Topic: Sexual Abuser Donald Trump Indicted

[deFacto please, you bastards]

Not surprised at all.

[Red Beret]

Mitch McConnell voted against continuing with the impeachment trial as it's 'unconstitutional'. Only 5 GOPers voted to continue.

Well done every media type who breathlessly reported that McConnell would support impeachment. You got played.

Trump will get acquitted in the Senate and will be the nominee in 2024.

Well that's one way to fuck up Hawley and Cruz.

McConnell has done this because of the filibuster row. I'm guessing he reckons Trump's impending court cases will remove him as an obstacle anyway. But here's hoping he lives to regret it.

[goalrushatgoodison]

I'm a bit unclear on why senate members, of either party, are qualified to decide on the constituionality of a matter to be brought before it. Surely that is a matter of law, not the opinion of elected representatives?

[rafathegaffa83]

Not surprised at all.

Yep. GOP thinking is only as long as the next election cycle. They aren't thinking of the long-term ramifications. Heck, they seem to welcome them. Even though it goes away from the originalist nonsense many of them believe in

Limiting impeachment to treason and bribery cases, Mason warned on September 8, “will not reach many great and dangerous offences.” To make his case, he pointed to an impeachment taking place in Great Britain at the time—that of Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India.

Hastings had been impeached in May 1787, the same month the U.S. constitutional convention opened. The House of Commons charged Hastings with a mix of criminal offenses and non-criminal offenses, including confiscating land and provoking a revolt in parts of India. Hastings’ trial by the House of Lords was pending while the American delegates were debating in Philadelphia. Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings. (In the end, The House of Lords acquitted Hastings in 1795.)

Mason, fearful of an unchecked, out-of-control president, proposed adding “maladministration” as a third cause for impeaching the president. Such a charge was already grounds for impeachment in six states, including Virginia.

But on this point, Madison objected. The scholarly Princeton graduate, a generation younger than Mason at age 36, saw a threat to the balance of powers he’d helped devise. “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” he argued. In other words, Madison feared the Senate would use the word “maladministration” as an excuse to remove the president whenever it wanted.

So Mason offered a substitute: “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State.” The English Parliament had included a similarly worded phrase in its articles of impeachment since 1450. This compromise satisfied Madison and most of the other Convention delegates. They approved Mason’s amendment without further debate, 8 states to 3, but added “against the United States,” to avoid ambiguity.

Unfortunately for everyone who’s argued since about what an impeachable offense is, the convention’s Committee on Style and Revision, which was supposed to improve the draft Constitution’s language without changing its meaning, deleted the phrase “against the United States.” Without that phrase, which explained what constitutes “high crimes,” many Americans came to believe that “high crimes” literally meant only crimes identified in criminal law.

[...]

When Madison, Mason, and Randolph reunited in Richmond in June 1788 for Virginia’s convention to ratify the Constitution, they continued their debate on the question of impeachable offenses. By then each man had taken a different position on the Constitution. Madison had emerged as its main architect and champion, and Mason as a leading opponent who declared “it would end either in monarchy, or a tyrannical aristocracy.” Randolph, meanwhile, had voted against the Constitution in Philadelphia in September 1787, but swung his vote to yes in 1788 after eight other states had ratified it. Their disagreement illuminates the discussion over presidential powers in the modern era.

When Mason argued that “the great powers of Europe, as France and Great Britain,” might corrupt the president, Randolph replied that it would be an impeachable offense for the president to violate the Constitution’s emoluments clause by taking payments from a foreign power. Randolph was establishing that violations of the Constitution would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors – and so would betraying the U.S. to a foreign government.

And in an argument with Madison, Mason warned that a president could use the pardon power to stop an inquiry into possible crimes in his own administration. “He may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself,” Mason argued. “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”

Impeachment, Madison responded, could impose the necessary check to a president’s abuse of the pardon power. “If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person,” Madison stated, “and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/

[Red Beret]

I'm a bit unclear on why senate members, of either party, are qualified to decide on the constituionality of a matter to be brought before it. Surely that is a matter of law, not the opinion of elected representatives?

