Digby wrote:What's the issue with such a person sitting on the House Education committee? She can teach them about the school shootings conspiracy running dangerously amok to threaten their freedoms
That illiterate fuck has expressed a desire to "ban" the department of education in the past.
As an aside is that simply a request to ban the education department, or the now socially acceptable idea to defund the education department?
Lunchbox is now third in priority behind bible and assault rifle. The earth is 7000 years old and you had better just get used to that fact. In other new, climate change hoax explained: Marjorie Taylor Greene Theorized Space Laser Beam Sparked California Wildfire
It’s a fool’s errand to try to make sense of Greene’s “research,” as she called it, but it goes something like this: The Northern California utility provider PG&E partnered with a company called Solaren Corp. in 2009 to buy solar space energy captured on satellite solar panels. (That much is true.) But Greene suggested that lasers beaming the energy back to the Earth missed their mark and started a wildfire. She also suggested the fire-setting was intentional as a way to clear land for California’s stalled high-speed rail project.
That illiterate fuck has expressed a desire to "ban" the department of education in the past.
As an aside is that simply a request to ban the education department, or the now socially acceptable idea to defund the education department?
Lunchbox is now third in priority behind bible and assault rifle. The earth is 7000 years old and you had better just get used to that fact. In other new, climate change hoax explained: Marjorie Taylor Greene Theorized Space Laser Beam Sparked California Wildfire
It’s a fool’s errand to try to make sense of Greene’s “research,” as she called it, but it goes something like this: The Northern California utility provider PG&E partnered with a company called Solaren Corp. in 2009 to buy solar space energy captured on satellite solar panels. (That much is true.) But Greene suggested that lasers beaming the energy back to the Earth missed their mark and started a wildfire. She also suggested the fire-setting was intentional as a way to clear land for California’s stalled high-speed rail project.
One must attend to inerrancy before innumeracy and illiteracy. This sort of thinking brought us the modern Middle East, so happy times
Sandydragon wrote:Apparently the Republican leader in congress has been to cosy up to Trump. SO any hope that the Republican establishment would take the opportunity to create some distance and perhaps turn their party into something resembling a sensible political organisation has been missed by the need to collect headbanger votes.
The headbangers make up 28-30% of the US voters. A spilt means no resulting party will ever win an election. A merge, like now, means you cannot win a primary without headbangers. And more headbangers are coming through the ranks.
So the separation from Trump, initially seen as an opportunity, is now seen as a threat.
Sandydragon wrote:Apparently the Republican leader in congress has been to cosy up to Trump. SO any hope that the Republican establishment would take the opportunity to create some distance and perhaps turn their party into something resembling a sensible political organisation has been missed by the need to collect headbanger votes.
The headbangers make up 28-30% of the US voters. A spilt means no resulting party will ever win an election. A merge, like now, means you cannot win a primary without headbangers. And more headbangers are coming through the ranks.
So the separation from Trump, initially seen as an opportunity, is now seen as a threat.
Part of that has been due to the encouragement of the likes of the Tea Party within the Republican Party, so this is a mess of their own making.
They could be a fiscally moderate, sensible not low tax, sensible not low regulation, with a genuine green agenda, not especially liberal or conservative on the social front with support for guns in some limited fashion, and with policies to lower the number of abortions. They'd probably win. Though they have a point even being as they are it's all but a tie in the Senate, they closed the gap in the house, and less than 100,000 votes going the other way across 4 States and they'd still control the executive. So they can cite they are pretty successful, and for those at the top they're lining their pockets over the long term
And it's still to be seen whether the Dems or GOP break first when it comes to being too broad a church.
Digby wrote:They could be a fiscally moderate, sensible not low tax, sensible not low regulation, with a genuine green agenda, not especially liberal or conservative on the social front with support for guns in some limited fashion, and with policies to lower the number of abortions. They'd probably win. Though they have a point even being as they are it's all but a tie in the Senate, they closed the gap in the house, and less than 100,000 votes going the other way across 4 States and they'd still control the executive. So they can cite they are pretty successful, and for those at the top they're lining their pockets over the long term
And it's still to be seen whether the Dems or GOP break first when it comes to being too broad a church.
