US Politics Thread 2021-24

[MrMojok69]

I agree with the first observation, but I question the second. The second observation sounds like democrats projecting their methods, particularly their methods coming from so called institutions of higher learning. :hmmm:

What you're doing here is saying "no U!"

There is absolutely a huge proportion of the chud populace that sees sending death threats as a recreational activity, and probably also as a duty. I have experienced it myself, via social media.

I know you don't care about what's happened to me, but in the last couple of years, many republican politicians have experienced it too.

Many, many more are going to experience it, going forward. It will literally never end. And it's because the right made the decision to make heaven and earth turn on Dernald J. Trunt.

The same shameful, horrific mindset has been turned on the very people that created it. What is an even bigger horror it is that no Republican politicians or constituents can prevent it from happening.

I'll bet you know this phrase: "Nothing can stop what is coming!"

Well, it's true. Just not in the way you guys thought.

[Jimbuna]

Recent reports of Donald Trump's plan to exact revenge in his second term are both old news and incredibly important, according to a longtime analyst of American politics.

It was reported last week that Trump is formally plotting a vengeance campaign if he's re-elected to another term as president, and a Washington Post reporter explained how he's surrounding himself with authoritarian accomplices.

In a Mother Jones piece, David Corn wrote the following:

"A few days ago, the Washington Post published a much-noticed article reporting that Trump and his allies 'have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute.' That list includes people who worked for him and became critics, including former chief of staff John Kelly, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and retired Gen. Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as President Joe Biden and Biden’s family. The piece—headlined 'Trump and allies plot revenge, Justice Department control in a second term'—caused a to-do, with commentators pointing to it as more evidence of Trump’s extremism and authoritarian yearnings."

He added:

"This was important news for the Washington Post to expose. But, in a way, it’s an old story, though one that has never sufficiently registered. Trump has always been fixated on revenge. This is a dangerous and fundamental character trait that I’ve been trying to draw attention to for a long while."

Corn provides several examples of Trump vowing revenge long before even his first presidential run. According to Corn, Trump said in 2007 that his business advice was to "get even" with "people that screw you."

"As I pointed out back then, Trump is a man completely obsessed with revenge," Corn then added. "It’s a psychological compulsion that possibly stretches back to his childhood. And it’s long been hypothesized that Trump primarily ran for president in 2016 to get even with Barack Obama, after the 44th president roasted him at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-s-strong-fixation-on-revenge-is-a-fundamental-character-trait-analyst/ar-AA1jMlt0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=44a2250686cd4c0e864578cca55be52b&ei=10

Unbelievable!

[MrMojok69]

Absolutely believable:

I first became aware of Dernald in about 1984, because I was into boxing and football.

He showed his ass back then, and he is the exact same person now as he was then, and this is absolutely believable.

The majority of his cult members have all the same personality traits he does. The narcissism, the selfishness, lack of respect for people in general, the inability to relate to other human beings in any meaningful way.

[Onkel Neal]

So, it is getting close to exploding, even MSM can't cover this up and ignore it forever. Where are the Woodward and Bernsteins today?

https://nypost.com/2023/11/11/opinion/the-third-year-of-bidens-presidency-is-about-to-get-even-worse/


Last week’s announcement by House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky that he subpoenaed the president’s son Hunter and brother, Jim Biden, and other relatives shows the probe has entered a new phase. Although Comer made no secret from the outset that he was targeting the president, the demand for testimony and documents from relatives and former family associates puts a clear target on Biden’s back.

It’s as if the preliminary stage is complete and the final act is about to unfold.

The precedent for the new subpoenas was the discovery of two checks written to Joe from brother Jim and Jim’s wife, Sara. One check was for $200,000, another was for $40,000, and both contained the words “loan repayment” in the memo space.

The transfers came to Joe within days of the family getting large payments from clients that passed through a convoluted series of bank accounts obviously designed to obscure the source and ultimate recipients of the money.

One of the clients, a Chinese energy conglomerate, sent $5 million to a joint account controlled by Hunter Biden and a Chinese national. The money arrived days after Hunter said on a 2017 WhatsApp message to a company leader that he was sitting beside his father and both would never forget a failure to send the money, which Hunter claimed was owed for previous work.

According to Comer, soon after the $5 million landed, $400,000 was transferred to an account owned by Hunter. He then wired $150,000 to another account controlled by Jim and Sara Biden. She soon withdrew $50,000 in cash, deposited it into her and Jim’s personal checking account and days later, cut a check to Joe Biden for $40,000.

The amount, representing 10% of Hunter’s $400,000, matches the percentage of the deal Hunter was said to be secretly holding for the “big guy.”

[mapuc]

Just seen a clip in the news where Biden was attending some Veterans days celebration and where he was acting kind of disillusioned.

Will he be reelected next year ?

His age is his disadvantage, where his advantage is, he's not trump.

The Dems really doesn't have any other candidate than President Biden

(This was said after the video clip)

Markus

[em2nought]

Just seen a clip in the news where Biden was attending some Veterans days celebration and where he was acting kind of disillusioned.

Markus

More delusional less disillusioned. :har:

[Jimbuna]

I appreciate the clip below is a week old but I'm not seeing anything about the matter anywhere.

Now it is possibly me not looking in the right places or is it simply the fact it is not being reported on currently?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGje3Ir-USc

[mapuc]

More delusional less disillusioned. :har:

:oops:

Should have used the word confused instead

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Republican parties in 2024 battleground states are plagued with infighting and fundraising woes — some due to the legal costs incurred by attempts to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, The Washington Post reported Monday.

“There has been an emphasis on ideological cleansing instead of electioneering,” said former Georgia GOP chairman John Watson. “If those new entrants to the party want to argue the earth is flat and the election is stolen, those are counterproductive to winning elections.”

State parties take the lead when it comes to get-out-the-vote efforts and mobilizing volunteers, but those efforts are in jeopardy thanks to infighting and squabbling over money, according to the report.
More experienced leaders have tried to limit the damage, but the transformation of many GOP parties into promoters of election denial has continued to put pressure on more moderate Republicans, the Post wrote.

"Trump and his team have become deeply involved with state parties, elevating candidates for positions who back him, courting members at his Mar-a-Lago resort home and attacking officials in states who oppose him," The Post's report stated.

"His campaign could be the one to have to make up lost ground from shortfalls in local fundraising and field operations. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said, 'When President Trump is the nominee, everyone will be aligned.'"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/maga-backing-state-gop-parties-now-being-torn-apart-by-infighting-and-money-woes-report/ar-AA1jQW6l?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=36f676fd8ee141929621c70f01e484e2&ei=10

[Rockstar]

Mulling not yet decided. I sure as hell hope clueless Jake and “The Big Guy” renews the sanctions. Can’t see freeing up 10 billion to give to Iran as a good thing. As the article states Biden says they can’t use it for anything other than humanitarian needs. Great now the ayatollah can buy baby formula with Biden’s 10 billion. But then that frees up 10 billion in Iranian budget to fund more terror organizations and proxy war


Biden Mulls Approval of Fresh $10 Billion for Iran
Sanctions waiver frees up money for Tehran as it funds Hamas’s war on Israel

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/biden-mulls-approval-of-fresh-10-billion-payment-to-iran/

Adam Kredo
November 13, 2023

The Biden administration may approve a sanctions waiver on Tuesday that will allow Iran to access at least $10 billion in previously frozen funds held in Iraq, a closely watched decision that comes just a month after the Tehran-backed terror group Hamas launched an attack on Israel that left 1,200 dead.

The waiver would extend the multibillion-dollar sanctions relief first issued in July that expires tomorrow. It allows Iraq to transfer frozen electricity payments into Iranian-owned bank accounts in Europe and Oman. The waiver renewal is driving concerns that the Biden administration is maintaining financial avenues for Tehran as the country’s terrorist proxies foment chaos across the Middle East.

"The world is living in a post-Oct. 7 world, but the White House is still running an Oct. 6 policy toward Iran," Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and sanctions expert who previously served on the White House National Security Council, told the Washington Free Beacon, referring to Hamas’s attack last month. "Why should Iran have any access to more than $10 billion after sponsoring one of the worst terrorist attacks against American citizens and the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? It would make more sense to freeze all of these accounts and keep every penny out of Tehran's hands."

While the Biden administration paused a $6 billion ransom payment to Iran following a pressure campaign in Congress, the Iraq-Europe-Oman sanctions waiver would signal the United States is still trying to provide financial relief to the hardline regime. Iranian military officials warned Monday that the Gaza war has already "spilled over into neighboring Lebanon and may even widen in scope" as Iranian-armed Hezbollah fighters become more active in the conflict. Tehran also has been rallying Arab nations against Israel, threatening to prolong the war and open more fronts.

The Trump administration first allowed Iraq to import electricity and gas from Iran, but only on the condition that the payments were kept in an escrow account in Baghdad. The Biden administration continued to issue that waiver, and then broadened it in July so that Iraq could move more than $10 billion outside the country, enabling Tehran to draw on the funds for its budget and humanitarian needs. In late October, the governor of the Central Bank of Iran reportedly discussed expediting Iran's access to the funds with his Omani counterpart.

In testimony before Congress late last month, Goldberg advised Congress to lock down the $10 billion as punishment for Tehran’s role in supporting Hamas’s war on Israel.

The Biden administration insists that, like the $6 billion held in Qatar, Iran can only use the $10 billion for non-sanctioned purposes.

Critics argue that since money is fungible, the access allows Iran to free up cash in other places for illicit activities.

Republican lawmakers in Congress made this argument when they pressured the Biden administration to halt its $6 billion ransom payment to Iran, arguing that even though the money was allocated for humanitarian purposes, it helped the hardline regime divert funds into terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iranian leaders in recent days have emphasized the importance of the electricity payments, reportedly telling Omani leaders they should "accelerate the use of these new foreign exchange resources" and signaling the regime is relying on the Biden administration to continue freeing up this cash.

The State Department declined to comment on the sanctions waiver or confirm whether it will be renewed this week.


NATIONAL SECURITY

[Rockstar]

Just seen a clip in the news where Biden was attending some Veterans days celebration and where he was acting kind of disillusioned.

Will he be reelected next year ?

His age is his disadvantage, where his advantage is, he's not trump.

The Dems really doesn't have any other candidate than President Biden

(This was said after the video clip)

Markus

As I said before I don’t believe Biden will run on account of his and his son’s shady business dealings coming to light (finally), plus it’s been obvious from the outset he is in mental decline and his own party has made it known they wouldn’t be too thrilled if he ran again. Trump is being prevented by endless accusations and litigation to destroy his wealth, solely by the opposition party. Though I wouldn’t be too sure about voting for someone just because “he’s not Trump” option either, the thing is, like him or not, every time they indict him Trump’s polls skyrocket, anyone with half a brain can see he’s being railroaded and people just don’t like that. But politics shouldn’t be about being presented and forced to pick the lessor of two evils. Anyone but Trump or Anyone but Biden are pretty piss poor reasons to cast a vote.

Personally, I could care less about the U.K. spammers and kook fringe obsessions over meaningless click bait drama. I just want a president who will drop the hammer on Iran, lay out our plan regarding Ukraine, fix the damn border, stop using my taxes to subsidize green industry and corporations, stop spending money we don’t have and reign in the debt because I think its gonna be the death of us if don’t.

Anyone got any presidential ideas? Does anyone realize there are over 11,000 bills before congress in 2024, does anyone know what the top three are? Or does U.S. politics thread just amount to being subjected to some euro padding his post count with meaningless drama from foreign and kook fringe sources?

[Jimbuna]

Trump has a victory in court so all is not yet lost and his fight continues.

Donald Trump has been handed a major court victory after detractors plotted to block him from being listed as a candidate in the next election.

Trump, 77, was given yet another electoral lifeline last week when Minnesota’s Supreme Court ruled against a petition seeking to disqualify him from the Republican Party primary ballot.

The court’s ruling left the door open to a potential challenge should Trump win the Grand Old Party’s general election nomination.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/donald-trump-in-court-victory-after-plan-to-block-presidential-election-bid-crushed/ar-AA1jVrUa?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=1afedd7b534f4ff589e0bd6cdac5bd2f&ei=16

[Jimbuna]

Great news for the US yes?

Government shutdown averted as Democrats help GOP pass funding package
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/government-shutdown-averted-as-democrats-help-gop-pass-funding-package-live/ar-AA1jTRlp?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=229552e9064246e09f1c2840e6b14345&ei=10

[August]

Great news for the US yes?


We'll see. That's exactly what got the previous Speaker of the House kicked out.

[Buddahaid]

Trump has a victory in court so all is not yet lost and his fight continues.

Not much of a victory. They ruled that federal constitutional law has no jurisdiction over who a political party wants to back at the state level.

[Buddahaid]

We'll see. That's exactly what got the previous Speaker of the House kicked out.

That’s part of it, but each time a republican speaker seeks help across the aisle, the more meaningless the MAGA faction is rendered. Eventually they will become just an annoying buzz.

[les green01]

its funny they keep trying to use artical 14.3 which been revolk remove whatever for over 100 years so its no good but then if you look at the 1860 election Lincoln wasnt on the ballots anywhere in the south and still won

[August]

That’s part of it, but each time a republican speaker seeks help across the aisle, the more meaningless the MAGA faction is rendered. Eventually they will become just an annoying buzz.


The last time a republican speaker reached across the aisle the democrats repaid the effort by joining the MAGA faction in voting him out.

[Buddahaid]

That's why I said it's only part of it.

[August]

That's why I said it's only part of it.


It doesn't support your MAGA theory though.

[Jimbuna]

Why Mike Johnson succeeded where Kevin McCarthy failed – for now

Amid all of the unrest, something interesting happened on Capitol Hill on Tuesday: The House of Representatives passed a government funding bill with no spending cuts.

More surprisingly, however, House conservatives did not revolt against Speaker Mike Johnson for doing the same thing that former speaker Kevin McCarthy did at the end of September, even though they hated the idea of a “clean” spending bill.

On top of that, even though Democrats think that Mr Johnson’s two-tiered spending bill is less than ideal, they are pretty satisfied with it and the Senate will likely take it up either Wednesday or Thursday.

“I think this whole idea of a two-part process is ridiculous, but at least we're not shutting down government and there's no spending cuts and there's no poison pills,” Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told The Independent.
So what gives? Why are conservatives willing to give the new speaker a pass? Furthermore, why are House Democrats, who despised Mr McCarthy so much that they joined the likes of Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL) to eject the House speaker, willing to give him some grace?

One reason is that Mr Johnson is still in the honeymoon phase. The newly-elected speaker is not even a month into his tenure. So everyone is inclined to give him a pass.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/voices-why-mike-johnson-succeeded-where-kevin-mccarthy-failed-for-now/ar-AA1jZr8k?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=5fdae1b33cc74dc1a70c02e725c33b2e&ei=15

[MrMojok69]

The last time a republican speaker reached across the aisle the democrats repaid the effort by joining the MAGA faction in voting him out.

That Republican speaker managed to pass a CR with the help of the Dems, and then immediately went on all the Sunday morning talk shows and said “The democrats wanted to shut the government down.”

He lied about this over and over, using the so-called Fake News MSM to broadcast that particular message.

Dem votes are what passed that CR. McCarthy and most of the Repubs are the living embodiment of the oft-circulated meme where a dude is riding a bike, thrusts a stick into the spoke of the front wheel, crashes, and then wails “why did the democrats do this?!”

Their new speaker isn’t going to last for long either. Once again, it will be one of the freedom caucus or perhaps MTG (who got kicked out of the freedom caucus because she was too crazy and annoying even for them) who calls for the motion to vacate.

This guy too will have to count on Dems to save his ass. Maybe they will, probably they won’t, but either way the Repubs are going to once again be the living embodiment of that meme.

The Republicans have the majority in the House but all they’ve shown is that they are so splintered and riddled with lunatics that they are completely incapable of governing at all.

This is now their identity, and it goes hand in hand with what I said before, that they have no choice but to go all-in on abortion and supporting Trump.

It’s a car with no brakes that has been pushed down from the top of a long hill. It is most definitely going to crash, the only question is how spectacular the crash will be, and it’s the Republican Party itself that cut the brake lines.