Correct, they're not qualified. Both sides are probably looking around for constitutional lawyers who will support their position.

As usual, though, grotesque partisanship is on display. They witnessed the crime; they were bodily in harm's way. Yet they try to divorce the crime from the president after he's spent two fucking months riling his base up.

"We're not going to deal with the impeachment article until after the inauguration. "

"Well we can't impeach him now, because he's left office."

Republicans love to confuse the word "unconstitutional" with the phrase "without precedent" - except when it suits their purposes of course.

[Qston]

Spinless. Utterly spineless. Many of them are the actual fucking evidence ! They saw and felt what happened. Self interest above anything else.

[Red Beret]

Spinless. Utterly spineless. Many of them are the actual fucking evidence ! They saw and felt what happened. Self interest above anything else.

Witnesses to the crime should not be jurors of the court.

[Qston]

Witnesses to the crime should not be jurors of the court.

Apologies. I understand that. What I was trying to convey, poorly, was that the very same people who were scared for their lives are trying a flawed legal argument to stop this. Other than the obvious self interest about staying in their respective seats, I really don`t get it. I suppose it was always inevitable and applies the world over. Self interests override doing what is fundamentally right.

He incited a riot. The president of the united states incited a riot. Not only that, he encouraged it to take the very seat of democracy. It really is as simple as that.

[Red Beret]

Apologies. I understand that. What I was trying to convey, poorly, was that the very same people who were scared for their lives are trying a flawed legal argument to stop this. Other than the obvious self interest about staying in their respective seats, I really don`t get it. I suppose it was always inevitable and applies the world over. Self interests override doing what is fundamentally right.

He incited a riot. The president of the united states incited a riot. Not only that, he encouraged it to take the very seat of democracy. It really is as simple as that.

Sorry mate. I wasn't getting at you at all. I was just remarking as to the absurdity of the situation. Everything you describe is correct!

Maybe if one or two of them had been pulled to pieces by the mob they might think differently, but I doubt it. They carried right in with their objections after all.

[fowlermagic]

They are so entrenched with their backers that they will do anything to keep the status quo as the lobbyists will insist their men in power vote the way they want them to. Watch the monkeys dance for their peanuts.

[goalrushatgoodison]

Correct, they're not qualified. Both sides are probably looking around for constitutional lawyers who will support their position.

As usual, though, grotesque partisanship is on display. They witnessed the crime; they were bodily in harm's way. Yet they try to divorce the crime from the president after he's spent two fucking months riling his base up.

"We're not going to deal with the impeachment article until after the inauguration. "

"Well we can't impeach him now, because he's left office."

Republicans love to confuse the word "unconstitutional" with the phrase "without precedent" - except when it suits their purposes of course.

Yeah but my point is narrower than that. Because the constitutionality of the trial is something that senate members are not qualified to decide on, I would argue that it never should have went to a vote in the first place.

[Red Beret]

Yeah but my point is narrower than that. Because the constitutionality of the trial is something that senate members are not qualified to decide on, I would argue that it never should have went to a vote in the first place.

Impeachment is not a matter of law, as it does not involve criminal charges; rafathegaffa's article on the drafting of the impeachment wording is testament to this.

Impeachment is a measure designed to punish and or remove/barr a president who has violated their oath of office; that might include behaviour that is clearly criminal, or it might amount to simply bringing the office of the presidency into disrepute.  Bill Clinton did the latter, for example.

It is only Republicans who are arguing that such a trial is unconstitutional, and only then because it serves their narrative to do so.  Impeachment was dropped against Nixon because he resigned; Trump was impeached because he refused to resign and because Pence refused to invoke the 25th.

As I said, the correct terminology for this situation is "without precedent".  But precedents can be set.  You are correct that senators should not be trying to decide what is constitutional, but honestly that's just a smokescreen for Republicans not to vote on the matter.  Unless the Senate wants to request an actual ruling from the likes of SCOTUS on whether a president who has left office can still be convicted, there's no bridging the gap.