It is so much easier to get 30% of the electorate to vote by simply arguing diversity is coming to git U and take yoor freedums out of it's holster. Why fuck around with policy when its that easy?
Sandydragon wrote:Apparently the Republican leader in congress has been to cosy up to Trump. SO any hope that the Republican establishment would take the opportunity to create some distance and perhaps turn their party into something resembling a sensible political organisation has been missed by the need to collect headbanger votes.
The headbangers make up 28-30% of the US voters. A spilt means no resulting party will ever win an election. A merge, like now, means you cannot win a primary without headbangers. And more headbangers are coming through the ranks.
So the separation from Trump, initially seen as an opportunity, is now seen as a threat.
Part of that has been due to the encouragement of the likes of the Tea Party within the Republican Party, so this is a mess of their own making.
Morality is why they should change, thus the problem. I cannot think of a single leading Republican who looks fit for office
Madison Cawthorn, he who was so excited by Hitler, has set out the future for young Trump types. Shift the entire staffing of your office over into media work, don't both with any spend on legislature 'cause you're not there to do any serious governing anyway.
cashead wrote:
There's only one rule needed: the only good nazi is a dead nazi.
A nazi doesn't become a nazi just because they get told to pound sand for being a nazi, they already are one.
First sentence: are you seriously advocating for the death penalty for thought crimes? Or is it a figure of speech?
Second sentence: I am sure nazis are attracted to their ideology for several reasons. None of them I share. Some of them have something to do with mental health, some are just morally unacceptable to me. I don’t see how it is possible to eradicate nazi thought: do you have any?
And finally a note: do you mind insulting me for asking for clarifications or simply not sharing your thoughts? I hate to be left out: it brings back painful memories of my youth.
1. I’m not going to be shedding any tears over any dead fascists, that’s for sure. I mean, you’ve heard the shit they’re saying, right? They literally call for the deaths of anyone not a fascist - ergo, they pose an existential threat to a democratic society.
2. There’s almost a century of data showing that fash-scum succeed often due to 1) support from authorities and B) a failure to challenge them. They tend to be “might makes right” assholes, and the most effective method against them is to outnumber and directly confront them.
3. Ok. Fuck you.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
cashead wrote:
There's only one rule needed: the only good nazi is a dead nazi.
A nazi doesn't become a nazi just because they get told to pound sand for being a nazi, they already are one.
First sentence: are you seriously advocating for the death penalty for thought crimes? Or is it a figure of speech?
Second sentence: I am sure nazis are attracted to their ideology for several reasons. None of them I share. Some of them have something to do with mental health, some are just morally unacceptable to me. I don’t see how it is possible to eradicate nazi thought: do you have any?
And finally a note: do you mind insulting me for asking for clarifications or simply not sharing your thoughts? I hate to be left out: it brings back painful memories of my youth.
1. I’m not going to be shedding any tears over any dead fascists, that’s for sure. I mean, you’ve heard the shit they’re saying, right? They literally call for the deaths of anyone not a fascist - ergo, they pose an existential threat to a democratic society.
2. There’s almost a century of data showing that fash-scum succeed often due to 1) support from authorities and B) a failure to challenge them. They tend to be “might makes right” assholes, and the most effective method against them is to outnumber and directly confront them.
3. Ok. Fuck you.
Why #3? Why do you feel compelled to insult other posters that are essentially agreeing with you? Its fucking tedious cuz.
gransoporro wrote:
First sentence: are you seriously advocating for the death penalty for thought crimes? Or is it a figure of speech?
Second sentence: I am sure nazis are attracted to their ideology for several reasons. None of them I share. Some of them have something to do with mental health, some are just morally unacceptable to me. I don’t see how it is possible to eradicate nazi thought: do you have any?
