• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

6 Jan 2020 U.S. Events (Split from A Deeply Fractured US)

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,325
Points
1,060
It absolutely is an option. He can still be impeached after he leaves office. The goal would be to prevent him from running again.
Does that go against the spirit of democracy? Impeaching him with the intent to prevent him from running again would mean a possible 75 million Americans could have their choice of a leader negated.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,591
Points
1,060
Does that go against the spirit of democracy? Impeaching him with the intent to prevent him from running again would mean a possible 75 million Americans could have their choice of a leader negated.
Choice of leader is different from choice of party.

The Republican party lives on and, in this case, might be all the stronger in future for avoiding a calamity.

"The difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, that would be a calamity."

- Benjamin Disraeli

splash fail GIF by America's Funniest Home Videos
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,788
Points
1,160
Does that go against the spirit of democracy? Impeaching him with the intent to prevent him from running again would mean a possible 75 million Americans could have their choice of a leader negated.
Does it matter? /rhetorical

Is it Constitutionally supported? You know, the approach that POTUS 45 has taken since November 2016?

Just some ‘critical thought’ questions to consider.

regards
G2G
 

MedCorps

Sr. Member
Reaction score
20
Points
230
A slightly different tangent on today events. Things that I found interesting:

2) The tape (red / white) on the front slide of the pistol of the police (not in uniform) protecting the chamber behind the barricade. I suspect this is a IFF thing, but then again it might just be a way to pick out your pistol in the weapons room.

Turns out my IFF suspicion was correct... how about that.


MC
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
FWIW these impeachment proceedings while entertaining and “feel good” do not seem to meet the constitutional threshold of procedural fairness or natural justice. He does have the right to have counsel, call and challenge evidence etc. Not like a court, but not a star chamber either. To be clear I don’t really care what they do, but I am concerned about the next, and the next, and the next. This is the equivalent of a political mob execution, something he may deserve but also something that at the same time is beneath the United States of America whose shining light of decency has turned into a dumpster fire.

“The lamps are going out” as the saying went.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,591
Points
1,060
Well done those Geeks ...


A Hacker Leaked Every Single Post From Parler, and It Isn’t Pretty​


After the U.S. Capitol was stormed by a mob of President Trump’s supporters, investigations and searches began to find those involved. Surprisingly (and ironically) enough, it seems that the now-banned social media app Parler, which became a platform for mostly conservative users for “free speech" may be the key to helping arrest many of those individuals.

According to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, Parler was one of several apps used to coordinate the breach of the Capitol, in a plan to overturn the 2020 election results and keep Donald Trump in power.

However, the app really just became a place for far-right conspiracy theories, racism, and death threats aimed at prominent Democratic (and some Republican) politicians. The app also became a great tool to track down those involved in the failed coup. While the app may be deleted, that didn’t mean that hackers couldn’t do an entire data dump and expose several users.


https://www.distractify.com/p/parle...KNMimxr87iCTr5KWkrT3-qxFl_0jTY0cv9GygAw_hrPus
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
898
Points
1,040
FWIW these impeachment proceedings while entertaining and “feel good” do not seem to meet the constitutional threshold of procedural fairness or natural justice. He does have the right to have counsel, call and challenge evidence etc. Not like a court, but not a star chamber either. To be clear I don’t really care what they do, but I am concerned about the next, and the next, and the next. This is the equivalent of a political mob execution, something he may deserve but also something that at the same time is beneath the United States of America whose shining light of decency has turned into a dumpster fire.

“The lamps are going out” as the saying went.
Like this?

"Newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Wednesday said she plans on filing articles of impeachment against President-elect Joe Biden on his first full day in office next week.

During an appearance on Newsmax Wednesday evening, Greene, a vocal supporter of President Trump, said that she is planning on introducing a measure to impeach Biden on Jan. 21, one day after his inauguration.

“I would like to announce on behalf of the American people, we have to make sure our leaders are held accountable, we cannot have a President of the United States who is willing to abuse the power of the office of the presidency and be easily bought off by foreign governments, foreign Chinese energy companies, Ukrainian energy companies, so on January 21, I will be filing articles of impeachment on Joe Biden,” Greene told Newsmax’s Greg Kelly. "

MORE ON LINK
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,325
Points
1,060
Does it matter? /rhetorical

Is it Constitutionally supported? You know, the approach that POTUS 45 has taken since November 2016?

Just some ‘critical thought’ questions to consider.

regards
G2G
I know it's rhetorical but I'm experimenting with that whole critical thinking I keep hearing about.

It sort of reminds me of when Hezbollah was democratically elected, while designated a terrorist organization by 21 countries, the EU and most of the Arab states. Oops.

It's what the people wanted. Sometimes very bad people are elected democratically. Makes going after them in the name of democracy tricky.


I'm really enjoying watching everyone abandoning him but I think it's also not that brave considering the timing and situation.

It's also pretty interesting to see how dependent we are on privately owned social media to speak and be heard.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
980
Points
910
The goal would be to prevent him from running again.

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanours. It is not to prevent running again, or to deny benefits. When people misuse a process for something other than what was intended, ethics are lacking. It would have been better if the politicians had kept their lips zipped on the side effects and left discussion to the pundits, but there's no unsaying what has been said.