The irony is Republicans will still vote against conviction in a procedure they claim is unconstitutional anyway, when as I see it the correct response would be to abstain.  Why participate in an unconstitutional action if you think it's unconstitutional?  Oh yeah, because the Senate only needs two thirds of those present to secure a conviction, and Schumer will call the vote regardless of whether Republicans claim it's unconstitutional or not.

[goalrushatgoodison]

Impeachment is not a matter of law, as it does not involve criminal charges; rafathegaffa's article on the drafting of the impeachment wording is testament to this.

Impeachment is a measure designed to punish and or remove/barr a president who has violated their oath of office; that might include behaviour that is clearly criminal, or it might amount to simply bringing the office of the presidency into disrepute.  Bill Clinton did the latter, for example.

It is only Republicans who are arguing that such a trial is unconstitutional, and only then because it serves their narrative to do so.  Impeachment was dropped against Nixon because he resigned; Trump was impeached because he refused to resign and because Pence refused to invoke the 25th.

As I said, the correct terminology for this situation is "without precedent".  But precedents can be set.  You are correct that senators should not be trying to decide what is constitutional, but honestly that's just a smokescreen for Republicans not to vote on the matter.  Unless the Senate wants to request an actual ruling from the likes of SCOTUS on whether a president who has left office can still be convicted, there's no bridging the gap.

The irony is Republicans will still vote against conviction in a procedure they claim is unconstitutional anyway, when as I see it the correct response would be to abstain.  Why participate in an unconstitutional action if you think it's unconstitutional?  Oh yeah, because the Senate only needs two thirds of those present to secure a conviction, and Schumer will call the vote regardless of whether Republicans claim it's unconstitutional or not.

Impeachment may not be a matter of law but the constitution is. A decision on whether something is constitutional or not  is a matter for the courts I would have thought. I understand the politics and what republicans are trying to do. What I don't understand is why Senate processes allow such a vote in the first place.

[Red Beret]

Impeachment may not be a matter of law but the constitution is. A decision on whether something is constitutional or not  is a matter for the courts I would have thought. I understand the politics and what republicans are trying to do. What I don't understand is why Senate processes allow such a vote in the first place.

Ok, you've lost me a bit?  Impeachment is part of constitution, and only the House (Congress/Senate) can invoke it, try it and vote on it.  Once the House votes to impeach, the Senate doesn't get a say - they HAVE to vote on it.

The problem is there is no set format on how such a "trial" takes place, because the Senate gets to vote on the rules of such a trial; therefore every trial is different.  Granted, you need the flexibility to meet each individual president's individual misdemeanours, but the only thing that is truly consistent is the vote to convict.

When you look at what Bill Clinton was impeached on, and what Trump has escaped punishment over, it's clear that some uniform consistency needs to be applied.  The problem is twofold though: first, impeachment has been so rarely used there's been no real conventions developed to apply it.  Second, two of the three presidents impeached have only happened in the past 23 years; if you throw in Nixon, who resigned under threat of impeachment, then three of the four presidents who have faced this have occurred in the past 50 years.

I think we're looking increasingly at a situation where impeachment is going to be weaponised, to be used by the opposition to prosecute the slightest perceived transgression of a president they don't like. 

[LFC_NCL]

but it does raise the question why the fuck they have impeachment anyway, its like a jury saying its not guilty before the trial has begun, even though the jurors are knee deep in the evidence itself, they can just ignore it, or in the GOP's case, pretend all this recent stuff wasnt as bad as what people think. All because they want to retain that voter base for next election and hope to god another nutcase right wing party doesnt develop off trump's base.
Thats why the Dem's have to pursue this, they have to make the GOP wear this double impeachment, and those trying to get a boost from the chaos. This all does make Clinton's blowjob seem a bit petty now

btw Red Berry, been loving your vids and posts over the last few months!

