not allowed to have a copy. The defense lawyers are even limited in what notes they can write about the evidence they are shown.
I would never defend Mark Meadows, or Jeffery Clark, and wouldn’t urinate on Steve Bannon if he were on fire, but WTF?!?! This is wrong. I don’t care how awful Trump was, our government should not do this to American citizens. If they committed a crime then charge them and give them their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
One that you have to sit before the committee to claim in response to specific questions. This right does not let you refuse to respond to a subpoena.
He keeps completely mis-framing issues.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
It's almost like he's making bad faith arguments. The question is, "Why?" Is tribalism really that important?
It is the way.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Tribalism isn't but constitutional rights are.
Clinton attempted to invoke Executive Privilege to stop his staff from testifying in the Monika Lewinski investigation. He was overruled in court and his staff had to testify to find out about what sort of hank panky the POTUS got up to in the Oval Office.
Executive Privilege is not absolute. It is supposed to protect the U.S. national security and to maintain a separation of powers between the Executive branch and Legislative branch.
Nixon attempted to block the release of the tapes that lead to his resignation. He failed.
If both of those cases resulted in the Executive Branch providing the requested information then I can only assume that the Jan. 6th insurrection case would be a slam dunk for those seeking the information. One case was in regard to a burglary, the other had to do with a BJ. This is a case where the POTUS was complicit, I would even say directing and encouraging, the overthrow of our democratic process. It is by far the most serious offence of the bunch and the President has no conceivable justification to keep those records protected, as has been determined by a few lower courts already. The only stop left, if they choose to take it on, is the SCOTUS. Even being a conservative court, I bet they order the records released.
No violation of the Constitution is at risk of taking place.
Executive Privilege is not absolute. It is supposed to protect the U.S. national security and to maintain a separation of powers between the Executive branch and Legislative branch.
Nixon attempted to block the release of the tapes that lead to his resignation. He failed.
If both of those cases resulted in the Executive Branch providing the requested information then I can only assume that the Jan. 6th insurrection case would be a slam dunk for those seeking the information. One case was in regard to a burglary, the other had to do with a BJ. This is a case where the POTUS was complicit, I would even say directing and encouraging, the overthrow of our democratic process. It is by far the most serious offence of the bunch and the President has no conceivable justification to keep those records protected, as has been determined by a few lower courts already. The only stop left, if they choose to take it on, is the SCOTUS. Even being a conservative court, I bet they order the records released.
No violation of the Constitution is at risk of taking place.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
This is amazing
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Executive privilege is not a Constitutional right.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
if Americans are willing to empower the party and president that gave you this less than one year ago all over milk being slightly more expensive, then we deserve everything we get. And I don’t want to ever hear America and democracy in the same sentence.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Maybe you are correct but we can only assume because unlike the oversight committees for Clinton and Nixon, this committee didn't bother with the court before moving to criminal proceedings. In a move unprecedented in American history AFAIK, this Congress has declared themselves the arbiters over what is and is not covered by executive or fifth amendment privileges.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
LOL.
I think the fact that Republicans in Congress, Republicans from Fox News, and Donald's own son were pleading with Meadows to get Trump to end the Jan 6 insurrection blow up the GOP talking points we've been fed for almost one year:
1. "aNtIfA!"- If ANTIFA had actually instigated Jan 6, why would Republicans want Trump to stop it? I remember @One Brow arguing with @jazzy and @Archie Moses about Ali Alexander and how ANTIFA instigated Jan 6. If so, why would Frau Ingraham say this?
Why would propaganda minister Brian Kilmeade say this?
Why would Sean Hannity say this?
2. Jan 6 was merely a rally about election integrity that got out of hand- The most laughable of all. Trump said this:
And further said:
Wasn't involved? Why was everyone texting you? Nothing to hide? Well you and your cohorts sure went to great lengths to hide these texts. It's noticeable that Laura said this about Jan 6 on her show later in the evening:
Why would she blame antifa? She wouldn't be covering something up, would she?
3. Jan 6 was actually a heroic day- Trump Jr. to Meadows:
If this day is so heroic, why didn't Hannity ask Meadows about it last night when he had him on the show?
Fox News Hosts Sent Texts to Meadows Urging Trump to Act as Jan. 6 Attack Unfolded
Afterward, on their shows, Laura Ingraham spread the false claim of antifa involvement, and Sean Hannity referred to the 2020 election as a “train wreck.”www.nytimes.com
You're an illiterate moron with a **** memory.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Sure Archie, my memory is the one that sucks.
Utah activist in Capitol riot sold his video to CNN, NBC for $35K each, court docs say
A Utah man who faces federal criminal charges for his alleged actions during the U.S. Capitol riot sold video of the incursion to major news outlets for thousands of dollars.www.ksl.com
More news about that anti fascist dude John Sullivan.
35k is a lot of money but was it worth the charges?
30 pieces of silver or something like that.
Sullivan isn’t antifa. But Archie sure seems dedicated to blaming antifa at least partially for Jan 6…
John Sullivan isn’t antifa.
Fact check: Misleading claim about 'antifa member' at Jan. 6 Capitol riot
News outlets paid roughly $90,000 to use John Sullivan's footage from Jan. 6, but he is not a "known antifa member."
www.usatoday.com
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
“bUt AnTiFa!”
Why the hell are we even talking about antifa in this thread anyway? It’s just pathetic.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
That happened, moron.