There is no escape, for them. It may well be the case that none of us will live long enough to see the day when there is an out, an escape. And they created this situation entirely by themselves.

[Rockstar]

In other words we just handed Iran 10 billion dollars they can use to free up other monies for more nefarious deeds.

US extends sanctions waiver allowing Iraq to buy electricity from Iran

https://apnews.com/article/iran-iraq-sanctions-waiver-816c2ba3f8eae10553ed07304c02db0f

BY MATTHEW LEE
Updated 4:42 PM EST, November 14, 2023

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration has extended by four months a sanctions waiver that will allow Iraq to continue to purchase electricity from Iran and gives Iran limited access to the proceeds to buy humanitarian goods.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed the 120-day waiver extension and it was transmitted to Congress on Tuesday, U.S. officials said. The move is likely to draw criticism from Iran hawks on Capitol Hill and elsewhere who believe the extension will reward Iran at a time when it is coming under increasing pressure to end its support for proxy groups, including Hamas, that are destabilizing the Middle East.

There is roughly $10 billion in Iraqi payments for Iranian electricity currently being held in escrow accounts in Iraq, and the waiver will allow Baghdad to maintain its energy imports without fear of U.S. penalties for violating sanctions on Iran.

It will also keep in place a provision — included in the last 120-day waiver — under which portions of the electricity proceeds can be transferred to accounts in Oman and then converted to euros or other widely traded currencies for Iran to buy non-sanctioned products.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the decision-making process, said Blinken signed the waiver mainly because the administration doesn’t want to cut Iraq off from a critical source of energy.

But, they said the administration is confident Iran will not be able to use any of the money for nefarious purposes. They said a rigorous vetting process is in place to ensure that the cash can only be used for food, medicine, medical equipment and agricultural goods.

Blinken visited Baghdad on Nov. 5 and met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani during the course of a Middle East trip focused on the Israel-Hamas war and efforts to prevent it from spreading into a broader regional conflict.

The officials added that only a small amount of the money held in Iraq had been transferred to Oman during the past 120 days and that none of the money now held in Omani banks had yet been spent.

The waiver is similar to one signed by Blinken earlier this year, which freed up some $6 billion that South Korea had paid to Iran for oil imports in exchange for the release of Americans held prisoner by Tehran. Under that waiver, the money held by South Korea was transferred to banks in Qatar and is also restricted for the purchase of humanitarian supplies.

However, Iran hawks point out that the waivers can allow Iran to free up domestic revenue it would have otherwise spent on humanitarian goods to fund proxies like Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen.

[les green01]

That Republican speaker managed to pass a CR with the help of the Dems, and then immediately went on all the Sunday morning talk shows and said “The democrats wanted to shut the government down.”

He lied about this over and over, using the so-called Fake News MSM to broadcast that particular message.

Dem votes are what passed that CR. McCarthy and most of the Repubs are the living embodiment of the oft-circulated meme where a dude is riding a bike, thrusts a stick into the spoke of the front wheel, crashes, and then wails “why did the democrats do this?!”

Their new speaker isn’t going to last for long either. Once again, it will be one of the freedom caucus or perhaps MTG (who got kicked out of the freedom caucus because she was too crazy and annoying even for them) who calls for the motion to vacate.

This guy too will have to count on Dems to save his ass. Maybe they will, probably they won’t, but either way the Repubs are going to once again be the living embodiment of that meme.

The Republicans have the majority in the House but all they’ve shown is that they are so splintered and riddled with lunatics that they are completely incapable of governing at all.

This is now their identity, and it goes hand in hand with what I said before, that they have no choice but to go all-in on abortion and supporting Trump.

It’s a car with no brakes that has been pushed down from the top of a long hill. It is most definitely going to crash, the only question is how spectacular the crash will be, and it’s the Republican Party itself that cut the brake lines.

There is no escape, for them. It may well be the case that none of us will live long enough to see the day when there is an out, an escape. And they created this situation entirely by themselves.
in other words no differnce when dems blames trump for everything or the ruskies for high infaltion

[Rockstar]

Wow what do Jan 6th protesters and yesterday’s democrat nov 15th protesters have in common? Neither like democrat party politicians.

https://youtu.be/y15GROg-nBI?feature=shared

[em2nought]

Wow what do Jan 6th protesters and yesterday’s democrat nov 15th protesters have in common? Neither like democrat party politicians.

I guarantee mainstream media cameras were pointed in the opposite direction if anyone got too violent at "this" demonstration. :03:

[les green01]

Wow what do Jan 6th protesters and yesterday’s democrat nov 15th protesters have in common? Neither like democrat party politicians.

https://youtu.be/y15GROg-nBI?feature=shared
maybe they thought they was at the southern border oh wait the democrats would have to know we have a southern border and where it is at

[Rockstar]

I guarantee mainstream media cameras were pointed in the opposite direction if anyone got too violent at "this" demonstration. :03:

You know it. :yep:

Rep. McCaul’s pro-Israel resolution was the very first legislation to receive a roll call vote, about four hours after Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA4) was elected as Speaker on October 25. The resolution H.Res. 771: Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists. passed 412 to 10, with 10 actual “no” votes plus six representatives who voted “present.” Rep. Massie was the only Republican to vote against it, just as he was the only Republican not to cosponsor it.

As might be expected, the 10 “no” members are Democrats and had also refused to cosponsor the House resolution 771 in the first place:

Those 10 democrat congressmen leading the riots across the nation instead proposed H.Res. 786: Calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.

D Bush, Cori [D-MO1]
D Jackson, Jonathan [D-IL1]
D Bowman, Jamaal [D-NY16]
D Carson, André [D-IN7].
D García, Jesús “Chuy” [D-IL4]
D Lee, Summer [D-PA12]
D Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY14]
D Omar, Ilhan [D-MN5].
D Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA7]
D Ramirez, Delia [D-IL3].
D Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI12].
D Velázquez, Nydia [D-NY7].
D Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ12]
D Casar, Gregorio [D-TX35]
D Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA7]
D Lee, Barbara [D-CA12]
D Adams, Alma [D-NC12]
D Frost, Maxwell [D-FL10]

[Rockstar]

It must be getting hard to fill the ranks, even so I’d tell the tyrants to go piss up a rope and demand those fascist fans of Joseph Mengele who fired them go fight the wars themselves. In Oct it was reported by CNN: “only 43 of the more than 8,000 US service members who were discharged from the military for refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 have sought to rejoin eight months after the vaccine mandate was officially repealed, according to data provided by the military branches.”




Amid recruiting woes, Army sent letters to soldiers separated for vaccine refusal

The Army separated 1,903 active duty soldiers for COVID-19 vaccine refusal. Letters were sent to approximatel 1,900.

BY PATTY NIEBERG | PUBLISHED NOV 17, 2023 6:01 PM EST

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-covid-vaccine-mandate-reversal/

Soldiers who were forced out of the Army for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine have received letters with instructions on how to rejoin, as the service faces its toughest recruiting environment in a generation.

“As a result of the rescission of all current COVID-19 vaccination requirements, former soldiers who were involuntarily separated for their refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccination may request a correction of their military records,” according to a letter signed by Brig. Gen. Hope Rampy, Army Director of Personnel Management.

It also instructs soldiers looking to return to service to contact an Army, Army Reserve, or National Guard recruiter. It was not immediately clear to an Army spokesperson if soldiers who rejoin would return to their former unit or MOS.

The letter, circulated on social media and confirmed by the Army as authentic to Task & Purpose outlines the steps soldiers can take to correct their military records through the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

In October, CNN reported that only 43 of over 8,000 troops across the entire military had been discharged for refusing the vaccine and showed interest in rejoining. As of September, 19 soldiers returned to active duty, according to the Army.

The letter comes as the Army is dealing with a recruitment crisis. The service missed its recruiting goals for this past year by nearly 15,000 soldiers. A lack of interest from Gen Z to join the military, with many citing factors as broad as the economy and job market to factors as specific as the service’s struggles with sexual assault and suicide in the ranks.

The Army has turned to offering sign-on benefits like bonuses and soldiers’ choice of first duty station. They’ve also upped their advertisement spending to reach various demographics.

The Army separated 1,903 active duty soldiers for refusing the COVID-19 vaccination during the nearly year and a half it was mandatory, the service said. Letters were sent to approximately 1,900 troops, according to an Army spokesperson.

“This was specifically as part of the COVID mandate recession process,” said Army spokesperson Bryce Dubee, referring to policy that was passed in last year’s annual defense policy bill.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memo on Aug. 24, 2021, mandating the services to vaccinate troops against COVID-19. Though the vast majority of soldiers complied, thousands did not, with many believing the vaccines were developed too quickly or were unsafe.

A slew of servicemembers unsuccessfully sought religious exemptions from the vaccine, including 8,945 soldiers, 10,800 airmen and guardians, 4,172 sailors, and 3,717 Marines.

The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act mandated the defense secretary to rescind the COVID-19 vaccination mandate and on Dec. 29, 2022, the Army directed commanders to suspend separation actions for soldiers who refused the vaccine. On Jan. 10, 2023, the defense secretary officially rescinded the requirement.

Earlier this year the Defense Department suggested that 8,400 servicemembers separated for vaccine refusal might be eligible for backpay, but officials walked back that statement in January.

The coronavirus pandemic wasn’t the first time that the military mandated vaccines. In the 1990s, former President Bill Clinton mandated that troops receive the anthrax vaccine, leading to similar lawsuits and complaints about adverse side effects. Some troops continued work, others were penalized with nonjudicial punishments, lost ranks and pay, or received dishonorable discharges.

[em2nought]

It must be getting hard to fill the ranks, even so I’d tell the tyrants to go piss up a rope and demand those fascists who fired them go fight the wars themselves.

They'll probably be creating their own Foreign Legion from all those military age males flooding across our southern border. On the plus side for them, those fellers will feel no conflict of interest at slaughtering those evil Trump voters if called on to do that. :D

[MrMojok69]

in other words no differnce when dems blames trump for everything or the ruskies for high infaltion

No, what it means is, exactly what I said. There was zero ambiguity in there, zero room for interpretation.

I was very precise in my wording, and the common idea held by you guys that you can twist anything to mean whatever you want it to mean/twist it into whatever makes you feel better, is another reason why you've failed, and will continue to fail.

Maybe try reading the post again. I am honestly stunned that you could have read what I posted, and taken that from it.

[Skybird]

Au weia.

https://www.nzz.ch/international/wahl-usa-trump-plant-einen-autoritaeren-rachefeldzug-bei-wiederwahl-ld.1765525?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term

[Skybird]

No, what it means is, exactly what I said. There was zero ambiguity in there, zero room for interpretation.

I was very precise in my wording, and the common idea held by you guys that you can twist anything to mean whatever you want it to mean/twist it into whatever makes you feel better, is another reason why you've failed, and will continue to fail.

Maybe try reading the post again. I am honestly stunned that you could have read what I posted, and taken that from it.
George Orwell predicted that truth will not be truth anymore, and reality will get completely deconstructed by total relativization.

[Rockstar]

I got good news and I got bad news.

1st the good news! Biden gets China to curb Fentanyl production.

Now for the bad news! Biden will lift restrictions on a Chinese agency accused of human-rights violations in exchange for Beijing’s planned crackdown on the fentanyl trade, per Bloomberg.

So let me get this straight. Biden asked China to stop flooding the US with illegal drugs. And China only agreed to do this if we turn our cheeks from the heinous human-rights violations they commit?! And our leader of the free world says ya sure, no problem. :doh:


Biden to Lift Curbs on Chinese Forensic Lab in Fentanyl Deal

Chinese forensic science institute will come off US blacklist
Fentanyl agreement was centerpiece of Biden-Xi meeting


https://archive.ph/2023.11.16-221544/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-16/biden-to-lift-curbs-on-chinese-forensic-lab-in-fentanyl-deal

By Jenny Leonard
November 16, 2023 at 10:01 PM UTC

The US will lift restrictions on a Chinese agency accused of human-rights violations in exchange for Beijing’s planned crackdown on the fentanyl trade, according to a Biden administration official.

Joe Biden’s deal with Xi Jinping to curb production of illicit fentanyl, a deadly synthetic drug, was one of the main achievements for the US president resulting from his high-stakes meeting with the Chinese leader.

China’s Ministry of Public Security’s Institute for Forensic Science, a national network of crime labs, will see restrictions on access to US technology lifted as part of the agreement, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the deal.

The curbs, put in place in 2020 by former President Donald Trump, prohibited the institute from doing business with US companies due to its alleged human-rights violations against ethnic Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang region.

Removing the institute from the Commerce Department’s trade blacklist was the only way for the US to make progress with China on the fentanyl issue, the administration official said. The official called the US concession a modest step and cited other authorities, like financial sanctions, that remain in place to address human-rights issues.

In return, China agreed to issue a notice to its domestic industries reminding them about legal restrictions on the manufacture and export of fentanyl, precursor chemicals and pill-press equipment used to make the drug. Chinese authorities have also begun to take law enforcement actions against synthetic-drug and chemical-precursor suppliers, according to a White House fact sheet.

“As a result, certain PRC-based pharmaceutical companies have ceased operations and have had some international payment accounts blocked,” the fact sheet said, using an acronym for China.

Health Crisis

The issue is a priority for Biden, who has faced criticism from Republicans over his administration’s handling of the issue ahead of the 2024 election. Fentanyl addiction and deaths have spiked for the last decade, becoming a major problem in states and cities across the US.

Biden hailed the agreement as a key step toward stemming the opioid epidemic after his four-hour meeting with Xi outside San Francisco.

“That’s a big movement,” Biden said of the deal during a press conference Wednesday. “It’s going to save lives, and I appreciate President Xi’s commitment on this issue.”

He added that the leaders asked their teams “to maintain policy and law enforcement coordination going forward to make sure it works.”

Human Rights

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said Biden did not receive enough assurances from China.

“The Biden administration made concessions to get this meeting – only to make more concessions – including the removal of an organization from the entity list known to conduct human rights abuses,” McCaul said in a Thursday statement.
State Department spokesman Matt Miller defended the administration’s human-rights record and said Biden raised specific concerns about China’s violations with Xi.

“We have to make tough decisions in this administration and the decision that we made was that when you looked at the potential of saving American lives by securing this cooperation with China on fentanyl trafficking, it was an appropriate step to take,” Miller told reporters.

It is not clear if the administration would reimpose the entity listing on the forensics institute if Beijing does not abide by the agreement.
Asked if he trusted Xi to follow through on his commitments, Biden said: “Look, do I trust? You know, I — ‘trust but verify,’ as the old saying goes. That’s where I am.”

— With assistance from Iain Marlow

[Jimbuna]

George Orwell predicted that truth will not be truth anymore, and reality will get completely deconstructed by total relativization.

Hasn't that already came to pass? :)

[Rockstar]

In 110 years the Fed has never brought inflation down this hard without a severe recession. And last time it happened in the 70s they responded with cheap money that made inflation, and stagnation, even worse.

The main difference this time is private debt is 50 times bigger and federal debt is 100 times bigger.

https://youtu.be/n76_2DWAf1o?feature=shared

https://i.postimg.cc/v8hksLDc/IMG-3167.jpg

[Skybird]

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/finanzen/boerse/aktien/gastbeitrag-von-gabor-steingart-hier-zeigt-sich-die-verwundbarkeit-der-usa_id_247373167.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp


The USA's most dangerous opponent is not China, Russia or Iran, but its own greed for the moment.

[Jimbuna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuYqR8jilBw

[Rockstar]

https://i.postimg.cc/k46zRnJ1/IMG-3169.jpg
Ruh-roh Raggy.

Oh the drama :lol:

As per Congressman Clay Higgins vvv

“Prepare to be shocked. This release will reveal the insidious truth that the left and the corrupt officials at FBI/DOJ do NOT want Americans to see.