[goalrushatgoodison]

Ok, you've lost me a bit?   

  I'm clearly not very good at this explaining myself lark.

Rand Paul tabled a motion that you cannot hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office because it is unconstitutional (not provided for in the constitution). The senate voted on the motion.

My point is that whether or not something is provided for in the constitution is not something that members of the senate are qualified to decide. They don't have the expertise. In the vast majority of cases, if not all, they are not legal experts.

Therefore a vote on whether it is constitutional or not should not be a consideration when deciding whether to proceed with the trial or not. In other words, if the Senate had voted 100 to zero that you cannot hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office because it is unconstitutional, that shouldn't prevent the trial because the Senators are not qualified to make such a determination.

 Accordingly having such a vote should not be an option in the first place.

[Red Beret]

  I'm clearly not very good at this explaining myself lark.

Rand Paul tabled a motion that you cannot hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office because it is unconstitutional (not provided for in the constitution). The senate voted on the motion.

My point is that whether or not something is provided for in the constitution is not something that members of the senate are qualified to decide. They don't have the expertise. In the vast majority of cases, if not all, they are not legal experts.

Therefore a vote on whether it is constitutional or not should not be a consideration when deciding whether to proceed with the trial or not. In other words, if the Senate had voted 100 to zero that you cannot hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office because it is unconstitutional, that shouldn't prevent the trial because the Senators are not qualified to make such a determination.

 Accordingly having such a vote should not be an option in the first place.

Ahh right, I understand.

Well you are correct, but this isn't about the law.  It's purely politics.  As I said, there has been no legal ruling on whether it's "unconstitutional" to impeach a president who has left office; there is a precedent for having an impeachment debate/vote on other officials who have resigned or left office, but not the president.  So again, as I said earlier, the correct term is "without precedent". 

What Rand Paul is doing (apart from being a dick) is to try and avoid that precedent being set.  But as you point out, he's not qualified to judge on that.  But requesting a legal ruling on the matter would probably take time that the Democrats don't want to take, and the current form of SCOTUS would potentially rule in Paul's favour.

The Senate is not the forum for doing this sort of thing, as you rightly point out.  However they will do it anyway.  Partly because they the jurors in the impeachment, so they arguably have the authority, even if they lack the knowledge; but also because Republicans are a gang of petty bastards who will do anything to slow, stall, and otherwise create misinformation that this impeachment is part of some kind of vendetta against Trump, rather than inciting a riot that placed all their lives at risk.

[Jiminy Cricket]

  I'm clearly not very good at this explaining myself lark.

Rand Paul tabled a motion that you cannot hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office because it is unconstitutional (not provided for in the constitution). The senate voted on the motion.

My point is that whether or not something is provided for in the constitution is not something that members of the senate are qualified to decide. They don't have the expertise. In the vast majority of cases, if not all, they are not legal experts.

Therefore a vote on whether it is constitutional or not should not be a consideration when deciding whether to proceed with the trial or not. In other words, if the Senate had voted 100 to zero that you cannot hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office because it is unconstitutional, that shouldn't prevent the trial because the Senators are not qualified to make such a determination.

Accordingly having such a vote should not be an option in the first place.

The point of separation of powers is to not have the courts pass judgements about how Congress operates. Within the US paradigm, it makes sense I guess. But in any case, Cruz and many other Republican Senators are lawyers, and they still voted for the impeachment vote as unconstitutional.

I just checked. By my count, there are 25 lawyers (out of 48 Democrats); 20 lawyers (out of 50 Republicans); 1 lawyer (out of 2 Independents - both caucus with the Democrats). So, a total of 46 lawyers out of 100 Senators. Seems a little unbalanced, that. Anyway, of the five Republicans (Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, Toomey) who voted against the motion that the trial is unconstitutional, only Murkowski is a lawyer. The other 19 Republican lawyers voted in favour of the motion. This list of illustrious lawyers includes Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy, and Mike Lee. So, really, it has little or nothing to do with (in)expertise. Rather, it is just another example of rampant partisanship over law, injustice, and party before country.

