What's new
By:

Protestors storm capital

I just can't fathom why anyone would want Trump back - it was an embarrassing four years for the country and I'd like to think we don't have the mind of a goldfish. We are very fortunate that January 6th wasn't worse.

If you're not a fan of Biden, and nobody would blame if you weren't, are we not capable of electing somebody who isn't on the wrong side of the average life expectancy? Can we actually get some new ideas and fresh blood? Why on earth would we run it back with the same group of has-beens?

If that's D, fine. R? Fine. Let's elect the best candidate regardless of the letter by their name, but good lord, a Biden vs. Trump rematch in 2024 is worse than somehow thinking a Jake Paul vs. Tyron Woodley is somehow telling us who the best fighter in the world is.
 
Avery said:
I just can't fathom why anyone would want Trump back - it was an embarrassing four years for the country and I'd like to think we don't have the mind of a goldfish. We are very fortunate that January 6th wasn't worse.

If you're not a fan of Biden, and nobody would blame if you weren't, are we not capable of electing somebody who isn't on the wrong side of the average life expectancy? Can we actually get some new ideas and fresh blood? Why on earth would we run it back with the same group of has-beens?

If that's D, fine. R? Fine. Let's elect the best candidate regardless of the letter by their name, but good lord, a Biden vs. Trump rematch in 2024 is worse than somehow thinking a Jake Paul vs. Tyron Woodley is somehow telling us who the best fighter in the world is.
Click to expand...
Obama was pretty young. The backlash to a young black man was... Well Trump.

The reason why Biden won was because he was seen as a safe Obama supported pick who could beat Trump. There were plenty of candidates to choose from. Mayor Pete? Too gay. Kamala? Too black. Bernie? Too old and Jewish. Warren? Too smart.

We can bitch all we want about getting young and diverse candidates. But that won't matter if they're going up against an old white demagogue who receives overwhelming support from whites. The issue isn't with Biden; the issue is with the electorate. The electorate doesn't even know it wants tbh.
 
Hey we are only 3 weeks away from the 1st Anniversary of the attempted destruction of democracy in our country. And the trials are still ongoing.

www.cnn.com

After 50 rioters sentenced for January 6 insurrection, a debate rages over what justice looks like

Of the 50-plus defendants who have been sentenced for their role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, fewer than half were sent to jail for their crimes. Most received an assortment of lesser penalties, including brief terms of house arrest, a couple years of probation, four-figure fines...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Of the 50-plus defendants who have been sentenced for their role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, fewer than half were sent to jail for their crimes. Most received an assortment of lesser penalties, including brief terms of house arrest, a couple years of probation, four-figure fines or court-ordered community service, according to a CNN analysis.
Click to expand...
 
Red said:
Her full statement….

Click to expand...

I don’t like this at all. The cavalier way Constitutional rights are being disposed with makes me deeply uneasy.

Liz Cheney said Mark Meadows had declared Executive and “other” privileges. That “other” privilege is the Fifth Amendment rights that all Americans have. Liz Cheney specifically cites Jeffery Clark refusing to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds and they voted to hold him in contempt on December 1st.

In this 9 minute monologue, Liz Cheney gives no reason why Mark Meadows does not have Fifth Amendment protections. She reads off a litany of sins that Trump has done as if that strips the Constitutional protections of anyone near him. It doesn’t. That isn’t how Constitutional protections work. This panel has effectively declared themselves above the law and that should worry the crap out of everyone despite it being used today against someone you may not like.

A similar thing is being done with Steve Bannon, who is one of the scummiest dirtbags to ever crawl the Earth. His trial is being conducted in total darkness with bizarre evidentiary rules that allow lawyers to see evidence but not have evidence. The prosecution is supposed to show documents to the defense lawyers but the defense lawyers are not allowed to have a copy. The defense lawyers are even limited in what notes they can write about the evidence they are shown.

I would never defend Mark Meadows, or Jeffery Clark, and wouldn’t urinate on Steve Bannon if he were on fire, but WTF?!?! This is wrong. I don’t care how awful Trump was, our government should not do this to American citizens. If they committed a crime then charge them and give them their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I don’t like this at all. The cavalier way Constitutional rights are being disposed with makes me deeply uneasy.

Liz Cheney said Mark Meadows had declared Executive and “other” privileges. That “other” privilege is the Fifth Amendment rights that all Americans have.
Click to expand...
One that you have to sit before the committee to claim in response to specific questions. This right does not let you refuse to respond to a subpoena.
 
When your administration, news buddy cronies, conservative tweet-leachers and even your son think you've gone too far, chances are pretty good you ****ed up.
 
Clinton attempted to invoke Executive Privilege to stop his staff from testifying in the Monika Lewinski investigation. He was overruled in court and his staff had to testify to find out about what sort of hank panky the POTUS got up to in the Oval Office.

Executive Privilege is not absolute. It is supposed to protect the U.S. national security and to maintain a separation of powers between the Executive branch and Legislative branch.

Nixon attempted to block the release of the tapes that lead to his resignation. He failed.

The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the president as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.
Click to expand...

If both of those cases resulted in the Executive Branch providing the requested information then I can only assume that the Jan. 6th insurrection case would be a slam dunk for those seeking the information. One case was in regard to a burglary, the other had to do with a BJ. This is a case where the POTUS was complicit, I would even say directing and encouraging, the overthrow of our democratic process. It is by far the most serious offence of the bunch and the President has no conceivable justification to keep those records protected, as has been determined by a few lower courts already. The only stop left, if they choose to take it on, is the SCOTUS. Even being a conservative court, I bet they order the records released.

No violation of the Constitution is at risk of taking place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top