Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Capital Riot on January 6th

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who knows indeed, however signs point to R's easily winning back the House and and fighting chance at the Senate too.

    The R's are being rewarded at the polls for their terrible behavior, so why would they stop?

    Comment


    • Trump took classified material from White House to Florida, National Archives says

      ASHINGTON, Feb 18 (Reuters) - Former President Donald Trump took classified information to his Florida home after leaving the White House, the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration said in a letter to Congress on Friday about the 15 boxes of documents it recently recovered.

      The Archives said it had informed the Department of Justice, which would handle any investigation.

      "NARA has identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes," David Ferriero, the archivist of the United States, said in a letter to Democratic U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House of Representatives oversight committee.
      Makes me curious what else he stole and how much of it was to cover up his hand in the insurrection, and while it's unlikely, I hope this, if nothing else, would send trump to jail.

      Comment


      • Lord0fHats
        Lord0fHats commented
        Editing a comment
        But Hillary's emails!

      • Wolfblade
        Wolfblade commented
        Editing a comment
        I would love to see the knots a certain troll/complete fucking moron on the wasteland twists themselves into to defend this tbh.

    • In a bit of good news, guilty verdict in the first of the trials.
      https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/polit...ict/index.html
      Of course, this is the guy that had his own kids testifying AGAINST him because he threatened them afterwards, so this should have been a slamdunk case, anyway.
      Last edited by Tannhauser42; 03-08-2022, 07:54 PM.

      Comment


      • The content from the trial very clearly indicate that this guy was specifically there to violently overthrow the elected government at gunpoint and install Trump. The GOP "lost tourists" and "peaceful demonstration out of hand" narratives are dead.

        Comment


        • nfe
          nfe commented
          Editing a comment
          Come now, 'just one bad apple' is a perfectly fine handwave until there's only two left.

        • Bunnies
          Bunnies commented
          Editing a comment
          They're only dead if the people pushing them have any sense of morality or truth.

          So nah, they're fine

      • I knew LIz and her family were not out of Republican politics yet.....

        https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/14/polit...ser/index.html

        Republican donors line up behind Liz Cheney as she takes on Trump

        The donor interest isn't all for Cheney's reelection bid for her House seat in Wyoming. More than two full years before the 2024 election, Cheney is emerging as the anti-Trump champion, and plenty of Republicans are glad to see it.

        "We are moving beyond Donald Trump," Bobbie Kilberg told CNN. "Enough, already. Enough's enough."

        Kilberg and other allies insist Cheney remains focused on her reelection to the House this year, which includes a daunting primary challenge from her onetime adviser Harriet Hageman. Trump has endorsed Hageman, who has all but cleared the field of Republican challengers, and defeating Cheney remains one of the former President's top priorities in the midterm cycle.

        But several Republicans have said it's not out of the question she could seek the GOP nomination for president if Trump runs again.
        However, with all this being said, I find the presses talk about a GOP civil war to be more press wish than actuality on the ground. I also do not expect LIz to lose her seat here in heavily Trump Wyoming, because she (and her family) have strong local support

        Comment


        • Pacific
          Pacific commented
          Editing a comment
          Well that really is some good news. I feel like this is going to be a point of divergence in the timeline.. with whatever happens here, re. Trump and Cheney, dictating how the US (and perhaps the world) will look in a decade's time.

      • "We are moving beyond Donald Trump" sounds like the "Please clap" of 2022.

        Comment


        • I'd rather they didn't move beyond Trump, but back the other way.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BranDawri View Post
            I'd rather they didn't move beyond Trump, but back the other way.
            Yeah, 'moving beyond Trump' implies that Trump is the new baseline for GOP. Fucking hell.

            They should go back to being the party of Lincoln. When they were willing to go to war to improve the lives of black people.

            Comment


            • Konst Humm
              Konst Humm commented
              Editing a comment
              They were willing to go to war to keep the union intact.

            • feeder
              feeder commented
              Editing a comment
              That's splitting hairs. The reason the union was breaking up was slavery. Maybe the rallying cry wasn't "free the slaves", but the result was the ending of slavery in the south.

          • Nicely detailed article by some experts on the matter, going through basically the evidence for the prosecution for Trump's involvement...

            https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...capitol-attack

            Comment


            • https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-j...190219092.html

              A federal judge ruled Monday that then-President Donald Trump and lawyer John Eastman "more likely than not" committed crimes in their efforts to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election.
              Another interesting quote from the article:

              Trump and Eastman, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have fought to keep their records from being turned over to the Jan. 6 panel. In January, however, the Supreme Court rejected arguments made by Trump's lawyers that the National Archives could withhold hundreds of pages of documents from the committee.

              The sole dissenter in that 8-1 ruling was Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, has been revealed to have encouraged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to fight to keep Trump in office.
              Last edited by Skyth; 03-28-2022, 08:14 PM.

              Comment


              • Clarence Thomas should be impeached and removed from the bench.

                Comment


                • I mostly find it ironic that the big talking point when the GOP was stonewalling Garland was his wife's connection to anti-gun groups and how that would assuredly bias Garland on the court.