[goalrushatgoodison]

Ahh right, I understand.

Well you are correct, but this isn't about the law.  It's purely politics.  As I said, there has been no legal ruling on whether it's "unconstitutional" to impeach a president who has left office; there is a precedent for having an impeachment debate/vote on other officials who have resigned or left office, but not the president.  So again, as I said earlier, the correct term is "without precedent". 

What Rand Paul is doing (apart from being a dick) is to try and avoid that precedent being set.  But as you point out, he's not qualified to judge on that.  But requesting a legal ruling on the matter would probably take time that the Democrats don't want to take, and the current form of SCOTUS would potentially rule in Paul's favour.

The Senate is not the forum for doing this sort of thing, as you rightly point out.  However they will do it anyway. Partly because they the jurors in the impeachment, so they arguably have the authority, even if they lack the knowledge; but also because Republicans are a gang of petty bastards who will do anything to slow, stall, and otherwise create misinformation that this impeachment is part of some kind of vendetta against Trump, rather than inciting a riot that placed all their lives at risk.

Aye but jurors in a court of law ( which this is obviously not) don't get to make decisions on matters of law, the Judge does that. Anyhow happy to rest on the laurels of finally articulating my thoughts properly in the previous post.  Thank you for your patience.

[Red Beret]

but it does raise the question why the fuck they have impeachment anyway, its like a jury saying its not guilty before the trial has begun, even though the jurors are knee deep in the evidence itself, they can just ignore it, or in the GOP's case, pretend all this recent stuff wasnt as bad as what people think. All because they want to retain that voter base for next election and hope to god another nutcase right wing party doesnt develop off trump's base.
Thats why the Dem's have to pursue this, they have to make the GOP wear this double impeachment, and those trying to get a boost from the chaos. This all does make Clinton's blowjob seem a bit petty now

btw Red Berry, been loving your vids and posts over the last few months!

Thanks!  I'm not very good at absorbing written information so I tend to rely on video instead.

You're right in your comments about impeachment.  The problem is the founding fathers always assumed patriotism and love of country would transcend the political divide.  Instead, partisanship has become a festering disease and left the levers of government to either rot or become weaponised to the sole purpose of halting the other side.  Even the judicial system is politically infested; the law is interpreted through ideology.

There still needs to be impeachment, but the whole concept and implementation needs an overhaul because those in charge cannot be trusted to use it ethically. Unfortunately, unless there is some seismic shift in the political system, it's impossible to even make a start on fixing the problems.  Part of the problem is that Republicans have a vested interest in keeping the system broke.

[Red Beret]

Aye but jurors in a court of law ( which this is obviously not) don't get to make decisions on matters of law, the Judge does that. Anyhow happy to rest on the laurels of finally articulating my thoughts properly in the previous post.  Thank you for your patience.

You're welcome.  And you're right, they shouldn't be.  The system has been exposed as dangerously flawed over the past four years.  Lying about blow jobs is a sacrilege, but sure the president wasn't responsible for rioters storming the building.

[goalrushatgoodison]

The point of separation of powers is to not have the courts pass judgements about how Congress operates. Within the US paradigm, it makes sense I guess. But in any case, Cruz and many other Republican Senators are lawyers, and they still voted for the impeachment vote as unconstitutional.

Well, in a way, it actually is the job of the courts to pass judgements about how Congress operates. Congress makes law through legislation and if that law is challenged, the Courts interpret whether the law stands up to legal precedent and/or the constitution.

I just checked. By my count, there are 25 lawyers (out of 48 Democrats); 20 lawyers (out of 50 Republicans); 1 lawyer (out of 2 Independents - both caucus with the Democrats). So, a total of 46 lawyers out of 100 Senators. Seems a little unbalanced, that. Anyway, of the five Republicans (Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, Toomey) who voted against the motion that the trial is unconstitutional, only Murkowski is a lawyer. The other 19 Republican lawyers voted in favour of the motion. This list of illustrious lawyers includes Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy, and Mike Lee. So, really, it has little or nothing to do with (in)expertise. Rather, it is just another example of rampant partisanship over law, injustice, and party before country.