McConnell I think already stated he does not intended to run again and he knows he's shortly not going to be senate majority leader, so he has a lot more political freedom to do as he pleases. But leaving the hearing for the next Senate means the Democrats own the entire process from start to finish. Republicans in safe seats can vote their consciences; Republicans in lean-Democratic seats can vote to satisfy constituents; other Republicans will have to think about their next elections. There is nothing about this - or anything else going on right now - that is not subject to political calculation before anything else.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
282
Points
910
Pelosi told 60 Minutes on Sunday that she wants impeachment for Donald Trump so he can't run for office in the future

 
Last edited:

Pelorus

Member
Reaction score
102
Points
430
Like this?

We should put about as much value into Marjorie Taylor Greene's words as we do the doomsday preacher on the corner downtown screaming about hellfire and brimstone all day long, or perhaps the drunk in the park rambling about underground lizardmen:


In videos spotlighted by Politico, Greene called the election of two Muslim women to Congress "an Islamic invasion into our government."

In one video message, Greene acknowledged that U.S. laws protect freedom of religion — and then said, "but I'm sorry, anyone that is a Muslim, that believes in Sharia law, does not belong in our government."

"Let me explain something to you, Muhammad," she said in one video. "We already have equality and justice for all Americans. Muslims are not being held back in any way ... what you people want is special treatment. You want to rise above us."

Greene also said that generations of Black and Hispanic men have been held down by "being in gangs and dealing drugs," not by anything white people have done; that both white supremacists and members of the Black Lives Matter movement are "idiots"; and that in seeking the Black vote, Democrats are "trying to keep the Black people in a modern-day form of slavery."


Democrats are the real racists, Greene said, stating that "the most mistreated group of people in the United States today are white males."


"Q is a patriot," Greene said in a nearly 30-minute long video from 2017. She called the conspiracy theory "something worth listening to and paying attention to," adding: "He is someone that very much loves his country, and he's on the same page as us, and he is very pro-Trump."
And as Sommer notes in a recent article on Greene:
"(She) has also posted about QAnon on social media, tweeting QAnon catchphrases 'Trust the plan' and "#GreatAwakening" and praising a QAnon clue as an 'awesome post' in 2018."
Greene also made waves with an early June video -- posted to her Twitter account -- in which she holds a gun, says she has "a message for Antifa terrorists," cocks it and then dead-pans: "Stay the hell out of northwest Georgia."
 

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
240
Points
560
It's also pretty interesting to see how dependent we are on privately owned social media to speak and be heard.
I just had a horrible thought about a Crown Corporation that requires all your status updates to be bilingual and include a land acknowledgement.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,788
Points
1,160

Timeline reveals Capitol Hill riot began 20 mins before end of Trump's speech​


...and also reveals the source of the rioters as they leave the White House grounds where Trump was giving his speech.
(From article): The President called for his supporters to march to the Capitol at least twice during his speech, and masses of his supporters could be seen migrating across the National Mall from the White house to the capitol while he was still speaking.

Excellent investigatory work by Conservative Review for making the clear link between Trump’s audience and the riots. 👍🏼
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
445
Points
880
We should put about as much value into Marjorie Taylor Greene's words as we do the doomsday preacher on the corner downtown screaming about hellfire and brimstone all day long, or perhaps the drunk in the park rambling about underground lizardmen:
When it comes to credibility, IMO, she's closer to the drunk in the park (maybe even below him) than the corner preacher.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,134
Points
990
Sounds like they were fired up and ready to go.
The pumps were getting primed for weeks. It was far from a solo show on Trump's part. The investigation into the instigators and abetters is going to take months, and I think when all is said and done, will reveal some ugly and scary things about what was being attempted. I suspect we'll ultimately see several political / administration figures facing legal jeopardy for their role in inciting this. The mob showed up ready to go. They wanted to hear Trump speak, but this wasn't a situation where they events that followed weren't already thought of considered. There was planning, there's increasing evidence that recces were done, it's alleged, plausibly, that maps were provided showing the locations of really innocuous unmarked offices belonging to key figures... There was a lot of deliberation in this.

100% it will pass

Tough to say at this juncture, but I think that's the way it's headed.

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanours. It is not to prevent running again, or to deny benefits. When people misuse a process for something other than what was intended, ethics are lacking. It would have been better if the politicians had kept their lips zipped on the side effects and left discussion to the pundits, but there's no unsaying what has been said.

McConnell I think already stated he does not intended to run again and he knows he's shortly not going to be senate majority leader, so he has a lot more political freedom to do as he pleases. But leaving the hearing for the next Senate means the Democrats own the entire process from start to finish. Republicans in safe seats can vote their consciences; Republicans in lean-Democratic seats can vote to satisfy constituents; other Republicans will have to think about their next elections. There is nothing about this - or anything else going on right now - that is not subject to political calculation before anything else.

The articles of impeachment are quite clear about what he's accused of. The trial in the senate will afford the impeachment managers to present their evidence and arguments. Yes, the envisioned punishment at the end is of course part of the calculus, but that does not mean it's not deserved.

While this is not a criminal law process, some of the same principle apply- denunciation, deterrence... Trump is the accused. A larger message is being sent- and it crosses partisan lines - that there are things you Just Can't Do, and processes you can't threaten.


Tough to justify paying him for legal services when little to nothing of what Giuliani did in any of the courts resembled the effective practice of law... /snark If there's one thing we can probably all agree on, it's that Trump's 'legal team' was laughably awful and were a three ring circus in their own right. Outside of any other larger context, it would have been an implausibly comedic and inept high legal drama rather than a side show to a perpetual tantrum.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
988
Points
860
I’m curious, for those in the know, if Trump does not pay him for services rendered, does that null any solicitor client privilege for whatever time he didn’t actually pay him?
 
Top