No less than 5-10 key Democrats will announce they’re retiring from Congress. Don’t doubt me.”

https://youtu.be/DvlMw3BeYtQ?feature=shared

[Otto Harkaman]

^^ :up:

[Rockstar]

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/finanzen/boerse/aktien/gastbeitrag-von-gabor-steingart-hier-zeigt-sich-die-verwundbarkeit-der-usa_id_247373167.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Lol not all of America, its the Lobbyists, corporations, foreign governments, connected cronies, congressmen they’re the ones benefitting from my tax dollars and all of the government subsidies, new deals, grants and insider information. Us peons are the ones stuck footing the bill, I can’t afford to be greedy. :03:

[Dargo]

Lol not all of America, its the Lobbyists, corporations, foreign governments, connected cronies, congressmen they’re the ones benefitting from my tax dollars and all of the government subsidies, new deals, grants and insider information. Us peons are the ones stuck footing the bill, I can’t afford to be greedy. :03:Do not think it will help you, be assured this is not only in the US :D

[MrMojok69]

in other words no differnce when dems blames trump for everything or the ruskies for high infaltion

That's what you got, from what I said?

[MrMojok69]

For what it's worth, I am all for any President or Presidential candidate, or former President being prosecuted for crimes.

If it's the Biden Crime Family--- prosecute them.

Some have said that no President can be prosecuted for criminal charges while in office. It's a DOJ idea that has never been put before the USSC, but could be at some point in the future.

Anyway, if you got the juice... go for the squeeze. Do it.

But at the same time, the Republican Congress can't even get itself together enough to stop shooting themselves in the face, over and over.

It is the most dysfunctional thing I have ever seen in our country, and I am 55 years old. It isn't even so much more about how much they hate the "Democrat" Party, as it is about how much they despise each other.

Some of the old Repub guard wants things to go back to the way they used to be, when Dem and Repub lawmakers were friends and went out to lunch together, and maintained cordial relations.

A lot of the new Repub blood wants to cut each others' throats, show up for soundbites on Fox and Newsmax, and completely demolish all of our institutions.

No matter which faction "wins" they will have to deal with a rabid body of constituents whose pastime is to send death threats to anyone that pisses them off, and this body was created by them, themselves, along with Fox News. The radicalization was created by, encouraged by, them themselves and Fox News fanned the ember into flame.

There is no going back. It's been made into what it is and most of us won't live long enough to see a real change in the base.

Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) was captured in a picture cowering in terror on 1/6, then later made a performative trip to Pakistan where he pretended he was Chuck Norris, going into Afghanistan to rescue military and civilian personnel trapped there, then tweeted something that implied Biden was going to have him assassinated for doing this, then later deleted that tweet, then later left and came home having accomplished absolutely nothing because the whole thing was performative, then later challenged a teamster to a fistfight during a senate hearing.

He also performatively removed his wedding ring as he stood up to fight, and I think most of you here are old enough and wise enough to know that nobody ever does that in a real fight. Like, ever.

This is the modern GOP. How do you ever come back from this?

[Rockstar]

Weaponization of the judicial system against a political opponents. A president who approves of business and sharing U.S. technology with a Chinese company involved in human trafficking, Generals challenging civilian authority, Congress making decisions which affect the stock market and then profit from that insider information. No budget, continued defict spending and rising inflation, rising crime, rising homelessness, rising drug use, illegal immigration while supporting two new wars. Political divide in what should be an a-political military, unable to meet recruiting goals. Democrat congressmen chanting “from the river to the sea” leading violent protests. This is the modern state of the union. How does the COUNTRY ever come back from this?

https://i.postimg.cc/zB6hRWC9/IMG-3170.jpg

[Jimbuna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIdRNHboERQ

[Rockstar]

White House staff celebrated the day by presenting President Biden with his foreign policy. Not since 1814 when the British burned the capitol has there been that big of a dumpster fire in DC.

https://i.postimg.cc/Pqnz9LwZ/IMG-3176.jpg

[Rockstar]

67% of Republicans and 59% of Independents say their overall personal financial situation has gotten worse since November 2020, per Bankrate.

31% of Democrats say the same.

https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/biden-economy-and-personal-finances-survey/

Seems the people constantly complaining about privilege are claiming to be doing better since November 2020? Sounds like privilege :hmmm:

“The plight of the economy over the next 12 months may help to dictate whether it was wise, or not, for President Biden to trumpet the branding of ‘Bidenomics.’ The risk for President Biden is that he’ll get more blame than credit for the economy. But there’s still a long way to go before election day.”

— MARK HAMRICK | BANKRATE SENIOR ECONOMIC ANALYST

[Jeff-Groves]

White House staff celebrated the day by presenting President Biden with his foreign policy. Not since 1814 when the British burned the capitol has there been that big of a dumpster fire in DC.

https://i.postimg.cc/Pqnz9LwZ/IMG-3176.jpg


Where was the ignorent Democrat that likes pulling Fire Alarms?
Hell. That was a perfect time to do it legally!
:o

[Rockstar]

Delay the vote!

https://i.postimg.cc/3Rv321gG/IMG-2889.jpg

[Jimbuna]

A co-defendant in Donald Trump's Georgia election fraud case can remain free until trial, a judge has ruled, rejecting a plea that he be jailed for an alleged "pattern of intimidation".

Prosecutors wanted bail revoked for Harrison Floyd, ex-head of Black Voices for Trump, over his social media posts.

Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Mr Floyd did technically violate his bond, but said the deal should be modified.

Mr Floyd and the ex-US president are among 19 who were charged in the case.

On Tuesday, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee said that Mr Floyd's bond agreement should be updated to reflect the "nuances of social media".

"I think the ultimate result of today's hearing is that it's very clear to me that this bond needs to be modified," he said.

Lawyers for Mr Floyd, 39, argued that prosecutors were trying to silence his freedom of speech. They said their client would willingly "tone it down" if the judge asked him to do so.

He was initially jailed following his arrest in August, but released after five days when a judge granted him bail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67492832

[Jimbuna]

Joe Biden has a response for your jokes about his age :)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-67459287

[Rockstar]

The Abraham Accords are bilateral agreements on Arab–Israeli normalization signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on September 15, 2020. Mediated by the United States, the initial announcement of August 13, 2020, concerned only Israel and the United Arab Emirates before the announcement of a follow-up agreement between Israel and Bahrain on September 11, 2020. On September 15, 2020, the official signing ceremony for the first iteration of the Abraham Accords was hosted by the Trump administration at the White House. As part of the dual agreements, both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain recognized Israel's sovereignty, enabling the establishment of full diplomatic relations.

Now the “big guy’ takes credit for it. But he says he just can’t prove it! That’s because he wasn’t involved in the Abraham Accords :hmmm: :har:

@ 8:28 Reporter: “Mr. President, you said you were hoping to get cooperation from Arab leaders? What are you hearing from them when you talk to them? [indecipherable].”

Biden: “I’m hearing a lot, but I’m not going to speak to it right now. There’s an overwhelming desire on the part of the region to — let me back up.

I cannot prove what I’m about to say, but I believe one of the reasons why Hamas struck when they did was they knew that I was working very closely with the Saudis, & others in the region to bring peace to the region by having recognition of Israel & Israel’s right to exist.

You may recall when we did the G-20 a little while ago, I was able to get a resolution — a statement passed through there saying we’re going to build a railroad from Riyadh all the way through the Middle East into Saudi Arabia, Israel, et cetera, and all the way up to Europe — not the — not the railroad but underground pipeline and then railroad. The whole idea is there’s overwhelming interest and I think most Arab nations know it and coordinating with one another to change the dynamic in their region for a longer term peace. And that is what I’m going to continue to work on. Thank you all very, very much. I appreciate it.”

https://youtu.be/2rnL-Ef0A0Y?feature=shared

The narcissism is breathtaking, as is the admission of incompetence and the sly diversion. The Abraham Accords were Trump’s triumph and his team would not have screwed up. Biden’s antipathy to Trump and petty insistence he receive no credit - even to the point of erasing “Abraham” - set back the project, and the insane resurrection of the Iran deal helped fuel Hamas. His policy of appeasing Tehran fueled its aggression, isolated Israel, estranged our gulf partners, enabled sanctions relief to Putin, provided unprecedented opportunity to China, and resulted in regional conflict. All of which, regrettably, can be easily proven.

And I’ll tell you the reason U.S. hostages have not been released. It’s Hamas way to get the Biden administration to pressure Israel to extend the ceasefire.

To you euros, spam on. We may joke about his age but the concerns regarding his mental faculty is very real, even before he was elected.

Yet here we are, welcome to Brandon’s Circus

https://i.postimg.cc/B678kvHr/IMG-3196.jpg

[Jimbuna]

Joe Biden can ‘no longer be propped up’ President slammed ahead of 2024 elections ‘can’t be trusted’

Joe Biden can “no longer be propped up” with the US President facing mutiny from sections of his own voter base, Lauren Chen has claimed.

The political commentator says there is “trouble ahead” for the Democrats as the party struggles with its stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Swathes of youngsters have taken to the streets of America demanding a ceasefire, a position at odds with the US President who is steadfast in his support for Israel.

According to Chen, this is sowing the seeds of a conflict in the Democrat Party as Biden already faces questions over his future.

Speaking to GB News, she questioned whether Biden can carry out a second presidential term.

“There’s no question that he is, whether you’re Democrat or Republican, frankly, just not physically and mentally fit to serve as president”, she said.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/joe-biden-can-no-longer-be-propped-up-president-slammed-ahead-of-2024-elections-can-t-be-trusted/ar-AA1kueqT?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=151328245ed94aaf914166410c7a6f96&ei=16

I reckon dissention in the ranks is more than Biden expected and will struggle to cope with...unlike Trump.

[Rockstar]

Could it be a created escalation by herding inncocent people into a crowd of protestors or is it just stupidity?

Unfortunately no one is likely to see this question because it will probably get buried under a massive padding of post counts. :haha:


https://youtu.be/bN2ZfhZ7CZ4?si=eh1VVyI6CjaMwpyk

[Jimbuna]

Prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia aren't willing to give former President Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani the same plea deals they gave to attorneys Sidney Powell, Ken Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis.

The Guardian's Hugo Lowell reports that prosecutors have ruled out offering deals to Trump and Giuliani, as well as to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, which means that those three will be dragged into court to face charges in Fulton County DA Fani Willis' sprawling racketeering case.

According to Lowell, this strategy "signals who prosecutors consider their main targets, and how they want to wield the power of Georgia’s racketeering statute to their advantage."

While it's not known exactly how prosecutors will use the guilty pleas from Powell, Ellis, and Chesebro against Trump, Giuliani, and Meadows, we do know a little bit about some of the damning testimony they have delivered so far.
Ellis, for example, said she was told by Trump aide Dan Scavino that the former president was not going to leave the White House "under any circumstances," no matter the official results of the 2020 election.

Powell, meanwhile, testified that Trump sought out her counsel on trying to overturn the results of the election because practically every other lawyer in the White House told him he had lost and that the should prepare to leave.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-and-giuliani-will-be-dragged-to-trial-as-georgia-prosecutors-rule-out-plea-deals/ar-AA1kF51K?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=eb0ea768a9ed40b1b39c5940c0a63456&ei=17

[Rockstar]

Black-on-black crime occurs daily on the south side of Chicago, with shootings every weekend. Additionally, there's a significant issue of massive illegal immigration due to the city being declared a sanctuary and he’s blaming right-wing extremism and saying that’s the problem in Chicago. Really?

You can always count on a Democrat not to accept responsibility for their own personal failures. What’s scarier still is there are people out there who will believe him.

https://news.yahoo.com/chicago-mayor-blames-wing-extremism-035636358.html

https://i.postimg.cc/PxwV8CVG/IMG-3211.jpg

[Rockstar]

Day to day the stock market and huge companies dominate the headlines. However over half of American workers are employed by small businesses.

Profits for small businesses are at 20 year lows and the recession is already here. Small business labor and energy costs are going thru the roof.

https://youtu.be/mgvKTShaT3c?feature=shared

[Jimbuna]

Gag order reinstated in Trump’s fraud trial.

A state appeals court in New York has reinstated a gag order in Donald Trump’s fraud trial, after court officials revealed the wave of death threats and attacks against members of the court staff.

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron put the gag order in place to protect his chief clerk and other court staff from the former president’s abuse and subsequent attacks that have flooded his office.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/gag-order-reinstated-in-trump-s-fraud-trial/ar-AA1kNrx3?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=9bb353bca7074efa810c4122d5231e63&ei=11

[Rockstar]

Gag order reinstated in Trump’s fraud trial.

More from British news sources and Moonlight says it’s us Americans who are obsessed :har::har:

[ET2SN]

Could it be a created escalation by herding inncocent people into a crowd of protestors or is it just stupidity?

Unfortunately no one is likely to see this question because it will probably get buried under a massive padding of post counts. :haha:


https://youtu.be/bN2ZfhZ7CZ4?si=eh1VVyI6CjaMwpyk

If I see three dudes getting ready to rob a liquor store and I decide to hang out with them, my ### is going to the clink. :yep:

Really, this isn't hard to figure out. :yeah:

[Rockstar]

If I see three dudes getting ready to rob a liquor store and I decide to hang out with them, my ### is going to the clink. :yep:

Really, this isn't hard to figure out. :yeah:


The plaintiffs were not involved in anything unlawful they were peaceably exercising their constitutional right. The plaintiffs were afraid of an unruly mob and the police in question refused the use of a safe alternative exit. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs saying that by forcing the plaintiffs into the fray it caused a “state created danger”. Which is why those police lost their qualified immunity and can now be sued for their choices.

A police officer has to personally and knowingly really screw things up for themselves and others to lose their qualified immunity. So my question stands were the officers involved knowingly trying to escalate an already bad situation or were they just plain stupid?

[ET2SN]

Yeah, yeah, yeah and I'm planning to tell the judge that I was just standing there minding my own business. :yeah:
I only held the door to the liquor store open to be polite.

What these dumb###es need to understand is that a properly tied noose is designed to shatter one of the vertebrae in their treasonous necks. :up:

[em2nought]

Profits for small businesses are at 20 year lows and the recession is already here. Small business labor and energy costs are going thru the roof.


Small businesses in the USA have been treated badly for a long time now. Sometimes I think people opening most of those businesses are just getting scammed. I'd open a business in Thailand before I'd ever get involved in another business here. :yep:

[Rockstar]

Any Americans watch the DeSantis Newsome debate? Newsom’s arrogance and outright pride caused him to fall into the most obvious trap in modern political history.

Hannity played the long game, convinced Newsom they’re buddies, lured him into this debate. Then fired a broadside of objective facts and figures on his failed records on crime, immigration, taxes, COVID and much more, all backed by California’s enormous population loss, allowing DeSantis to administer one knockout blow after another while Newsom makes awkward faces and nervous smiles as he drowns in facts he can’t spin his way out of. All while providing limitless clips and sound bites that’ll be used against him throughout the brief remainder of his political career. This is amazing to watch. If I were Newsom, I’d suddenly develop COVID and excuse myself from the rest of the debate.

Now we can laugh about Californians migrating to other states but I’ll warn you again. They bring with them the same stupid Democrat ideas and voting record, be warned. They’ll turn your state into the same thing they fled from.

[Jimbuna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcQNHi6gzW4

[Catfish]

^ about time.

[ET2SN]

His time in congress was historic. :yeah::haha:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMxJtMoTnx8

[August]

He'll be replaced by a Democrat by the Dem state governor, further eroding the GoPs razor thin margin.

[Commander Wallace]

I think it's terrible that serial liar and fraudster George Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives. George only did what many others do.

* Okay, Okay. I admit I was bribed and " paid " to say this because I was plyed with free cookies and coffee and treats at George's office. * :haha:


George Santos was an embarrassment and liability to the Republican Party. I'm happy at least some Republican's had the Integrity to oust Santos. :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Now, It's time for the Democrats to show the same Integrity and do the same and get rid of Menedez. :yep:

[Rockstar]

Newsom: Ron has literally the worst mental health system in America. Forgive me outside of Mississippi and Texas..

DeSantis: *hold up feces map*


https://youtu.be/wUwlSrFRqi4?feature=shared

[August]

Now, It's time for the Democrats to show the same Integrity and do the same and get rid of Menedez. :yep:


Won't happen anytime soon i'll bet. The Dems majority in the Senate is even more razor thin than the Repubes in the HoR.

[em2nought]

Newsom: Ron has literally the worst mental health system in America. Forgive me outside of Mississippi and Texas..