Well that's interesting, here in Ireland our legislatures are notable for the disproportionate amount of teachers. It appears Lawyers are the go in the US. On reflection, this actually makes sense as the position of State AG is occupied by an elected official and it can be a stepping stone to greater things. I was going to counter by suggesting that being a lawyer doesn't in itself demonstrate legal expertise but I suppose if a lawyer isn't a legal expert, who the hell is?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Well, in a way, it actually is the job of the courts to pass judgements about how Congress operates. Congress makes law through legislation and if that law is challenged, the Courts interpret whether the law stands up to legal precedent and/or the constitution.

The courts will not attempt to involve themselves in how Congress conducts itself. It just ain't going to happen.

[Red Beret]

In other news, what the hell is this I'm hearing about Kellyanne Conway tweeting a topless picture of her daughter?  She's 15 ffs!

[Red Beret]

The courts will not attempt to involve themselves in how Congress conducts itself. It just ain't going to happen.

I think the plan was to vote down the impeachment on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, which would have forced the Democrats to go to SCOTUS for a hard legal ruling on the matter - which they may not have given, either because they have a conservative majority, or because, as you say, they would wriggle out of it on the pretext they shouldn't get involved.

There's no chance of a conviction without McConnell's backing, which is just obscene.

[Jiminy Cricket]

In other news, what the hell is this I'm hearing about Kellyanne Conway tweeting a topless picture of her daughter?  She's 15 ffs!

I don't know. I just searched (for fairly obvious reasons - using only the search term 'kellyanne conway') and not a great deal about it turned up. There was a confused article at Variety, but I decided against more targetted searches.

Ah. This one seems a bit better:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/27/justiceforclaudia-kellyanne-conway-faces-police-investigation-over-who-posted-nude-photo-of-teen-daughter/

Kellyanne Conway is a terrible specimen of humanity. And I am less then convinced that her husband, George, is that much better.

[Red Beret]

I don't know. I just searched (for fairly obvious reasons - using only the search term 'kellyanne conway') and not a great deal about it turned up. There was a confused article at Variety, but I decided against more targetted searches.

Ah. This one seems a bit better:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/27/justiceforclaudia-kellyanne-conway-faces-police-investigation-over-who-posted-nude-photo-of-teen-daughter/

Kellyanne Conway is a terrible specimen of humanity. And I am less then convinced that her husband, George, is that much better.

He isn't.  The Lincoln Project is still wedded to the notion of Reganomics; they're nothing more than an ally of convenience right now.

I caught a video that I didn't bother sharing saying Kellyanne was under some kind of investigation for tweeting the image.  I just had a wtf moment so had wondered if anybody in here had any more info. Guess we'll know more soon enough

[goalrushatgoodison]

I think the plan was to vote down the impeachment on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, which would have forced the Democrats to go to SCOTUS for a hard legal ruling on the matter - which they may not have given, either because they have a conservative majority, or because, as you say, they would wriggle out of it on the pretext they shouldn't get involved.

I don't think the plan was ever to vote it down, as that just wasn't going to happen. This is more about giving Repugs cover for voting not to convict without having to own up to to being condoning Trump.

[Red Beret]

I don't think the plan was ever to vote it down, as that just wasn't going to happen. This is more about giving Repugs cover for voting not to convict without having to own up to to being condoning Trump.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  Although with lobbyists pulling funding, and the clear and present threat Trump presents to the Republican Party, you'd think they'd be only too happy to see him barred from running for office again.

I guess there's more at play there then we realise.

[rafathegaffa83]

More to have on record re: the GOP members who vote against this


Kyle Griffin@kylegriffin1
New: Rep. Jimmy Gomez announced today he will introduce a resolution to expel Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from the U.S. House of Representatives.