                  Funny how that played out.

                  Comment


                  • Easy E
                    Easy E commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Except no one really cared, it was just flooding the zone with bull.....
                    Last edited by Easy E; 03-29-2022, 02:18 PM.

                • Originally posted by Lord0fHats View Post
                  I mostly find it ironic that the big talking point when the GOP was stonewalling Garland was his wife's connection to anti-gun groups and how that would assuredly bias Garland on the court.

                  Funny how that played out.
                  The P stands for projection, as always.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Too Hot To Trot View Post
                    Clarence Thomas should be impeached and removed from the bench.
                    So Justice Thomas must answer for his wife political activities?

                    Misogyny much?

                    But, hey, if Democrats wants another impeachment circus, they should certainly try.

                    Comment


                    • SilverbackWookie
                      SilverbackWookie commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Bunnies regarding #360.3
                      I think it's an unfair characterization that these allegations were "brushed aside".

                      "We should start at "do you think Thomas' accuser was lying or not"".
                      Most likely lying imho.

                      The FBI conducted the background check as directed by the judicial committee, which wasn't even Kavanaugh's first background check either. They actually took steps to see if Ford's allegation warrants opening up a criminal investigation, and the FBI stated that it didn't. All they had were Ford's allegation. None of the circumstances, nor the alleged witnesses Ford addressed, supported the allegation.

                      In short, the allegation weren't credible in any meaningful way.

                      So, all you're ever going to get is a literal "she said, he said" scenario, and in my view, in the context of a political appointment, you have to consider the political context here that Ford is likely making a false accusation against Kavanaugh for the purpose to smear him enough for him to withdraw.

                      Now, had she had compelling evidence or witnesses that could attest to her allegations, then yeah my position would change and of course, I wouldn't want him to be seated on the highest court.

                    • Wolfblade
                      Wolfblade commented
                      Editing a comment
                      SilverbackWookie it'd be great if you'd actually engage with sources posted previously (IIRC, but not these ones):
                      https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/ne...ng-of-tip-line
                      https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2342922001/
                      https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1575930002/ (related to the above link)

                      There was plenty of evidence, but Barr simply prevented the FBI from investigating it, this has been known for quite a while now and you have no excuse to ignore it after it has been pointed out several times here by different users.

                      Furthermore, your dismissal of the allegations is disgusting. Rape/sexual assault accusations are almost NEVER leveled falsely*, let alone by several different people at the same person. You are clearly uninformed on how the investigation was actually conducted and haven't bothered to examine it yourself.

                      TL;DR: The FBI didn't even talk to his classmates at the time, and dismissing sexual assault allegations based on a sham investigation is despicable.

                      *The only example I can think of offhand are those shitbags in project veritas who have repeatedly been caught paying women to falsely accuse those opposing the GOP of sexual assault.
                      Last edited by Wolfblade; 03-29-2022, 05:00 PM.

                    • Bunnies
                      Bunnies commented
                      Editing a comment
                      You start on the question I asked but then bang on about Kav for some reason? Makes me wonder if your answer was actually to my question or just an imagined one. But good to know where you stand on accusations like this. Not as important as getting your guy on the bench. Thanks for the explanation. I find it very hard to believe your position would change in any circumstances when it's a Republican up for the seat and you've given no reason for me or anyone else to believe otherwise

                  • Originally posted by SilverbackWookie View Post
                    So Justice Thomas must answer for his wife political activities?

                    Misogyny much?

                    But, hey, if Democrats wants another impeachment circus, they should certainly try.
                    I quoted the relevant line for you.

                    The sole dissenter in that 8-1 ruling was Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, has been revealed to have encouraged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to fight to keep Trump in office.

                    The point is that Thomas's wife's political activities appear to be biasing his actual decisions when interpreting the law, to the point he is the sole dissenter against 8 compatriots, many of which are on the same end of the political spectrum as him. Most Supreme Court decisions are not contentious legally, and the political position of the judges does not affect them, which makes his ruling here look highly suspicious for corruption rather than jurisprudence as he is the only outlier with a clear vested interest.

                    Can you not see how that looks like a powerful person attempting to use that power to prevent potentially-damaging details of their spouse's activities being made public? It really stinks.
                    Last edited by Haighus; 03-28-2022, 09:30 PM.

                    Comment


                    • SilverbackWookie
                      SilverbackWookie commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Do we have any analysis on Thomas' dissent (ie, did he write one?) or are we just willing to impeach based on an assumption?

                    • Wolfblade
                      Wolfblade commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Haighus you're forgetting one important fact:

                      Thomas is a republican so obviously would never do anything underhanded. (/s)

                    • Haighus
                      Haighus commented
                      Editing a comment
                      SilverbackWookie
                      I didn't call for impeachment based on that, but it absolutely warrants a serious investigation that may lead to impeachment.

                      There should be zero tolerance for corruption in office. Of course, the US political establishment is built on corruption, but tackling the issue of political money is a monumental challenge in the US.
                  Working...
                  X