DeSantis: *hold up feces map*


https://youtu.be/wUwlSrFRqi4?feature=shared

If I was Ron no way I'd have gone into that debate without an apple in my pocket. :D

[Commander Wallace]

Won't happen anytime soon i'll bet. The Dems majority in the Senate is even more razor thin than the Repubes in the HoR.

You may well be right, politics being what it is. However, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania has called for fellow Democrat, Senator Robert Menedez to also be expelled. John Fetterman has essentially said, how can you expel George Santos who is a chronic liar, loser and also a criminal and not take action against Menedez ? Senator Menendez is essentially a traitor and has accepted bribes and his actions are more sinister. This is prefaced by the fact that neither Santos or Menedez, although charged, have been convicted.

Quote: Sen. Menendez allegedly tried to use his position to benefit the Egyptian government and New Jersey businessmen in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself and his wife. The bribes (https://thenationaldesk.com/news/nation-world/democratic-new-jersey-sen-robert-menendez-indicted-in-federal-corruption-probe-southern-district-of-new-york-congress#)allegedly included gold bars, a luxury convertible, cash and mortgage payments.

“Senator Menendez needs to go, and if you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow somebody like Menendez to remain in the Senate?” Fetterman asked. “He has the right for his day in court and all that but he doesn’t have the right to have those kinds of votes and things that — that’s not a right. And I think we need to make that kind of decision to send him out.”

Menendez was first indicted along with his wife on federal bribery and extortion charges (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/22/authorities-to-charge-u-s-sen-bob-menendez-and-wife-today-00117590) in September for allegedly accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in cash, gold bars, a Mercedes-Benz C-300 convertible and home mortgage payments in exchange for using the senator’s position to benefit the businesspeople and the government of Egypt between 2018 and 2022.

In October, federal prosecutors accused him of secretly acting as an agent of the government of Egypt, (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/12/menendez-accused-of-acting-as-foreign-agent-for-egypt-while-helming-senate-foreign-relations-committee-00121225) while serving as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The senator has pleaded not guilty (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/23/menendez-egypt-foreign-agent-new-jersey-00123063)to all charges.

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/john-fetterman-calls-to-expel-democratic-colleague-from-senate-send-him-out-pennsylvania-george-santos-new-york-new-jersey-politicians-congress-senator-crimes-convictions-egypt-the-view-abc

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/01/fetterman-menendez-santos-expulsion-00129697

Maybe this is the first step in cleaning their respective houses. Sen. John Fetterman deserves a lot of credit for taking a stand against a fellow Democrat. :yep:

[Rockstar]

I think it's terrible that serial liar and fraudster George Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives. George only did what many others do.

* Okay, Okay. I admit I was bribed and " paid " to say this because I was plyed with free cookies and coffee and treats at George's office. * :haha:


George Santos was an embarrassment and liability to the Republican Party. I'm happy at least some Republican's had the Integrity to oust Santos. :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Now, It's time for the Democrats to show the same Integrity and do the same and get rid of Menedez. :yep:


What irks me about Santos is how he was even allowed to be a candidate to represent The Great State of New York in the first place. I can understand the house ethics committee getting involved once an official is elected and been on the job. However, looking at the Committee report much what they reported should have been brought to light long BEFORE he was elected. New Yorkers and our illustrious investigative journalists need to do a lot more due diligence.

The state of U.S. politics it seems candidates aren’t being vetted by journalists and people aren’t considering the candidate's merits, policy, platform, ethics. Only mindless voting just to stick it to the other party out of spite.

As for Menendez I’m still out on that one. I don’t trust any of them any further than I can throw’em. But he was a respected congressman right up until he and his committee questioned why some U.S. oil firms were still working with Russia. The next ya know <poof> he’s accused of being a traitor, peers calling for him to resign and nobody else has continued questioning the companies. I did read some articles protecting the companies, how they had already patched things up, and that it was a mistake and couldn’t understand why Menendez was asking questions.

[Commander Wallace]

What irks me about Santos is that he was even allowed to be candidate for New York in the first place. New Yorkers and our illustrious investigative journalists need to do a lot more due diligence. But looking at the state of U.S. politics I’m thinking most candidates aren’t voted for based on their merits, policy. It’s been boiled down to voting to stick to the other party out of spite.

As for Menendez I’m still out on that one. I trust any of them any further than I can throw’ em. But he was congressman right up until he and his committee questioned why U.S. oil companies were still working with Russia. The next ya know <poof> he’s a traitor and needs to resign.

Well, you hit the nail on the head. Really. Everyone is left to wonder why no one did their due diligence, including the Journalists To see if this Individual had any qualifications at all. If someone had checked Santos out, and his story and litany of fabrications, the voters would have been able to hopefully make an Intelligent and informed decision regarding their respective votes.

In reality, there is no shortage of stupidity or lack of morals or ethical considerations by either the Democrats or Republicans. If we are to believe that elections are fair and honest, then we have to do our own research on candidates as part of our due diligence. Hopefully, this episode will wake people up to pay attention at election time.

[Jimbuna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vhwse8w3SA

[Jimbuna]

I suppose this was inevitable really and could well image identical behaviour had it happened here in the UK.

'Spineless Republicans': MAGA influencers rage after expulsion of George Santos

Former Rep. George Santos (R-NY), the scandal-plagued New York Republican who has even been accused of stealing from one of his own colleagues' mothers, was expelled in an overwhelming vote on Friday.

But rather than cheering on Republicans for upholding ethical standards by voting to expel Santos, many Trump-loving MAGA influencers raged at "cowardly" party members for turning on one of their own, no matter how many criminal charges and damning House Ethics Committee reports piled up against him.

"They won’t expel Swalwell, Schiff, Omar, Tlaib, Bowman for actual treason but they’ll expel Santos," wrote LibsOfTikTok creator Chaya Raichik. "This is why we lose. I’m so sick of cowardly and spineless Republicans!!!!"
In fact, there is no evidence that any of the Democratic lawmakers listed in Raichik's post committed treason, while there is substantial evidence that Santos defrauded his own donors.

Juanita Broderick, a Trump supporter who once accused former President Bill Clinton of raping her, expressed a similar sentiment.

"The worthless House of Representatives has expelled George Santos while scum sucking bottom feeders like Schiff, Swallwell and the Squad remain," she complained.

Donald Trump Jr., meanwhile, suggested that Santos' expulsion was a violation of his constitutional rights.

"Right, wrong, or indifferent as it relates to the George Santos expulsion, it seems America is getting very comfortable disregarding basic tenants of our constitution, namely these days it seems everyone is guilty until proven innocent and not vice versa… especially republicans!" he wrote.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/spineless-republicans-maga-influencers-rage-after-expulsion-of-george-santos/ar-AA1kRfWD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=c502b9a5cf254e5eb4e1f4991edd9d98&ei=14

[Rockstar]

Yeah, yeah, yeah and I'm planning to tell the judge that I was just standing there minding my own business. :yeah:
I only held the door to the liquor store open to be polite.

What these dumb###es need to understand is that a properly tied noose is designed to shatter one of the vertebrae in their treasonous necks. :up:


Oh, I've heard about your kind. Based on your own words, not mine, it seems you're one of those who would blame the women for being raped because she walked down the wrong street. Got it :up:

Reckon she should have been been wearing a hijab huh?

[em2nought]

I suppose this was inevitable really and could well image identical behaviour had it happened here in the UK.

It certainly "feels" like justice is peeking out from under her blindfold to me. :03:

[Rockstar]

https://youtu.be/p4QGOHahiVM?si=SzvKkRBlS-epafg5

[Jimbuna]

It certainly "feels" like justice is peeking out from under her blindfold to me. :03:

Could well be :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Politics the world over unfortunately.

Trump campaign has received nearly $1.8 million from his clemency recipients

Donald Trump's questionable usage of his presidential pardon power before he left office is paying dividends for his 2024 presidential campaign as grateful recipients are showering his campaign with cash and, in some cases, using the media platforms to boost his chances of returning to the Oval Office.

According to a deep dive from the Washington Post, the former president and his campaign have taken in nearly $1.8 million from appreciative recipients and their families with more expected to come.

The report notes, Donald Trump's ability to grant clemency was mostly focused on those accused of white-collar crime than any other offenses, with the Post adding that "tax scofflaws, health-care fraudsters, corrupt politicians and Ponzi schemers all benefited."
Those people, the report notes, are well positioned to lavish money on his latest campaign.

"The Post found 26 clemency recipients or their immediate family members have contributed to a Trump campaign account or a pro-Trump political committee. That means more than 1 out of 10 of the people who received pardons and commutations gave money either before they received clemency, afterward or in both periods, for a total of nearly $1.8 million," the report states with Charles Kushner, father of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner leading the way.

The elder Kushner, who received his pardon in 2020 has contributed $1 million to a pro-Trump super PAC in 2023.

The report adds, "New York-based real estate investor Alex Adjmi had served time in the late 1990s for a money-laundering conviction. He rarely donated to federal campaigns, records show, but in 2020he made three payments, including one contribution to the Republican National Committee and another to a joint account with the Trump campaign totaling $37,600. Adjmi was among the 144 people who received clemency on Trump’s last day in office. This year, he donated $100,000 to a pro-Trump political committee."

In an interview, Adjmi claimed, "It had nothing to do with my pardon.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-campaign-has-received-nearly-1-8-million-from-his-clemency-recipients-report/ar-AA1kTszd?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=ce67cbd30f714d0e813243a895345989&ei=25

[Rockstar]

In 2026 new cars, someone can remotely stop your car with the flick of a switch, listen to your conversations and watch you while you drive.

https://youtu.be/pQVuEgeyh6A?si=jOJV_VMEoa6psPyY

[Rockstar]

One Supreme Court Case Could Mess Up Chunks of the Tax Code
Justices will debate the meaning of ‘income’ under the 16th Amendment

By
Richard Rubin and Jess Bravin
Dec. 3, 2023 at 9:00 am ET

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/one-supreme-court-case-could-mess-up-chunks-of-the-tax-code-680a9ba6

WASHINGTON—A case that could punch holes in the federal tax code heads to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The court will hear arguments in Moore v. U.S., which challenges a piece of the 2017 tax law that imposed a one-time levy on profits that companies had accumulated outside the U.S. But its implications could reach much further, providing the justices an opportunity to define what Congress can tax under the Constitution—and what it can’t.

The case, brought by a Washington state couple seeking a $14,729 refund, raises a seemingly simple question: Must income be “realized,” or received, before it can be taxed?

Charles and Kathleen Moore argue that when the law passed, they hadn’t realized income from their investment in an India-based company and thus couldn’t be taxed. Some conservative groups have backed them, seeing a chance to block future Congresses from taxing wealth or unrealized capital gains. A broad ruling for the Moores could create a constitutional bar against some popular Democratic proposals to tax the superrich.

Tax lawyers and the government say a sweeping ruling could also upend many longstanding rules affecting partnerships, multinational companies and bond investors. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who helped write the 2017 tax law, warned in September that the case could damage a third of the tax code.

If the Moores win, investors and companies could demand billions of dollars in refunds tied to the 2017 law. And a loss for the government could prompt a wave of lawsuits over other tax-code provisions, according to lawyers.

“It’s hard to see how this is going to turn out well,” said David Rosenbloom, a tax lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale. “They really are opening up a can of worms.”

Uncontroversial provision

The Moore case stems from a piece of the 2017 tax law written by Republicans and signed by President Donald Trump. The provision itself was relatively uncontroversial.

Before then, U.S. companies paid foreign taxes on foreign profits but could defer any U.S. taxes until they brought earnings back home. Republicans switched to a system with a minimum annual U.S. tax on foreign profits and tax-free repatriation.

In that transition, to deal with 30 years of profits companies had accumulated overseas that hadn’t faced U.S. taxation, Congress imposed a one-time levy.

The bulk of the estimated $338 billion in revenue that change generated is being paid by large companies such as Apple, Alphabet and Microsoft. But the tax also applied to some individuals, including those who owned more than 10% of a foreign corporation.

That group includes the Moores, who had invested in KisanKraft, a friend’s company in India. The couple, backed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other conservative groups, sued for a refund. They say that they hadn’t realized any of KisanKraft’s profits, so the one-time tax wasn’t within Congress’s 16th Amendment power to tax income.

Lower courts disagreed, saying income doesn’t have to be received to be taxed. The pair appealed to the Supreme Court, which will decide what the Constitution says about taxing income.

What is ‘income’?

The Constitution, as ratified, gave Congress broad national taxing power. But it required that any “direct taxes,” such as per-capita taxes, be apportioned among the states by population.

After the Civil War, Congress sought to impose an individual income tax, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that such a move was an unconstitutional direct tax. A response was the 16th Amendment, which says “income, from whatever source derived,” can be taxed without apportionment. That led to the modern federal income tax.

The 1913 amendment doesn’t specify what “income” means, nor does it say income must be realized.

The government contends that plenty of tax-code provisions already don’t require Americans to see income hit their bank accounts. That includes rules governing the taxation of futures contracts and bonds with original-issue discounts.

Tax lawyers point to other examples. Since the 1960s, significant U.S. investors in foreign companies have faced taxes on those corporations’ passive income, even if the Americans didn’t get money directly. That is a way of keeping U.S. taxpayers from dodging taxes by stashing assets in foreign corporations.

Partners are taxed on partnerships’ annual profits, even if they don’t get a check for their portion. Some people who renounce their citizenship owe taxes as if they sold assets. Certain securities dealers can pay income taxes on changes in asset value. Even basic accrual accounting—booking income before it is literally received—could be considered a form of unrealized income. Recent minimum taxes on large U.S. corporations or international income could also be in jeopardy.

Some think-tank estimates tally the potential revenue impact of a sweeping ruling in favor of the Moores in the trillions.

“A holding that the realization rule is constitutionally required could well cause massive parts of the current tax system to become invalidated,” said David Schizer, a Columbia law professor.

The Moores argue that the 2017 tax is unique because it reaches back to capture years of accumulated earnings. The problem, their lawyers contend, is that taxes fell on whoever owned assets when the law was passed, not people who actually earned or received income.

Court’s options

In briefs and at conferences, tax lawyers have suggested ways the court could decide the case without jeopardizing other tax-code provisions.

The simplest would be to say the Constitution doesn’t require income to be realized for it to be taxed. But that could conflict with a previous ruling from 1920 that has been limited by subsequent cases.

Another option: The court could avoid the broader question by saying that KisanKraft realized income and that the Moores can be taxed on it because they are significant investors.

The court also could say that realization is necessary but that the one-time foreign-profit tax meets the definition. That might not disrupt existing law, but it could offer a warning against taxes on wealth or unrealized capital gains that are percolating in Congress and Democratic policy circles.

“If they say realization is required and it’s satisfied here, then it’s probably going to be satisfied nearly everywhere at least under existing law,” said Andy Grewal, a University of Iowa law professor.

One other option could let the justices sidestep the realization argument. They could declare that the 2017 tax is neither an income tax governed by the 16th Amendment nor a direct tax subject to apportionment. That is similar to what the court did in 2012, when it upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate for purchasing health insurance as a constitutional tax.

Rosenbloom, the tax lawyer, said he expects the justices to overrule lower courts, perhaps in a narrower way that will nonetheless spur new challenges to tax-code provisions.

“This is the beginning of the story, not the end. And it could be a long story,” he said. “The court will be writing on a very, very blank slate.”

Write to Richard Rubin at richard.rubin@wsj.com and Jess Bravin at Jess.Bravin@wsj.com

Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[Jimbuna]

McCarthy limps towards possible exit from Congress after year of bruising speakership

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was third in line to the presidency just a few months ago. Soon, he may not be in Washington at all.

The California congressman endured a grinding nine months as leader of a fractured and bitter Republican caucus, one that may have been destined to cast him aside from the very beginning. Following a last-minute deal with Democrats to avert a government shutdown in October, he was unceremoniously ousted by one of his most polarising foes: Matt Gaetz of Florida, leading a cadre of Republican malcontents with their own varying complaints about Mr McCarthy’s leadership.