And finally a note: do you mind insulting me for asking for clarifications or simply not sharing your thoughts? I hate to be left out: it brings back painful memories of my youth.
1. I’m not going to be shedding any tears over any dead fascists, that’s for sure. I mean, you’ve heard the shit they’re saying, right? They literally call for the deaths of anyone not a fascist - ergo, they pose an existential threat to a democratic society.
2. There’s almost a century of data showing that fash-scum succeed often due to 1) support from authorities and B) a failure to challenge them. They tend to be “might makes right” assholes, and the most effective method against them is to outnumber and directly confront them.
3. Ok. Fuck you.
Why #3? Why do you feel compelled to insult other posters that are essentially agreeing with you? Its fucking tedious cuz.
They literally asked for it. I was obliging them.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
And there you go. That's why they got as far as they did - an attempted fascist coup. It's right out of the March on Rome playbook. The key difference though, is that at the organisational level, the fash-scum who would have otherwise led the attempted coup have, in one way or another, had their lives thoroughly disrupted and ruined, results ranging from outright irrelevance or imprisonment.
I know we have at least one Trump supporter on here, fucking defend this shit.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
First, I would like to state that I asked Cashead to insult me, like every one else. He obliged: don’t blame him.
Second, the agreed DCNg deployment was mostly in support roles, away from the heat. This order is in line with it, but it goes one (3?) step further by prohibiting any other use on the day, and making sure they would not have resources if riot escalation required it.
Third, the sworn testimony of the secretary of the Army becomes more and more interesting. He is the one that coordinated the NG deployment on the day to answer the riots. Was he late? Yes. Looks like it was not his incompetence (although there is room for it as well). Still he was the one that cleared the use of NG from Maryland and Virginia and called the governors to deploy, a role normally played by the Defense Secretary.
cashead wrote:And there you go. That's why they got as far as they did - an attempted fascist coup. It's right out of the March on Rome playbook. The key difference though, is that at the organisational level, the fash-scum who would have otherwise led the attempted coup have, in one way or another, had their lives thoroughly disrupted and ruined, results ranging from outright irrelevance or imprisonment..
Of course, this won't change anything at all about whether Republicans will vote to impeach- inciting and abetting an armed revolt with the purpose of overthrowing the institutions of democracy (complete with a lynching gallows ready and waiting) - that's not a crime worthy of impeachment, and trying to paint it as such is a nakedly political act.
If you want to know what a crime worthy of impeachment looks like, as opposed to the blatant party-politics of the above - look no further than Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office!
cashead wrote:And there you go. That's why they got as far as they did - an attempted fascist coup. It's right out of the March on Rome playbook. The key difference though, is that at the organisational level, the fash-scum who would have otherwise led the attempted coup have, in one way or another, had their lives thoroughly disrupted and ruined, results ranging from outright irrelevance or imprisonment..
Of course, this won't change anything at all about whether Republicans will vote to impeach- inciting and abetting an armed revolt with the purpose of overthrowing the institutions of democracy (complete with a lynching gallows ready and waiting) - that's not a crime worthy of impeachment, and trying to paint it as such is a nakedly political act.
If you want to know what a crime worthy of impeachment looks like, as opposed to the blatant party-politics of the above - look no further than Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office!
I see no hypocrisy or contradiction here.
Do the charges of impeachment include the telephone call with state officials in Georgia about finding another 11K votes? If not they should as thats just as damming as the incitement of the mob (which must include actions during the months (and years) prior to wind up that group and not just the speech on the day itself.
And we only know about the one phone call involving Georgia that was recorded and made public, it is unlikely there weren't other calls and worse calls.
It's reminiscent of the Ukraine call which they tried to hide on a national security basis, what else has he done which should be brought to light? Thinking about that though maybe you do go after him for insurrection/treason and seeks to address the multitude of other problems (many unknown to us at least) in some other manner. And then there's all those who've supported Trump at various points, and not just in the Gaslighting Ornery Party but also the DoD, the DoJ, various state officials... Does a one term president even leave them needing a truth and reconciliation commission?