[Caligula?]

And speaking of Taylor Greene, let's look at the two most batshit crazy members of the GOP in Congress today.

Ladies and gentleman, step right up and see Representative Lauren Boebert from Colorado. Apparently obsessed with guns, she walks around packing everywhere (including Congress) and co-owns a a restaurant called "Shooter's" with her husband in the aptly named Rifle, Colorado.



Among some of her distinguished achievements before taking office:




Among some of her achievements since taking office: Promoting the insurrection and tweeting Nancy Pelosi's location as it was happening.



Moving on to Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia. A QAnon nutjob.



Other than promoting large swaths of QAnon conspiracies, she's also shown her support for the assassination of prominent Democrats on Facebook. She called the Parkland shooting a 'false flag operation.'



Here is a post that she once liked on Facebook advocating for violence against Democrats:

[ScouserAtHeart]

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/2021/jan/27/proud-boys-leader-enrique-tarrio-fbi-informant

[12C]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  Although with lobbyists pulling funding, and the clear and present threat Trump presents to the Republican Party, you'd think they'd be only too happy to see him barred from running for office again.

I guess there's more at play there then we realise.

I think there are a lot of GOP who are terrified of Trump primarying them. They see the storming of the Capitol as a warning that “the Base” are Trump first Republican sencond. Those gun nut senators and congress members are scared shitless that any move now against trump will turn loose a shitstorm and see more Boeberts and Greenes running against them. They are trying to brush Trump into history and regain some sort of control over the cosplayers.

I’ve tried to see it from their perspective. There is an element of how Hitlerwas able to seize power at play. They were happy with Trump using his base to pack the courts and cut taxes, unfortunately, like Hindenburg and the Weimar elite discovered, putting Trump in charge has taken the lid off the sewer and populism is by nature popular with a large swathe of a population. (To begin with)
Trump offered the base a return to white supremacy with steady well paid jobs, low taxes, and freedom from government interfering in their prejudices. They might live in shitty cabins and trailer parks but they have a truck and a gun (guns) and they can fantasise about being John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. Trump was clever enough to deflect from the impossibility of his promises (coal mining etc) by blaming democrats and the “elite” who he claimed were stealing everything he promised. Never forget Bannon is a student of Nazism.
Just like Hitler blamed the Jewish bankers and then the Jewish people for the stab in the back, Trump  blamed the Washington elite for stealing the election. 4 years with real control of the House and Senate for 2 of them, and he was so lazy and inept he didn’t do fuck all except build some bits of wall and generally fuck up the country. However, to hear him, if only he could have had 4 more years (or maybe more) he would have sorted it.
The GOP must be aware of the parallels with Weimar, and the handing of power to a loose cannon. My guess is they are hoping he will die or become infirm in the next couple of years and the problem will go away. The problem is however that they have laid the ground for a younger, more ruthless version to take over. Cruz and Hawley are already seeking to win over the base. And don’t rule out Ivanka doing an Evita.

[12C]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/maga-bus-tour-coup

I know it’s Buzzfeed, but it is an interesting look at how the Insurrection was fuelled and some of the themes that resonated with the “base”.

The speakers talked about killing Liberals and shooting people who offer vaccines.

[Riquende]

putting Trump in charge has taken the lid off the sewer and populism is by nature popular with a large swathe of a population

What keeps troubling me is that it's hard to think off-hand of historical populist movements with the sort of reach and impact the Trumpistas/Magas have already had that just dissipated in the face of democratic norms (as opposed to being put down with violence). I'm looking for historical precedent of this sort of massive groundswell of anti-establishment sentiment being peacefully resolved before anything went 'too far'.

[Lotus Eater]

And don’t rule out Ivanka doing an Evita.