It was no secret within Washington DC circles that Mr McCarthy, 58, had long pined for the speaker’s chair. He had assumed the role of Republican foil to Nancy Pelosi years ago, and was hoping to begin his term this year at the helm of a reinvigorated Republican majority propelled into office by a “red wave” in November of 2022.
The red wave never materialised. Instead, Republicans eked out only a single-digit majority, unable to capitalise on growing concerns about Joe Biden’s performance and age and dragged down by a politically-toxic ruling by the Supreme Court tossing out the legal precedent set by Roe vs Wade. In the Senate, the party fared even worse; Democrats expanded their control of the chamber by one vote, prohibiting most legislation that leaves the House from ever reaching the president’s desk.

Mr McCarthy assumed control in the midst of all of this. Support from moderates in his party was hamstrung by his party’s aforementioned electoral troubles, and conservatives were eager to exact meaningful concessions from the new speaker — including a lowered motion to vacate threshold which eventually was the cause of his demise. Just one member could trigger a vote to remove the speaker from their job.

Just a few short months later, he was out. Republican rightwingers cited a lack of trust in his leadership, unmoved by his ploys for their support including an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden launched without a full House vote.

Now, reports indicate that the onetime GOP standard-bearer is more uncertain than ever about his future in Washington.

This past Wednesday, he addressed his future with remarks that exemplified that uncertainty during an interview following an appearance at the New York Times DealBook summit in New York. And he confirmed directly that he was considering leaving Congress altogether.

“I just went through losing, so you go through different stages,” said the former speaker, according to the Times. “I have to know that when I go, that there’s a place for me, and what am I going to do, and is that best?”

“I have to know that if I decided that wasn’t for me and I leave, I don’t want a year from now to think ‘Aw, I regret — I shouldn’t have left,’” he continued. “So if I take a little longer than most people normally, that’s just what I’m going through.”

Mr McCarthy’s own comments during the effort to oust him indicated that the successful vote to fire him caught him by surprise. His actions and those of his allies in the weeks following the vote (and the subsequent eruption of turmoil in the House) reinforced that idea, and suggested a personal animus towards those who ended his career. Democrats who had supported the vote saw themselves expelled from hideaways within the main Capitol building by a key McCarthy ally, while Mr McCarthy himself been unrestrained in his public criticism of Republicans like Mr Gaetz, Nancy Mace and Tim Burchett who were behind his removal.

In one wilder incident, an NPR congressional correspondent witnessed a confrontation between Mr Burchett and the former speaker in the halls of Capitol Hill after the former speaker physically collided with his colleague from Tennessee during the latter’s interview. Mr Burchett maintains that Mr McCarthy deliberately elbowed him in the back; Mr McCarthy denies this.

In October shortly following his removal from the speakership, he stressed to reporters that he would not resign and intended to run for reelection.

“I’m not resigning. I got a lot more work to do.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mccarthy-limps-towards-possible-exit-from-congress-after-year-of-bruising-speakership/ar-AA1kVXKy?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=878134ac56434caa994da071ff5d0947&ei=8

[Jimbuna]

And never the twain shall meet

Trump calls Biden ‘destroyer’ of democracy despite own efforts to overturn 2020 election

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday attempted to turn the tables on his likely rival in November, President Joe Biden, arguing that the man whose election victory Trump tried to overturn is “the destroyer of American democracy.”

Trump’s allegations about Biden, a Democrat, echo the ones that Biden has been making for years against his predecessor. As Trump has dominated the Republican presidential primary and talked about targeting his rivals and the news media if he wins the White House again, Biden has stepped up his own warnings, contending Trump is “ determined to destroy American democracy.”

On Saturday, Trump made his most explicit argument to date on why voters should instead see his rival as the bigger democratic threat. Trump repeated his longstanding contention that the four criminal indictments against him show Biden is misusing the federal justice system against his rival.
“He’s been weaponising government against his political opponents like a Third World political tyrant,” Trump said to a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Biden and his radical left allies like to pose as standing up as allies of democracy,” Trump continued, arguing: “Joe Biden is not the defender of American democracy, Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy.”

Ammar Moussa, a Biden campaign spokesman, responded: “Donald Trump’s America in 2025 is one where the government is his personal weapon to lock up his political enemies. You don’t have to take our word for it — Trump has admitted it himself.”

Trump has long promised to prosecute Biden in retaliation should he return to the White House. On Saturday, though, the former president extended his arguments about Biden’s threat to democracy to lawsuits filed by two liberal organizations seeking to rule him ineligible for office under a rarely used Civil War-era constitutional provision that prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from returning to office.

All of the suits to date have failed. Biden has no involvement in them, but Democratic donors who back him also help fund the liberal groups filing the claims. That’s led Trump to blame them on the president, whom he contended had “defaced the Constitution” in trying to block him.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-calls-biden-destroyer-of-democracy-despite-own-efforts-to-overturn-2020-election/ar-AA1kVTLx?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=ff26c7ffb3e94e3fbd5816159c3be48a&ei=15

[Rockstar]

Whoa, former U.S. ambassador caught working for Cuba.

Former U.S. ambassador charged with being an agent for Cuba

UPDATED DECEMBER 4, 20233:29 PM ET
HEARD ON ALL THINGS CONSIDERED

By
Greg Allen


https://www.npr.org/2023/12/04/1217055868/us-ambassador-cuba-spy


A longtime U.S. diplomat who served as ambassador to Bolivia has been arrested and charged with being a clandestine for the Cuban government.

Victor Manuel Rocha was a State Department employee for more than 20 years. Prosecutors say during that time and in the 20 years since, he acted as an illegal agent for Cuba. He was formally charged today in federal court in Miami.

Rocha was born in Colombia and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1978. According to the criminal complaint, he began working for the State Department in 1981. Over the next two decades, he held positions at U.S. embassies in Mexico, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and Bolivia where he served as ambassador.

From 1995 to 1997, he was stationed in the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, Cuba.

"This action exposes one of the highest-reaching and longest-lasting infiltrations of the United States government by a foreign agent," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in Washington following Rocha's arrest.

Rocha is charged with conspiring to act as an agent of a foreign government and with passport fraud.

"Like all federal officials, U.S. diplomats swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Acting as an agent for Cuba – a hostile foreign power – is a blatant violation of that oath and betrays the trust of the American people," FBI Director Christopher Wray said.

In the complaint, prosecutors say the FBI was alerted of Rocha's alleged work for Cuba in 2022. An FBI undercover employee, posing as a Cuban agent, then contacted Rocha and held a series of meetings with him in Miami. In those meetings, the complaint says Rocha admitted to being a Cuban agent for nearly four decades.

His stint in the U.S. Interest Section in Havana between 1995 and 1997 was at a time of heightened tensions between the two countries. In February 1996, the Cuban military shot down two airplanes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a U.S. group opposed to the Castro regime. Four people were killed. At one of the meetings with an undercover FBI employee, Rocha called it "the knock down of the small planes." He said, "Brothers to the Rescue and other similar people ...were pushing politics toward unnecessary provocations."

In 2002, while serving as ambassador to Bolivia, Rocha inserted himself into that country's presidential race, warning Bolivians that if they elected former coca grower Evo Morales President, the U.S. might retaliate by cutting aid. The move gave the leftist Morales a boost, and is credited with helping him win election three years later.

The federal criminal complaint doesn't cite any specific episodes where Rocha's work for Cuba undermined U.S. policy or interests. In his meetings with the FBI informant, Rocha appears to have grown increasingly confident and bragged about the importance of the information he provided the Cuban government.

"For me, what has been done, has strengthened the Revolution," he said. "What he have done...it's enormous...More than a grand slam."

[Jimbuna]

Rather worrying if true or is it?

Trump shares warning that his own re-election will plunge America into dictatorship

Former President Donald Trump promoted a post on Truth Social linking to an article warning that his re-election would create an American dictatorship.

The post was originally made by Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL), a supporter of the former president, and included a link to the Washington Post opinion article, "A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending."

"Pres. Trump could not win a general election. They tried to launch countless indictments & false allegations to get him off the ballot. Now, it’s obvious the Americans from all walks of life, not from any singular socioeconomic background, are in staunch support of Donald J. Trump," Mills wrote above the link.

"The American people want the economy Trump created, affordable living conditions, safety back in our communities, peace through strength foreign policies that prevented all out war, and an America first driven agenda."
"All that is opposite of what we’ve gotten under the failed Biden Admin," Mills continued.

The article itself, written by editor Robert Kagan, warned that Trump, who is currently trying to use his own criminal indictments to boost his brand with voters, will shape his next administration into a personality cult.

"Those who choose to serve in his second administration will not be taking office with the unstated intention of refusing to carry out his wishes," it stated.

"If the Heritage Foundation has its way, and there is no reason to believe it won’t, many of those career bureaucrats will be gone, replaced by people carefully 'vetted' to ensure their loyalty to Trump."

A number of reports have already outlined how Trump, and GOP interest groups aligned with him, have laid out a plan for stripping away all civil service protections and basing employment in the executive branch on loyalty to the president and fealty to his orders.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-shares-warning-that-his-own-re-election-will-plunge-america-into-dictatorship/ar-AA1kZFuI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=0d1505ac1b0d417888dc6006885f4913&ei=9

[Buddahaid]

And McCarthy announces he will resign at the end of the year, and he will take the war chest of donor money with him no doubt.

Meanwhile, the MAGA party tells the world what they will do if Trump gets elected. I never thought I'd face a choice between voting for keeping the government I grew up with, or a fascist dictatorship in the making.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNssViWw3EA

[August]

It disturbs you to think Trump might start acting like a democrat eh? :)

[em2nought]

The Republicans should offer to give up impeachment of Biden in exchange for fixing the broken border.

[Buddahaid]

It disturbs you to think Trump might start acting like a democrat eh? :)

And that means what?

This piece shows the letters exchanged between Comer and Hunter Biden's lawyer. Why does Comer insist on a secret hearing while lying on Fox about Hunter's choices? Where's the transparency Comer, afraid of the light of day?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Ph-6tHDMY&t=483s

[ET2SN]

I'm still not sure if I'm posting this in the correct thread, but for the most part its about the US. :hmmm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8iEaPwc_SI


So, watch this vid and be skeptical all you want.
No matter how you feel, pulling a cut-and-run NOW on Ukraine should make you a little angry. :yep:

"We were 100% on their side..until we weren't." :oops:

This new "hardcore" stance only rewards one guy, who painted himself into a small corner when he invaded and started the war.

The outcome is pretty chilling. Look for missiles to get aimed at Poland next.
After that, look for attacks on Germany. We should also remember, Ukraine has held up much better than anyone thought they could. They have a very smart military and Intel service. They also have a very good memory. Meaning, don't be shocked when things start blowing up in north America. :O:
Payback, as they say, is a #####. And we'll certainly deserve it. :yep:

Also, keep an ear out to hear The Sensible Talking Heads call for the repeal of Article V. If we're going to reward Putin for doing something stupid, we may as well go all the way. :nope:

[ET2SN]

The Republicans should offer to give up impeachment of Biden in exchange for fixing the broken border.

The Senate is basically split 50/50 and they'll need 67% to convict.
How do you think this is going to play out? :smug:

BTW, this is the same basic tactic the Yakuza used in Japan after WWII.
If you don't believe me, look it up. :yep:

[em2nought]

The Senate is basically split 50/50 and they'll need 67% to convict.
How do you think this is going to play out? :smug:

I'm certain it will play out as a huge waste of time. Hoping to give up a great big nothing to get at least something.

[Jimbuna]

Been catching up on the fourth Republican debate and it looks to me like Trump is a nailed on certainty for the Republican nomination.

[Jimbuna]

Doesn't sound too dissimilar to the political pantomimes we have here in the UK

Republican debate: Ratings plunge to lowest yet in 2024 presidential cycle

The fourth Republican debate in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, this week pulled in the lowest ratings yet of all GOP primary debates during this 2024 presidential race.

Over 4 million people tuned in to NewsNation and The CW to watch Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Chris Christie go head-to-head on stage on Wednesday night.

This is down from 7 million viewers of the third debate, which was down from 9 million and 12.8 million from the second and first.

Wednesday’s debate frequently veered out of control as most of the attacks focused on former UN Ambassador Ms Haley who has been rising in the polls.

Entrepreneur Mr Ramaswamy was met with boos from the audience when he called her “corrupt” and a “fascist” before going on a screed about her foreign policy experience, saying experience isn’t “wisdom”.
Former New Jersey Governor Mr Christie finally had enough of Mr Ramaswamy calling him “the most obnoxious blowhard in America”.

On Thursday, CNN announced that they will host two debates in January – one on the 10th in Iowa, and another on the 21st in New Hampshire.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/republican-debate-ratings-plunge-to-lowest-yet-in-2024-presidential-cycle/ar-AA1lcmsi?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=575e0c23996e488d9ea3ba5f80b54b74&ei=13

[mapuc]

What impact would this have on the futures Presidency of USA ?

Dispute over Trump's immunity in historic case may end up in the Supreme Court

https://ekstrabladet-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/tvist-om-trumps-immunitet-i-historisk-sag-kan-ende-i-hoejesteret/10056696?_x_tr_sl=da&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=da&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Heaven only knows when this sad state of affairs will eventually come to a conclusion but one thing that has been settled as far as I'm aware is the fact that he is liable for fraud.

'Litany of all the lies': Trump's ex-lawyer on why former president ducked testifying

Former White House attorney Ty Cobb is convinced reason finally won out over Donald Trump's ego Monday.

Cobb appeared on CNN Monday night to discuss the former president's decision not to take the stand in his $250 million civil fraud trial.

"He was not an effective witness, no matter you know, what the PR is from the other side," Cobb said. "He's not going to get cross-examined much on what he's going to say, he will get taken through a litany of all the lies that he's told during the relevant period for this trial."

Cobb noted the 45th president, when he took the witness stand back in early November, acknowledged mistakes, including the inflated valuation of Trump Tower sprawling apartment and also noted that about 95% of assets listed in a 2014 financial condition statement didn't adhere to generally accepted accounting principles.
"He really has nothing to add to the evidentiary pile, in this case, at this stage in the game," Cobb said. "He's already testified and in an unhinged manner, he made multiple, multiple admissions that severely damaged this case."

That case was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who contends the Trump Organization defrauded lenders by inflating the value of company assets.

While Trump denies wrongdoing, Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled the former president is liable for fraud. The trial will determine damages.

Cobb also argued Trump's testimony would not have been likely to help him in his bid for the White House in 2024.

"I'm sure they would probably take the top 40 hits and expose him as someone with no credibility," Cobb said during an appearance on CNN's “Erin Burnett OutFront."

"That doesn't help him politically."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/litany-of-all-the-lies-trump-s-ex-lawyer-on-why-former-president-ducked-testifying/ar-AA1llXzo?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=4f1e1bc42ed1411283622777fdd11df6&ei=33

[August]

Heaven only knows when this sad state of affairs will eventually come to a conclusion but one thing that has been settled as far as I'm aware is the fact that he is liable for fraud.


Given that incorrect property valuations made by the owner have never been called fraud in the history of the republic. Nor do they ever determine loan amounts or interest percentages since lenders always go by their own valuations. So ask yourself why just Trump is being prosecuted for it.

[Buddahaid]

Nice try.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/survey-new-york-felony-falsification-of-business-records-just-security.pdf

[August]

Nice try.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/survey-new-york-felony-falsification-of-business-records-just-security.pdf




Considering that the examples in your "gotcha link" are all for different crimes i can't tell you nice try. More like you crashed and burned Senator. Show me an example of overestimating property values or take your snarkyness and stick it.

[Buddahaid]

How mature. Falsifying business records is one of the remaining counts being adjudged.

[Buddahaid]

Here's more about the 1956 Martin Act (63 12).
https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-executive/article-5-department-of-law/section-63-general-duties/analysis?citingPage=1&sort=relevance

[Jimbuna]

U.S. Congress prohibits presidents of country from withdrawing from NATO

Presidents of the United States will no longer be able to unilaterally withdraw from NATO, according to The Hill.

The U.S. Congress has confirmed its support for NATO. In the past, the alliance faced criticism from former President Trump. However, under President Biden, the significance of NATO has increased, especially after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

"NATO has held strong in response to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war in Ukraine and rising challenges around the world. The law reaffirms U.S. support for this crucial alliance that is foundational for our national security. It also sends a strong message to authoritarians around the world that the free world remains united," said Senator Kaine.
During his presidency, Biden strengthened NATO by sending more troops to Europe as a demonstration of strength against Putin's aggression and expanded the alliance with the inclusion of Finland and Sweden.

Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, had varied opinions on NATO. His supporters argue that the criticism from the former president inspired NATO member states to increase defense spending, relieving the burden on the U.S. However, Trump's critics believe his words undermined NATO, fearing he might abandon U.S. commitments to the alliance's mutual defense pact or even withdraw from it.

Earlier, it was reported that the U.S. Congress passed a bill prohibiting the purchase of nuclear fuel from Russia.

It was also mentioned that South Korea is assisting NATO in addressing the issue of a weapons shortage.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/eu-s-von-der-leyen-eyeing-potential-alternatives-amid-hungary-veto/ar-AA1lyYLD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=d8c33fc900944c78aa14b9c2ae4a7b4a&ei=14

[Buddahaid]

And Rudy gets his butt handed to him with a $148,000,000 verdict and complains he wasn't allowed to testify. His butt must be jealous of his mouth for all the crap that comes out of it.

[Otto Harkaman]

https://youtu.be/PrpQmWYGSFs?si=cOmniH7iGfGfCQwb

[Jimbuna]

Reminds me of the Queen song "The Show Must Go On"

Donald Trump aligns himself with Orban and Putin in bid to sway voters away from Biden

Donald Trump has compared himself to Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán in his latest bid to win over voters.

The former president was speaking at the University of New Hampshire in Durham on Saturday, where he aligned himself to the Russian and Hungarian leaders.

Trump was pushing his message that the criminal cases against him are a "coordinated persecution" in an attempt to diminish his lead in general election polls.

The presidential hopeful quoted Putin and welcomed compliments from Orbán.

Trump said: "Even Vladimir Putin… says that Biden’s, and this is a quote, politically motivated persecution of his political rival is very good for Russia because it shows the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy.
"They [are] weaponising law enforcement for high-level election interference because we’re beating them so badly in the polls.

"Viktor Orbán, the highly respected prime minister of Hungary, said Trump is the man who can save the Western world."

The former president also spoke of his relationship with North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, who he said praised his premiership. Trump said: "He’s not so fond of this administration, but he’s fond of me" adding that he is "very nice".
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/donald-trump-aligns-himself-with-orban-and-putin-in-bid-to-sway-voters-away-from-biden/ar-AA1lGyTN?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=6fc602f7ed8942ae82b6b53802a5ef23&ei=23

[mapuc]

This came as a surprise since I have been told(here in this thread) the 14th Amendment doesn't apply in this case.


In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Markus

[Buddahaid]

I was just going to post that. The decision is stayed until January 4th for the US Supreme Court to take it up.

EDIT: Actually, the Colorado State ballot gets set on January 5th which is why the stay goes to the 4th, in other words, figure it out by then or Trump is off the ballot.

[Reece]

Reminds me of the Queen song "The Show Must Go On"
Donald Trump aligns himself with Orban and Putin in bid to sway voters away from Biden

Donald Trump has compared himself to Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán in his latest bid to win over voters.

The former president was speaking at the University of New Hampshire in Durham on Saturday, where he aligned himself to the Russian and Hungarian leaders.

Trump was pushing his message that the criminal cases against him are a "coordinated persecution" in an attempt to diminish his lead in general election polls.

The presidential hopeful quoted Putin and welcomed compliments from Orbán.

Trump said: "Even Vladimir Putin… says that Biden’s, and this is a quote, politically motivated persecution of his political rival is very good for Russia because it shows the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy.
"They [are] weaponising law enforcement for high-level election interference because we’re beating them so badly in the polls.

"Viktor Orbán, the highly respected prime minister of Hungary, said Trump is the man who can save the Western world."

The former president also spoke of his relationship with North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, who he said praised his premiership. Trump said: "He’s not so fond of this administration, but he’s fond of me" adding that he is "very nice".
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...02a5ef23&ei=23 (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/donald-trump-aligns-himself-with-orban-and-putin-in-bid-to-sway-voters-away-from-biden/ar-AA1lGyTN?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEDSE&cvid=6fc602f7ed8942ae82b6b53802a5ef23&ei=23)
Good grief!! Well I've lost all respect for Trump!! :-?

[Jimbuna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAxeKkosdjs

[Neptunus Rex]

This came as a surprise since I have been told(here in this thread) the 14th Amendment doesn't apply in this case.



https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Markus

I'll go even further. Who decides when an event or incident is an act of insurrection against the US Government?

It's not the courts, and most certainly NOT a state court, even a State Supreme Court.

It's not the Attorney General, state or federal.

It's not the US Senate.

It's not the US House of Representatives.

The US Insurrection Act of 1807 specifically states there is only person that can declare a state of rebellion or insurrection against the US Government.

The President of the United States!

On the day in question, Donald Trump was the President of the United States and he made no such declaration, that day or after.

[mapuc]

^ Thank you

Aren't they on a slide track ?

First it was Colorado who will it be next in line to remove/prevent Trump from running in their State ?

Yes the US Supreme Court will take it up to see if Colorado has broken some civil laws.
(Did not get it right in words-Thinking and getting it onto writing is two different thing)

Markus

[vienna]

I'll go even further. Who decides when an event or incident is an act of insurrection against the US Government?

It's not the courts, and most certainly NOT a state court, even a State Supreme Court.

It's not the Attorney General, state or federal.

It's not the US Senate.

It's not the US House of Representatives.

The US Insurrection Act of 1807 specifically states there is only person that can declare a state of rebellion or insurrection against the US Government.

The President of the United States!

On the day in question, Donald Trump was the President of the United States and he made no such declaration, that day or after.



Umm... that might work except it is a basic tenet of law that the perpetrator of a crime cannot be held unaccountable for his actions even if he is, ostensibly, an "immune" architect of a crime during or after the crime; basically, once you commit a crime and you are in a position to rule on that crime, your ability to stand in judgement of the legality ceases and the matter is then in the ballpark of law enforcement and, ultimately the courts; a judge, for example, cannot rule on the legalities of his own criminality, nor can a legislator pass a law excluding him/herself from prosecution; Trump was a active/willing originator in his criminal actions and once he crossed that threshold, it didn't matter if he, as acting President, did or did not declare an insurrection; he placed himself outside the law, was in violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, uphold Federal law, and to defend both fully; if you wanted to get technical, Trump was impeached for essentially what you say he can't be touched over so, yes, actually, Congress does have the power to address treason by a President; as far as "that day or after", the cabal of treason was in full swing long before Jan 6 and Trump was fully aware of the known and very real consequences of his actions; I seriously doubt that even the majority conservative SCOTUS Justices could finesse and finagle a rationale to get The Orange Hitler's family jewels out of the vise of the justice system; he has suffered loss after loss after loss in his legal machinations thus far and he continues to get clobbered; now he's painted himself into a corner and the stalling tactics are getting less and less effective...



<O>

[Gorpet]

Umm... that might work except it is a basic tenet of law that the perpetrator of a crime cannot be held unaccountable for his actions even if he is, ostensibly, an "immune" architect of a crime during or after the crime; basically, once you commit a crime and you are in a position to rule on that crime, your ability to stand in judgement of the legality ceases and the matter is then in the ballpark of law enforcement and, ultimately the courts; a judge, for example, cannot rule on the legalities of his own criminality, nor can a legislator pass a law excluding him/herself from prosecution; Trump was a active/willing originator in his criminal actions and once he crossed that threshold, it didn't matter if he, as acting President, did or did not declare an insurrection; he placed himself outside the law, was in violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, uphold Federal law, and to defend both fully; if you wanted to get technical, Trump was impeached for essentially what you say he can't be touched over so, yes, actually, Congress does have the power to address treason by a President; as far as "that day or after", the cabal of treason was in full swing long before Jan 6 and Trump was fully aware of the known and very real consequences of his actions; I seriously doubt that even the majority conservative SCOTUS Justices could finesse and finagle a rationale to get The Orange Hitler's family jewels out of the vise of the justice system; he has suffered loss after loss after loss in his legal machinations thus far and he continues to get clobbered; now he's painted himself into a corner and the stalling tactics are getting less and less effective...



<O>

Oh Hell,You sound wealthy and Democrat,The most squawkers have the most to lose. What are you afraid of that hasn't already happened ?

[bweiss]

Well, as long as we're talking insurrection here, whether real or imagined.

What does one call the conspiracy to organize and plan the willful refusal by the Head of State to abide by their Oath of Office, to honor and protect the Constitution and the co-conspirators individual Oath(s) of Office to honor and protect the Constitution, which includes enforcing "all" of the existing laws of the United States vis-à-vis the border and immigration laws of the United States, by purposely and willfully destroying the border protection wall(s), ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ignore enforcement of existing law(s), nullifying the Nation's declared borders (and endangering the safety of it's citizenry), by unidentified and unvetted scores of individuals and groups, to freely enter the country in violation of U.S. law amounting to, by any legal definition of the words, an open and wholesale invasion of, and/or abridgement of, the sovereignty of the United States.

I would also submit, that under the present and past three years of the voluminous visual and other well documented evidence of the Federal Government's willful refusal to enforce said laws, such a violation of the Constitution also results in and provides unfettered entrance to, and occupation of, the United States by an unknown number, (presently estimated in the many hundreds of thousands to millions) of individuals and groups of individuals from around the globe which according to the data collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Control on those they even know about, would include vast numbers originating from those Nations which are hostile to the United States, or which have otherwise declared themselves to be enemies of the United States, and whom may seek to harm the United States and it's citizens.

Whereby it may be reasonably judged that such numbers of illegal border crossings also include declared and undeclared enemies of the United States, to include international criminal cartels, and foreign terrorist organizations, and further by providing these enemies with free airfare, cellphones, hotel accommodations, food, medical care, travel expenses, and so forth and so on, all amounting to an all expense paid vacation in the United States, paid for by the Citizens of the United States, which by any legal definition amounts to providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, while simultaneously assisting in and/or harboring of, their disappearance within the United States as it is commonly known to be the case. In as much as the Federal Government refuses to engage in any tracking of their locations, their movements, or their activities, let alone their motivations, within the United States thereby willfully and conspiratorially providing safe harbor to an unknown number of enemies of the United States.

In effect, it is nothing less than an insurrection or rebellion against the citizenry of the United States, the sovereignty of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States. At a minimum and vastly understated, it is a violation of the 14th Amendment, et., al.

14th Amendment

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

(That last sentence being very important as it would require a Congress that isn't actually on vacation 365 days a year).

Oath of Office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

(To restate it, the fulfillment of this oath includes enforcing "all" the laws of the United States - not just the ones that someone likes). Failure to do so, whether willfully and/or conspiratorially, or through gross negligence or incompetence, is never the less a violation of the Oath of Office, the 14th Amendment, and a host of other laws, rules and regulations.



So now just who is it again that shouldn't be on the ballot? :hmmm:


It would appear that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick of Texas, has a pretty good argument on his side.

[August]

Former Ohio Governor John Kasich slammed Colorado’s ruling potentially barring Trump (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/40-house-democrats-join-legislation-bar-trump-from-public-office) from Colorado’s ballot, arguing it is "partisan nonsense."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/kasich-denounces-colorado-ruling-challenges-dems-figure-beat-trump-election-instead




This is what can come out of the Pandoras Box that the Dems have opened.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dan-patrick/) said Tuesday that President Biden should be taken off the 2024 ballot for causing an illegal immigration crisis.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/20/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-wants-joe-biden-kicked-of/

[Aktungbby]

Oh Hell, You sound wealthy and Democrat :FAQ: "...do not use language you wouldn't use around your mother...":timeout::roll::smug: IMHO the quibble with Trump and the fourteenth Amendment is likely to become moot....thanks to the 20th Amendment??!
Colorado’s Supreme Court overlooks the 20th Amendment. If Trump Is Disqualified, He Can Still Run. The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Donald Trump’s name not appear on next year’s Republican presidential primary ballot. The court found that Mr. Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, and that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars a person who has done so from serving as president. Even if these findings are both correct, the Constitution doesn’t bar Mr. Trump from the ballot. Presidents are selected through an indirect, drawn-out process. In November 2024, voters will choose presidential electors. When voting, citizens will see the names of presidential candidates when, in fact, they are voting for the electors who will later vote for president.
One problem for the Colorado court’s ruling is that the 14th Amendment never declares that voters can’t select presidential electors who are pledged to vote for nonqualified candidates. The 14th Amendment disqualifies certain people from holding federal and state office and doesn’t explicitly regulate ballot access. Nor does it expressly authorize state officials to judge the qualifications of candidates or electors. The more decisive flaw is that the ruling ignores a key provision of the 20th Amendment, which provides: “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified” (emphasis added).
The italicized text implies that electors can lawfully vote for a candidate even if he isn’t qualified to serve as president—and he can take office if he qualifies later. But how could that happen? A simple example is if the president-elect will turn 35 after Inauguration Day. (Similarly, Joe Biden was 29 when he was elected to the Senate in 1972 but turned 30 before the start of his term.)
Under the 14th Amendment, a disqualification based on insurrection can also go away: “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It often did so in the postbellum period. In July 1868, three weeks after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, South Carolina’s Legislature elected Franklin J. Moses Sr. as the state’s chief justice. He took office after Congress removed his disqualification in December.
If the U.S. Supreme Court holds that Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection, it’s hard to imagine Congress voting by two-thirds to remove his disqualification. If he is the Republican nominee, his choice of vice president may be even more important than Mr. Biden’s.

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by 2dazy' W.S.J.

Colorado’s Supreme Court overlooks the 20th Amendment.

"If the U.S. Supreme Court holds that Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection, it’s hard to imagine Congress voting by two-thirds to remove his disqualification.
If he is the Republican nominee, his choice of vice president may be even more important than Mr. Biden’s."



Not so fast, if Mr. Biden were to end up as the Democrat nominee, then we could end up with the "most" election of our lifetime...


https://nypost.com/2023/12/20/news/kamala-harris-serves-up-another-word-salad-as-discusses-most-election-of-our-lifetime/ (https://nypost.com/2023/12/20/news/kamala-harris-serves-up-another-word-salad-as-discusses-most-election-of-our-lifetime/)

"“You know, every election cycle we talk about this is the most election of our lifetime.” “Lawrence, this one is, this one is,” she told the host.


https://rangerrick.org/rr_videos/listen-to-a-hyena-laugh/ (https://rangerrick.org/rr_videos/listen-to-a-hyena-laugh/)

[mapuc]

You can't do anything than wait for the outcome from the Supreme Court-What they have to say about this step taken by the State court in Colorado.

Markus

[bweiss]

Very true. Blessed are the peacemakers.


Indeed there is nothing us Serfs can do about it except to peacefully discuss it. Still as Karl Marx demonstrated with "Das Kapital", published in Berlin in 1867, ideas are like viruses.
Whether they be a good virus or a bad virus they all tend to spread. And like all viruses they also evolve as they spread. In this context the truth, often illusive, never-the-less when exposed,
tends to dampen down the evolution of the more dangerous viruses. Kind of like a vaccine. :03:


The doors to heaven and "perdition" and both adjacent and identical.

And that's language my Ma wouldn't have minded. :D

[Skybird]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWsU_zXphuk


Nobody, no matter his title, shall ever be untouchable and self-controlling. NEVER. Thats why we have balance of powers in the West, and just those who want unlimite dpowers try to erode and corrupt this system (quite successfully, unfortunately). In my best understanding, a US president is not meant to be a monarch, though much symbolic stuff in the representation show act of the state and its pomp and also the president's ceremonial acts and public perception of him remind of the monarchy (that the colonists threw out of the window, mind you...).

[mapuc]

Very true. Blessed are the peacemakers.


Indeed there is nothing us Serfs can do about it except to peacefully discuss it. Still as Karl Marx demonstrated with "Das Kapital", published in Berlin in 1867, ideas are like viruses.
Whether they be a good virus or a bad virus they all tend to spread. And like all viruses they also evolve as they spread. In this context the truth, often illusive, never-the-less when exposed,
tends to dampen down the evolution of the more dangerous viruses. Kind of like a vaccine. :03:


The doors to heaven and "perdition" and both adjacent and identical.