Digby wrote:And we only know about the one phone call involving Georgia that was recorded and made public, it is unlikely there weren't other calls and worse calls.
It's reminiscent of the Ukraine call which they tried to hide on a national security basis, what else has he done which should be brought to light? Thinking about that though maybe you do go after him for insurrection/treason and seeks to address the multitude of other problems (many unknown to us at least) in some other manner. And then there's all those who've supported Trump at various points, and not just in the Gaslighting Ornery Party but also the DoD, the DoJ, various state officials... Does a one term president even leave them needing a truth and reconciliation commission?
What power does the Impeachment Process have to call witnesses and require them to give honest testimony which can be properly cross examined? I assume that they can but it feels more like a political process than an actual legal fact finding exercise, and part of me wonders if the better option might have been to launch a full inquiry, interview suspects etc and then look at criminal charges as they come to light. I suspect we will see a lot of grandstanding followed by a vote that is broadly on party lines.
Sandydragon wrote:What power does the Impeachment Process have to call witnesses and require them to give honest testimony which can be properly cross examined? I assume that they can but it feels more like a political process than an actual legal fact finding exercise, and part of me wonders if the better option might have been to launch a full inquiry, interview suspects etc and then look at criminal charges as they come to light. I suspect we will see a lot of grandstanding followed by a vote that is broadly on party lines.
I get the feeling that this might be coming down the line.
It's a very narrow, single article of impeachment - which leaves a lot to be investigated and potentially prosecuted later. Whilst impeachment is a political process rather than legal, I do wonder if it risks double jeopardy coming into play, preventing legal prosecution if impeachment is dismissed.
I'll probably be disappointed on this, but hey, I can't help feeling they're leaving their options open.
Digby wrote:And we only know about the one phone call involving Georgia that was recorded and made public, it is unlikely there weren't other calls and worse calls.
It's reminiscent of the Ukraine call which they tried to hide on a national security basis, what else has he done which should be brought to light? Thinking about that though maybe you do go after him for insurrection/treason and seeks to address the multitude of other problems (many unknown to us at least) in some other manner. And then there's all those who've supported Trump at various points, and not just in the Gaslighting Ornery Party but also the DoD, the DoJ, various state officials... Does a one term president even leave them needing a truth and reconciliation commission?
What power does the Impeachment Process have to call witnesses and require them to give honest testimony which can be properly cross examined? I assume that they can but it feels more like a political process than an actual legal fact finding exercise, and part of me wonders if the better option might have been to launch a full inquiry, interview suspects etc and then look at criminal charges as they come to light. I suspect we will see a lot of grandstanding followed by a vote that is broadly on party lines.
Two things to consider that I know of, first yes Congress can subpoena individuals to give testimony, but to date there's not been much cost to ignoring that. Whether it's sort of now a Dem led DoJ would alter that I don't know, certainly during Trump's first impeachment there were no attempt made by the DoJ to compel witnesses Trump didn't want, but the DoJ could act against someone failing to testify seeking a criminal conviction that does come with jail time, or Congress could bring a civil case and hope a judge sides with them (but that could take years given all the possible courts and appeals it'd filter through), or they could have the Sergeant at Arms detain someone refusing to testify which is perhaps the simplest and also most controversial response.
Second, does Trump enjoy executive privilege? It's the President who enjoys executive privilege and Trump isn't that. There is some established law on why former Presidents should continue to be able to assert executive privilege, there was also an executive decree on that introduced by Bush Jnr that was I think removed by Obama, but otherwise beyond why Trump might enjoy some executive privilege how it'd work isn't tested, nor does one know if witnesses would go along with any privilege Trump asserted, nor how the privilege would be deemed to apply to impeachment and/or criminal behaviour.
cashead wrote:And there you go. That's why they got as far as they did - an attempted fascist coup. It's right out of the March on Rome playbook. The key difference though, is that at the organisational level, the fash-scum who would have otherwise led the attempted coup have, in one way or another, had their lives thoroughly disrupted and ruined, results ranging from outright irrelevance or imprisonment..