She'll make a move in the next few years, Florida governor/senator

[Alan_X]

What keeps troubling me is that it's hard to think off-hand of historical populist movements with the sort of reach and impact the Trumpistas/Magas have already had that just dissipated in the face of democratic norms (as opposed to being put down with violence). I'm looking for historical precedent of this sort of massive groundswell of anti-establishment sentiment being peacefully resolved before anything went 'too far'.

I don't think anything has been resolved. Fox, OAN and Newsmax are still pushing the populist agenda and it's now stoked by the fantasy of 'cancel culture' and the 'Liberal elite' stealing the election. The majority of Republican voters believe there was widespread voter fraud.

I've posted before about the underlying issues that Trumpism is built on - systemic white privledge, white nationalism and the unresolved issues of the Civil War.
The Republicans in Congress have shown that for the most part, they would have happily have accepted Trump pulling off a coup d'etat if it kept them in power.

America is ripe and ready for a more effective Trump and Cruz and Hawley are already auditioning for the role. I think both are lacking the animal charm of Trump and Don Jr is too stupid to take on the mantle. Ivanka could be the one. Completely lacking in any morals and willing to do and say anything to get what she wants.

The model America needs to look to isn't Hitler - it's Putin. It's no coincidence that so many Trumpists and Republicans seem to have ties to Russia. Hitler's fascism was all about his demented hatred of the Jews. Putin's Russia will use prejudice as a weapon but the ultimate driving force is power and wealth. There will be those on the American right who far from thinking it went 'too far', will be looking at Putin's playbook and thinking it didn't go far enough.

Trump is a self-obsessed moron but he showed the power of not giving a fuck in a democracy.

[oldfordie]

I think the question over whether Trump faces the courts is more about the US authorities having the will to prosecute rather than the evidence to prosecute. this isn't just about 1 possible prosecution, Trumps facing 5 indictments that I know of, this is just based on the evidence known publicly and am sure there's far more to come out we don't know about yet.  I would like to think Bidens new AG and State Governors go after Trump over the next few years, am sure NY will but we will have to see if others do the same.
As far as Trump and GOP are concerned, they are both Hemorrhaging support. the Republican party may not admit this right now but they are very worried, decent registered Republican voters who actually voted Republican at the last election are deserting the party and switching their vote, they are disgusted at whats happened since the election.
I don't think the Republicans have a prayer at the next Senate elections in a couple of years while the stigma of Trump+ his senators are still stinking the Senate out.
IMO, Trump isn't a threat to the democrats power now but he is still a malevolent influence on American society.

[Jshooters]

I think the question over whether Trump faces the courts is more about the US authorities having the will to prosecute rather than the evidence to prosecute. this isn't just about 1 possible prosecution, Trumps facing 5 indictments that I know of, this is just based on the evidence known publicly and am sure there's far more to come out we don't know about yet.  I would like to think Bidens new AG and State Governors go after Trump over the next few years, am sure NY will but we will have to see if others do the same.
As far as Trump and GOP are concerned, they are both Hemorrhaging support. the Republican party may not admit this right now but they are very worried, decent registered Republican voters who actually voted Republican at the last election are deserting the party and switching their vote, they are disgusted at whats happened since the election.
I don't think the Republicans have a prayer at the next Senate elections in a couple of years while the stigma of Trump+ his senators are still stinking the Senate out.
IMO, Trump isn't a threat to the democrats power now but he is still a malevolent influence on American society.

yep

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/536113-tens-of-thousands-of-voters-drop-republican-affiliation-after-capitol

[oldfordie]

yep

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/536113-tens-of-thousands-of-voters-drop-republican-affiliation-after-capitol

Yep. CNN Report talking about it the other night, represents the tip of the Iceberg is a good description. the Republicans have placed themselves in a no win situation.  defend Trump and they annihilate thousands of decent Republicans who have had enough of Trumps s...
Turn on Trump and they annihilate enough voters to loose next election.
The likes of Cruz+Hawley had their sights on the Presidency a few weeks back, they will be relieved to keep their seats by the time the Senate elections come, I very much doubt they will.