And that's language my Ma wouldn't have minded. :D

Keep on discussing-It's interesting to read what my American friends has to say about this..
What I meant when it comes to what Supreme court may come up with-There's nothing we can do than wait.

It's also gonna be interesting to see which one of you come closest to what the Supreme court comes up with.

Will they use the 14th sect. 3 Amendment or will they base their statement on the 20th Amendment ?

Markus

[bweiss]

IMHO, the Supreme's will toss this in the dumpster pronto. If they don't, (and they know this), the result may well be that Mr. Biden will also face elimination from Red State primary ballots,
if not impeached first. What a gift to Mr. Kennedy, with Joe Manchin lurking around on the sidelines.

Let him who be without Sin, cast the first vote. That'd fix it. It's a tie! Nobody wins. Might wind up with the janitor of the Capitol building being sworn in as the only one who no one can find any dirt on.

And, the Epstein files are soon to be released. Who's on Santa's naughty list?!? Something that may also entangle the across the pond politic.

Get out the popcorn, the show's about to begin.

[Buddahaid]

By what due process? Colorado's decision is the result of a lawsuit and I'm pretty sure just declaring Biden off the ballot to get even does not follow the rule of law set by state constitutions.

Also, the Biden impeachment will likely go nowhere since there has been no evidence presented that meets the requirements and must have occurred while in office.

[bweiss]

By what due process? Colorado's decision is the result of a lawsuit and I'm pretty sure just declaring Biden off the ballot to get even does not follow the rule of law set by state constitutions.

Also, the Biden impeachment will likely go nowhere since there has been no evidence presented that meets the requirements and must have occurred while in office.


I don't know about any lawsuit that this Colorado court decision is based upon or connected to. But this is what was published in the AP.


DENVER (AP) — A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s
insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the
front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.


https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2



Based upon that, the State of Colorado does not possess the legal standing to abrogate the Constitution by rendering a decision based solely upon subjective interpretations and spurious political rhetoric, rather than court evidence in a trial conducted according
to, as you say, due process. I'm unaware of any trial involving Mr. Trump wherein he was charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of such. Nor can a state court decide in a vacuum what the Republican party (any legally registered political party), can or cannot
do in their state National primary candidate election process, which is constitutionally protected and resides in the Republican party's exclusive domain (thus as they've just stated, if such were to stand they will simply caucus and choose who they want regardless of the
Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, and or the voters wishes of Colorado for that matter). Nor can the Colorado courts legally make any such judgement (with a hope of it standing) without evidence, a trial, let alone a conviction to base it upon.

Tis why I said; "insurrection, real or imagined".


There's no imagining the millions of people who have crossed the border illegally, nor the fact that the Federal Government has no idea who they are, where they went, what they are doing, and how many are here in the first place,
nor why they are here, to do what exactly, nor more importantly, how many may be outright enemies of this country seeking to cause harm, or are engaged in organized criminal activity? In a Democratic-Republic, the guy in charge is ultimately responsible
for upholding the law, rule, and regulation of the Federal Government and all it's vast entities. The FBI director just issued several warnings in Congressional testimony regarding terrorist threat elevations in the last couple of days, his concerns being directly tied
to this border crisis. That clock is ticking. At some point, likely soon someone is going to be looking into the willful failure to uphold the law, or for any promulgation of countermanding directives to disregard enforcement of the law, which would constitute a
violation of Oath of Office, and the Constitution.


Enter Lt. Governor Dan Patrick of Texas. And I'm sure he's but the first. Yes, the Red States could very well remove Mr. Biden from their State ballots in the same manner as conducted in Colorado against Trump. I don't see what would stop them.


In either instance however, the question is; is it likely to stand? IMO, no it won't as it will not get passed the Supreme Court's judgement, and that as they say, will be the end of that.

[August]

14th Amendment Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Note that the President himself is not specified in that list and I think it is intentional. It doesn’t make sense to specify by name both houses of Congress and the Electors but lump the US President in a broad category with lesser civil and military office holders. If POTUS (and VPOTUS) were intended to be included it would have been at least as clearly specified as Senators and US Representatives but it's not.

[Dowly]

14th Amendment Section 3


Note that the President himself is not specified in that list and I think it is intentional. It doesn’t make sense to specify by name both houses of Congress and the Electors but lump the US President in a broad category with lesser civil and military office holders. If POTUS (and VPOTUS) were intended to be included it would have been at least as clearly specified as Senators and US Representatives but it's not.
Neither Senators nor Representives hold offices and as such are mentioned separately. The President however does hold an office, making him an officer.

[bweiss]

For those interested. (Best viewed in Subsim "dark" modes).

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not as cut and dried as the media attempts to present it, nor as the State Supreme Court in Colorado has sought to defined and politically use it.
But opinions be as they may, here is some information that clouds the issue I fear, for those who believe this is somehow an open and shut case. And I would submit, the Supreme Court will
spend more than a little time delving into this.

Link to the: Congressional Library "Constitution Annotated" Analysis and Interpretation Of the U.S. Constitution:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

Here among other links to the individual sections of the 14th Amendment, is an overview of Section 3:


Amdt14.S3.1 Overview of Disqualification Clause

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Overview Summary: (This is where the plot thickens!).

"The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals."

"1 In 1872, the disabilities WERE REMOVED, (my edit to capitalize the words for emphasis) by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses,
officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."

"2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that "the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed."


NOTE - Item 2: (incurred - heretofore, is HEREBY REMOVED).


In as much as teaching history in schools and universities in the America has all but been eliminated by the Teachers Union, few people know that very many ex-Confederate officers and soldiers
commonly held Federal offices and U.S. Federally elected positions post Appomattox.

As a limited example, here is one such case:


Link to: Robert E. Withers, Colonel, C.S.A., 18th Virginia Infantry Regiment, and later Commander of the Danville Army Depot, C.S.A.:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Withers


Following the war, Withers moved back to Lynchburg in 1866 and established the Lynchburg News, a daily paper devoted to the interests of the Conservative Party.

He was nominated for Governor of Virginia by that party but the party withdrew from the race. He was a presidential elector on the Democratic ticket in 1872. He was elected the
11th Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1873. He was elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1875, to March 4, 1881. He chaired the
Committee on Pensions in the 46th Congress. Withers lost reelection in 1881 to William Mahone of the Readjuster Party.

President Grover Cleveland appointed Withers as the United States consul to British Hong Kong, from 1885–89, when he resigned.

Note that he was, among other things, a "presidential elector", as defined in the 14th Amendment. So the idea that someone who participated in a rebellion, or insurrection,
automatically being disqualified from holding a Federal office is nonsense. It's been done many times in the past and is solid jurisprudence, and as pointed out above the clause no longer exists
as it was removed by an Act of Congress in 1872.

I would assert here that the new Confederate rebels in Colorado, are a bit late to the party.

With regard to the ex-Confederates broadly, there was also what is called the Oath of Repatriation, which in effect was a swearing or re-swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the United States,
fully restoring their citizenry privileges.

Link to: Supplementary Reconstruction Act of Fortieth Congress, March 23, 1867 An Act supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,"
passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and to facilitate restoration. (A long read but an interesting one).


https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_reconact1867_2.html


Finally, it should be noted that all of the media uproar is a "camels nose under the tent". It is all based upon the accusation, notion, opinion, or belief, that there "was" actually an insurrection on Jan 6th to begin with.
And in a reach that would astound Michael Jordan, the Democrats, left wingers, new Confederates, and never-Trumpers, etc., now attempt to supplant the additional fictional tale that Mr. Trump led or somehow caused it.


Caused what exactly?


A dispute about the validity of a National election resulting from the use of a Nationwide system of half-baked and hair brained non-secured electronic voting machines linked by the internet to who knows where, and controlled
by who knows who, from companies owned by (you don't even want to know), based upon state and county controlled outdated voter rolls containing half the people in the local cemetery, and operated (tinkered with), by
highly qualified technical experts who otherwise bake cookies for elementary school functions and in their spare time volunteer to help out at the polls, and otherwise fear to, or have been ordered to, don't ask - don't tell,
when it comes to verification of any voter ID. Right.

The actuality of fact is that this all resides in the realm of spurious political rhetoric produced solely for your entertainment.


Dictionary, Oxford Languages:

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/

noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections

a violent uprising against an authority or government.


That simple definition can be applied to any one of the numerous and well publicized protests, demonstrations, riots, occupations, declarations, marches, speeches, or parades which
take place Nationwide daily, to include video taped sex acts on the floor of Congress or any number of persons who have objected to any governmental process, including the Congressman
sap who recently pulled the Capitol Building fire alarm shutting down a Congressional vote.

And while political rhetoric from media bark-horns has continued to bellow out the term "insurrection", only the lower court in D.C., has issued any judgements against anyone involved,
and most notably of all, convicted them solely of "misdemeanors."

Really!?! An insurrection of such magnitude as the political rhetoric would have one believe, "worse than Pearl Harbor they said", yet of the defendants so far tried (ranging in the hundreds),
to include elderly couples who meandered into, or were invited by the Capitol Police into, the Capitol Building, has resulted in nothing more than mere misdemeanors. Elevated jaywalking tickets.

No hangings, no firing squads, no life sentences, no decades in prison. Surely Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are wishing from the grave that they had registered themselves as Democrats
or at least drove as chauffeurs for a Democrat Senator; perhaps bedded with a Congressman like Fang Fang the honeypot. Quite the contrary to any Pearl Harbor'esque attack,
it was all just made up for television drama best viewed with popcorn and a beer.

It plays well in the world of media bobble-heads, and is intended as red meat for political groupies. It does not stand up to any court or tribunal scrutiny.


As we shall soon see, and if we want to continue to live in a democratic republic we had very well hope to see.

[les green01]

For those interested. (Best viewed in Subsim "dark" modes).

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not as cut and dried as the media attempts to present it, nor as the State Supreme Court in Colorado has sought to defined and politically use it.
But opinions be as they may, here is some information that clouds the issue I fear, for those who believe this is somehow an open and shut case. And I would submit, the Supreme Court will
spend more than a little time delving into this.

Link to the: Congressional Library "Constitution Annotated" Analysis and Interpretation Of the U.S. Constitution:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

Here among other links to the individual sections of the 14th Amendment, is an overview of Section 3:


Amdt14.S3.1 Overview of Disqualification Clause

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Overview Summary: (This is where the plot thickens!).

"The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals."

"1 In 1872, the disabilities WERE REMOVED, (my edit to capitalize the words for emphasis) by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses,
officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."

"2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that "the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed."


NOTE - Item 2: (incurred - heretofore, is HEREBY REMOVED).


In as much as teaching history in schools and universities in the America has all but been eliminated by the Teachers Union, few people know that very many ex-Confederate officers and soldiers
commonly held Federal offices and U.S. Federally elected positions post Appomattox.

As a limited example, here is one such case:


Link to: Robert E. Withers, Colonel, C.S.A., 18th Virginia Infantry Regiment, and later Commander of the Danville Army Depot, C.S.A.:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Withers


Following the war, Withers moved back to Lynchburg in 1866 and established the Lynchburg News, a daily paper devoted to the interests of the Conservative Party.

He was nominated for Governor of Virginia by that party but the party withdrew from the race. He was a presidential elector on the Democratic ticket in 1872. He was elected the
11th Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1873. He was elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1875, to March 4, 1881. He chaired the
Committee on Pensions in the 46th Congress. Withers lost reelection in 1881 to William Mahone of the Readjuster Party.

President Grover Cleveland appointed Withers as the United States consul to British Hong Kong, from 1885–89, when he resigned.

Note that he was, among other things, a "presidential elector", as defined in the 14th Amendment. So the idea that someone who participated in a rebellion, or insurrection,
automatically being disqualified from holding a Federal office is nonsense. It's been done many times in the past and is solid jurisprudence, and as pointed out above the clause no longer exists
as it was removed by an Act of Congress in 1872.

I would assert here that the new Confederate rebels in Colorado, are a bit late to the party.

With regard to the ex-Confederates broadly, there was also what is called the Oath of Repatriation, which in effect was a swearing or re-swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the United States,
fully restoring their citizenry privileges.

Link to: Supplementary Reconstruction Act of Fortieth Congress, March 23, 1867 An Act supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,"
passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and to facilitate restoration. (A long read but an interesting one).


https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_reconact1867_2.html


Finally, it should be noted that all of the media uproar is a "camels nose under the tent". It is all based upon the accusation, notion, opinion, or belief, that there "was" actually an insurrection on Jan 6th to begin with.
And in a reach that would astound Michael Jordan, the Democrats, left wingers, new Confederates, and never-Trumpers, etc., now attempt to supplant the additional fictional tale that Mr. Trump led or somehow caused it.


Caused what exactly?


A dispute about the validity of a National election resulting from the use of a Nationwide system of half-baked and hair brained non-secured voting machines linked by the internet to who knows where, and controlled by who knows who, from companies owned by
(you don't even want to know), and operated (tinkered with), by highly qualified technical experts who otherwise bake cookies for elementary school functions and in their spare time volunteer to help out at the polls. Right.

The actuality of fact is that this all resides in the realm of spurious political rhetoric produced solely for your entertainment.


Dictionary, Oxford Languages:

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/

noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections

a violent uprising against an authority or government.


That simple definition can be applied to any one of the numerous and well publicized protests, demonstrations, riots, occupations, declarations, marches, speeches, or parades which
take place Nationwide daily, to include video taped sex acts on the floor of Congress or any number of persons who have objected to any governmental process, including the Congressman
sap who recently pulled the Capitol Building fire alarm shutting down a Congressional vote.

And while political rhetoric from media bark-horns has continued to bellow out the term "insurrection", only the lower court in D.C., has issued any judgements against anyone involved,
and most notably of all, convicted them solely of "misdemeanors."

Really!?! An insurrection of such magnitude as the political rhetoric would have one believe, "worse than Pearl Harbor they said", yet of the defendants so far tried (ranging in the hundreds),
to include elderly couples who meandered into, or were invited by the Capitol Police into, the Capitol Building, has resulted in nothing more than mere misdemeanors. Elevated jaywalking tickets.

No hangings, no firing squads, no life sentences, no decades in prison. Surely Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are wishing from the grave that they had registered themselves as Democrats
or at least drove as chauffeurs for a Democrat Senator; perhaps bedded with a Congressman like Fang Fang the honeypot. Quite the contrary to any Pearl Harbor'esque attack,
it was all just made up for television drama best viewed with popcorn and a beer.

It plays well in the world of media bobble-heads, and is intended as red meat for political groupies. It does not stand up to any court or tribunal scrutiny.


As we shall soon see, and if we want to continue to live in a democratic republic we had very well hope to see.

well said hope the folks here read yours seem like most didn't read my i know Markus did fact is they are trying to use something that was remove long before any one of us was born

[bweiss]

Well it may not be read by forumers, but as it's electronic it's already been captured by the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, SIS, MI6, Mossad, Chinese Ministry of State, likely as not the Russian FSB,
and any other Nation State hooked to the internet, including Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and the DGB (Disinformation Governance Board) and perhaps most concerning of all, the American Teachers Union.

That's the ones to worry about there. Though I referred to them briefly, technically I didn't question what it is they are actually teaching the lil kiddies in after school sessions. :o

Das Kapital - Ideas spread. Not always good ideas as ole Karl demonstrated, but irrespective the principle remains the same.

[August]

Told ya so. After all turnabout is fair play:


Republican lawmakers in three swing states have announced their plan to remove President Joe Biden from their state ballots.
Aaron Bernstine of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Cory McGarr of the Arizona House of Representatives and Charlice Byrd of the Georgia House of Representatives released a joint statement on Thursday announcing their plan to remove Biden from the 2024 general election ballots in those three states.



https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-pull-trigger-plan-remove-joe-biden-ballots-1855042

[bweiss]

Told ya so. After all turnabout is fair play:





https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-pull-trigger-plan-remove-joe-biden-ballots-1855042


You hit it the nail on the head there.

Ha! Speaking of Confederates in their graves... "Told ya so!"