Of course, this won't change anything at all about whether Republicans will vote to impeach- inciting and abetting an armed revolt with the purpose of overthrowing the institutions of democracy (complete with a lynching gallows ready and waiting) - that's not a crime worthy of impeachment, and trying to paint it as such is a nakedly political act.
If you want to know what a crime worthy of impeachment looks like, as opposed to the blatant party-politics of the above - look no further than Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office!
I see no hypocrisy or contradiction here.
Clinton lied under oath. He lied about a bj, yes, but the crime was lying under oath.
Sandydragon wrote:What power does the Impeachment Process have to call witnesses and require them to give honest testimony which can be properly cross examined? I assume that they can but it feels more like a political process than an actual legal fact finding exercise, and part of me wonders if the better option might have been to launch a full inquiry, interview suspects etc and then look at criminal charges as they come to light. I suspect we will see a lot of grandstanding followed by a vote that is broadly on party lines.
I get the feeling that this might be coming down the line.
It's a very narrow, single article of impeachment - which leaves a lot to be investigated and potentially prosecuted later. Whilst impeachment is a political process rather than legal, I do wonder if it risks double jeopardy coming into play, preventing legal prosecution if impeachment is dismissed.
I'll probably be disappointed on this, but hey, I can't help feeling they're leaving their options open.
No double jeopardy. One could be impeached and removed without going to trial, or the other way around, or both.
Digby wrote:And we only know about the one phone call involving Georgia that was recorded and made public, it is unlikely there weren't other calls and worse calls.
It's reminiscent of the Ukraine call which they tried to hide on a national security basis, what else has he done which should be brought to light? Thinking about that though maybe you do go after him for insurrection/treason and seeks to address the multitude of other problems (many unknown to us at least) in some other manner. And then there's all those who've supported Trump at various points, and not just in the Gaslighting Ornery Party but also the DoD, the DoJ, various state officials... Does a one term president even leave them needing a truth and reconciliation commission?
What power does the Impeachment Process have to call witnesses and require them to give honest testimony which can be properly cross examined? I assume that they can but it feels more like a political process than an actual legal fact finding exercise, and part of me wonders if the better option might have been to launch a full inquiry, interview suspects etc and then look at criminal charges as they come to light. I suspect we will see a lot of grandstanding followed by a vote that is broadly on party lines.
Two things to consider that I know of, first yes Congress can subpoena individuals to give testimony, but to date there's not been much cost to ignoring that. Whether it's sort of now a Dem led DoJ would alter that I don't know, certainly during Trump's first impeachment there were no attempt made by the DoJ to compel witnesses Trump didn't want, but the DoJ could act against someone failing to testify seeking a criminal conviction that does come with jail time, or Congress could bring a civil case and hope a judge sides with them (but that could take years given all the possible courts and appeals it'd filter through), or they could have the Sergeant at Arms detain someone refusing to testify which is perhaps the simplest and also most controversial response.
Second, does Trump enjoy executive privilege? It's the President who enjoys executive privilege and Trump isn't that. There is some established law on why former Presidents should continue to be able to assert executive privilege, there was also an executive decree on that introduced by Bush Jnr that was I think removed by Obama, but otherwise beyond why Trump might enjoy some executive privilege how it'd work isn't tested, nor does one know if witnesses would go along with any privilege Trump asserted, nor how the privilege would be deemed to apply to impeachment and/or criminal behaviour.
Subpoena power: Trump’s DOJ refused to support the subpoenas, leaving really no enforcement to Congress but to have the sergeant at arms arrest the subject of subpoena. This could change under Biden.
Executive privilege: yes, Trump enjoys it for conversations about policy during his presidency. They do not extend to crimes, or matters that are not under the presidency (organizing a rally, for example).