Most forget, (were never taught history to begin with), that mixed in with the issue of slavery which did not become the focus of hostility until nearly
mid-way through the war, was the issue which lit the fuse over States Rights versus an omnipotent Federal Government or a centralized National governmental power
if you prefer. A long running dispute over the Articles of Confederation versus the Constitution if you will, which despite the Revolutionary War was still in the mid 1800's
hotly debated in Southern State Legislatures. Particularly with regard to foreign export tariffs.


https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html


Funny, the political party that erected all the Confederate hero monuments after they fought against this Nation and lost,
is now the party tearing them down in a public show of self narcissism loudly proclaiming their own purity.

Gives new meaning to; "The South Shall Rise Again".

Ah the humanity of it all...

[mapuc]

Your politicians are on a sloping plane and the slope seems to get more steeper.
Heading for a black Christmas week- Where each state and county remove one of the main candidate.

Until Supreme court gives the go ahead or forbid it.

Markus

[bweiss]

Your politicians are on a sloping plane and the slope seems to get more steeper.
Heading for a black Christmas week- Where each state and county remove one of the main candidate.

Until Supreme court gives the go ahead or forbid it.

Markus


We tend to do that from time to time over here...


“Thus ended the great American Civil War, which must upon the whole be considered the
noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record.”

― Winston Churchill

[mapuc]

Found this article in a Danish newspaper.

I can't say if he's right or not-I personally say it would mean the end of your democracy.


- Whatever January 6 was, it was not a Trump-led coup attempt. They had no weapons and no plan to overthrow the government, says Tucker Carlson in the short video.

However, the former Fox News host believes that in the US we are witnessing a 'coordinated talking point' which is an 'obvious lie'.

- It seems crazy because it is crazy.

https://ekstrabladet-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/politik/tucker-i-trump-forsvar-vanvittigt/10068775?_x_tr_sl=da&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=da&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Markus

[Reece]

I can't say if he's right or not-I personally say it would mean the end of your democracy.

Markus
I doubt it Markus, the bill of rights would prevent that! or there would be a civil war again!! :doh: (just my view, I'm not a politician)

[les green01]

Your politicians are on a sloping plane and the slope seems to get more steeper.
Heading for a black Christmas week- Where each state and county remove one of the main candidate.

Until Supreme court gives the go ahead or forbid it.

Markus

wouldn't be the first time Abe Lincoln on his 1860 election run wasn't on any of the ballots in the south but basic right now the dems are running scare most polls show trump beating biden though i don't put much into polls how you know they are running scare when they try to use part of a amendant thats been remove,what the american people need to do line both parties up tar and feather them then pitchfork them in the backsides right on out

[bweiss]

A stone could have seen it coming...


Down the rabbit hole we go!

From the Gateway Pundit

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-gop-state-lawmakers-draft-bills-remove-joe/

"Biden is leading an insurrection on the border. Time to remove him from the ballot."

https://twitter.com/CoryMcGarr/status/1738192949153022319

— Cory McGarr (@CoryMcGarr) December 22, 2023


"Democrats' insane justification to remove Trump can just as easily be applied to Joe Biden for his "insurrection" at the Southern Border and his alleged corrupt family business dealings with China."


RFK Jr., must be giddy as a drunken school boy at this point. :woot:

[Buddahaid]

I don't know about any lawsuit that this Colorado court decision is based upon or connected to. But this is what was published in the AP.

https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-gop-voters-lawsuit-disqualifying-trump-colorado-ballot-supreme-court-2023-12?amp

[les green01]

Dems and biden border action
Week in Review...

- 19,400 Apprehensions
- 155 Federal Criminal Cases
- 15 Rescues
- 13 Human Smuggling Events
- 6 Narcotics Events
- 4 Convicted Sex Offenders
he just might get on tv and say best week ever

[bweiss]

Deleted this; somehow messed up the thing when it was posted.

[mapuc]

bweiss wrote

The proposed bill states, “To amend title 3, United States Code, to include under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that the vote of an elector of a State shall not be counted if,
with respect to the election for President, the State did not include on the ballot in the State a candidate for President who was nominated by a major political party, and for other purposes.”


Is it possible to get this translated into plain English ?

Markus

[u crank]

Is it possible to get this translated into plain English ?

I think it means that if a Presidential candidate nominated by a major political party is kept off the ballot then that states electoral college votes won't be counted. I think. :D

[bweiss]

bweiss wrote



Is it possible to get this translated into plain English ?

Markus

It's a secret... :D

I think it means that if a Presidential candidate nominated by a major political party is kept off the ballot then that states electoral college votes won't be counted. I think. :D


Correct IMO. :up:


I dropped the civics lecture, if anyone read it.

[Buddahaid]

You are correct, however I was referring to any criminal case of merit which was held through due process and where there were actual charges filed against Trump,
which resulted in some proof or evidence that (a), there actually was an insurrection on Jan 6th, and (b), that Trump actually had something to do with it, and
(c), that Trump was found guilty of a crime, and (d), that in such a case a judge rendered a sentence.

I was unaware that it was directly launched by one of his political opponents seeking to gain an advantage.

My bad for not making that clear.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not a criminal statute and carries no penalty. It only denies eligibility.

Anyway, the DC case currently stayed awaiting the DC Court of Appeals expedited appeal ruling, will answer those points you made. I think they will rule there is no absolute presidential immunity for criminal conduct and that the Supreme Court will not take up a further appeal. There would need to be a procedural error by the DC Court of Appeals as a basis for appeal and I doubt that will occur. The case will likely be heard and there is no double jeopardy because of the J6 impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1-1/ALDE_00000282/
"The Senate has also concluded (by majority vote) on various occasions that an official impeached while in office remains subject to trial, conviction, and imposition of the penalty of disqualification even after he or she leaves office."

[bweiss]

Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not a criminal statute and carries no penalty. It only denies eligibility.

Anyway, the DC case currently stayed awaiting the DC Court of Appeals expedited appeal ruling, will answer those points you made. I think they will rule there is no absolute presidential immunity for criminal conduct and that the Supreme Court will not take up a further appeal. There would need to be a procedural error by the DC Court of Appeals as a basis for appeal and I doubt that will occur. The case will likely be heard and there is no double jeopardy because of the J6 impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1-1/ALDE_00000282/
"The Senate has also concluded (by majority vote) on various occasions that an official impeached while in office remains subject to trial, conviction, and imposition of the penalty of disqualification even after he or she leaves office."

I'm not certain of which D.C., case you refer to? If you mean Jack Smith's investigation/trial, I believe the Supreme Court just ensured that there will be an opportunity for an
appeal to be heard as they denied Smith's request that they expedite a ruling on the question of Presidential immunity. Which, will ensure appellate rights. Whether
or not they choose to hear it remains in their domain, or when to hear it for that matter.


BREAKING: Supreme Court Sends Jack Smith Packing – DENIES His Request For Ruling on Trump Immunity Argument
by Cristina Laila (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/cristina/) Dec. 22, 2023 1:52 pm

“The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly
decide the legal question, which looms large in Trump’s criminal prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference,” NBC News reported (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna130769)."

"Jack Smith will now have to wait for the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC to make a decision. Oral arguments begin on January 9, 2024.

"The US Supreme Court may consider the appeal after the appellate court does, however there is a chance that the SCOTUS won’t take up this case in this term."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-supreme-court-sends-jack-smith-packing-denies/


As to the failed impeachments when he was in office, they didn't pass the Senate at the time they were submitted for vote, I doubt anything else will be heard of them.
Particularly in view of new evidence showing doubt as to just whom it actually was that conspired and instigated the J6 rally issues, and just whom it was that allowed
it to happen by ignoring repeated warnings of potential unrest, and denying requests for additional police resources.

The first impeachment attempt over the phone call with Zelensky, was a pipe dream with no there, there.

A trial arising from old impeachment attempts, would allow Trump disclosure rights, subpoena power, and a chance to turn the table on the accusers.

For vaguely similar reasons Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial as it would have provided him with the legal standing to fight the Civil War all over again before the Supreme Court.

[Catfish]

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right ake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[34]

Founded by Jim Hoft in 2004, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[35][36] During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the site received over a million unique visitors per day.[37] In September 2021, Google demonetized the site for publishing misinformation.[38][39][40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/gateway-pundit/

Or in short, I would look for better media.

[mapuc]

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right ake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[34]

Founded by Jim Hoft in 2004, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[35][36] During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the site received over a million unique visitors per day.[37] In September 2021, Google demonetized the site for publishing misinformation.[38][39][40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/gateway-pundit/

Or in short, I would look for better media.

So per automatic everything they post is wrong, since they are far right
Or
Is what Bweiss posted wrong ?

Markus

[Catfish]

^ Honestly I cannot say, but the media quoted is a bit fishy to say at least.

[mapuc]

^ Honestly I cannot say, but the media quoted is a bit fishy to say at least.

Both far left and far right can have some truth in their writings or mostly wrong thing. The hard job is to figure out what is true and what is not.

Of course a person who's standpoint is far left/right has a tendency to believe most of what these homepage/newspaper write.

Markus

[les green01]

Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not a criminal statute and carries no penalty. It only denies eligibility.

Anyway, the DC case currently stayed awaiting the DC Court of Appeals expedited appeal ruling, will answer those points you made. I think they will rule there is no absolute presidential immunity for criminal conduct and that the Supreme Court will not take up a further appeal. There would need to be a procedural error by the DC Court of Appeals as a basis for appeal and I doubt that will occur. The case will likely be heard and there is no double jeopardy because of the J6 impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1-1/ALDE_00000282/
"The Senate has also concluded (by majority vote) on various occasions that an official impeached while in office remains subject to trial, conviction, and imposition of the penalty of disqualification even after he or she leaves office."
and again Section 3 of the 14th amendment is gone drop in the john and flush kick to the curb ran over by a semi and smash was drop remove by 1900 hell just as well call him a witch and use salem rules from 1600's biden a dumbass and can figure it out maybe hunter to

[bweiss]

^ Honestly I cannot say, but the media quoted is a bit fishy to say at least.


It's good you have an opinion, that's what the 1st Amendment is all about. And you are welcome to it.

In the opinion of millions of Americans, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, the New York Times,
the Washington Post, et., al., amount to little more than spurious alt-left wing influencers carrying water for the
Democratic National Committee/party.

You cite Wiki, as your reliable source of information, as well as Politico. Both left leaning at best, perhaps viewed by many
as alt-left or even outright Marxist in some cases.


From Wiki itself:

Articles related to politics

Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#cite_note-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#cite_note-:1-7)
A comprehensive study conducted on ten different versions of Wikipedia revealed that disputes among editors predominantly
arise on the subject of politics, encompassing politicians, political parties, political movements, and ideologies. These political
topics accounted for approximately 25% of the disputes observed across all language versions studied.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#cite_note-8)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia


Politico also fails the neutrality test.

Politico Rated Lean Left in June 2022 Editorial Review

Politico's bias was rated Lean Left in a June 2022 Editorial Review conducted by a panel of people on the left, center and right.
While there were indicators of Lean Left bias overall, many Politico articles and coverage were found to be Center. On average, panelists
on the left saw Politico's bias as more Center, while people in the Center and on the Right saw the bias as more to the left.
The general consensus was that Politico was on the Center side of Lean Left.
Types of bias most commonly detected were word choice bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/how-to-spot-types-of-media-bias#wordchoice), story choice bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/how-to-spot-types-of-media-bias#StoryPlacement), analysis presented as fact (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/how-to-spot-types-of-media-bias#OpinionAsFact), and some slant (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/how-to-spot-types-of-media-bias#Slant).

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias


The issue is fact versus opinion. Gateway Pundit is conservative news information, well established and as you yourself point out,
highly successful, and it is highly respected by conservatives. I would wager if it published falsehoods and distortions, it wouldn't be so successful and so well respected.
As such it's business model is not based on entertaining far left wing views of ongoing events, rather it provides the news view from a conservative standpoint.

Pretty certain here that today's Karl Marx followers view George Washington as an alt far right wing extremist colonial bigot. Without realizing that in actuality
Marx held a rather positive view of Washington, if not otherwise disenchanted with the ultimate Capitalist outcome of the American Revolution, never-the-less,
Marx praised Washington for casting off the chains of British colonialism. But in concert with modern day alt-left wing media publications, the leftists today
want to haul down Washington's statue.

Poor ole Karl, another victim of disinformation, or is it misinformation?

You say tomato, I say tomahto...

Misinformation or disinformation as it were, is just like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder. :03:

However, rather than attempting to discredit by casting aspersions, how about providing substance. And sure, by all means use your own alt-left wing sources.

[mapuc]

and again Section 3 of the 14th amendment is gone drop in the john and flush kick to the curb ran over by a semi and smash was drop remove by 1900 hell just as well call him a witch and use salem rules from 1600's biden a dumbass and can figure it out maybe hunter to

I do not doubt what you are saying(writing)Since I haven't that much knowledge about your Amendment and their sections.

What I wonder is, if it is true they have removed this section or Amendment why did Colorado use this then ?

Markus

[vienna]

Oh Hell,You sound wealthy and Democrat,The most squawkers have the most to lose. What are you afraid of that hasn't already happened ?


Oh, Hell, you seem to be so consistently and so reliably wrong about so many people and subjects... :03: :haha:

As far as "squawkers" are concerned, you also seem to be one of the squeakiest of the wheels in this thread; what are you so afraid of losing...?...

I also noted that, rather than argue the actual details of my post as a means of advancing you view, you chose instead to to use, what we used to call in debate tournaments, the Coward's Gambit: if you can't sensibly and factually argue against a debate point, hide behind an attack on the person advancing their point; I guess you were afraid you really didn't have a defensible point or argument to stand on; very sad, really...

I am very far from wealthy and, as I have stated numerous times in this thread, I am an Independent, beholden to no party or "wing" and free to use my own common sense and my own discretion without having to 'check in' with the current trend or fad of a party or "wing"; I'm nt afraid of anything that that may come, but I do think the possibility of a repeat of the cluster**** that was the waste of time embodied by the Trump debacle is something less than desirable for the next for years for the US; there are too many serious problems and issues facing our nation to have time, energy, efforts, resources, and funds wastefully expended, as they were 2017-2021, on coddling and and cleaning up after a egotistical, self-centered, ignorant, overgrown toddler and his whining and bitching tantrums...

My best argument against a repeat of the Trump Debacle? I offer up the evidence of the first two years of the Debacle itself: the GOP holding the White House and majority control of both the Senate and the House, managed to waste the opportunity rarely given to any party and squandered whatever they could have advanced in favor of kowtowing to the Great Orange Loser and addressing his petty grievances and soothing his fragile ego rather than actually doing any substantive work towards advancing the interests of the majority voters of the US; it was indeed amusing to watch the Far Right news outlets and pundits expressing shock (Shock!!) that the voters, in the midterms, deigned to oust the GOP from House majority control and reduce their hold on the Senate; they just couldn't seem to grasp the concept of 'if you don't produce results, you don't get to keep the control'...

The voters of the US spoke loudly in 2020 when they gave the bounce to the truly bad employee Trump, who now is making a spectacular case against the concept of "wrongful termination": an awful lot of the times, the person ranting they were wrongfully canned actually did deserve the sacking...

...and, as in real, normal life, someone who is sacked for being an annoying putz of a loser is very, very, very rarely rehired...


I really don't care which party is "in power" as long as the nation is not subjected to another unnecessary period of waste and needless turmoil...


The US, its citizens, and the system of government we have fought for and hold dear surely deserve better...



<O>

[Buddahaid]

I'm not certain of which D.C., case you refer to? If you mean Jack Smith's investigation/trial, I believe the Supreme Court just ensured that there will be an opportunity for an
appeal to be heard as they denied Smith's request that they expedite a ruling on the question of Presidential immunity. Which, will ensure appellate rights. Whether
or not they choose to hear it remains in their domain, or when to hear it for that matter.


BREAKING: Supreme Court Sends Jack Smith Packing – DENIES His Request For Ruling on Trump Immunity Argument
by Cristina Laila (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/cristina/) Dec. 22, 2023 1:52 pm

“The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly
decide the legal question, which looms large in Trump’s criminal prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference,” NBC News reported (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna130769)."

"Jack Smith will now have to wait for the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC to make a decision. Oral arguments begin on January 9, 2024.

"The US Supreme Court may consider the appeal after the appellate court does, however there is a chance that the SCOTUS won’t take up this case in this term."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-supreme-court-sends-jack-smith-packing-denies/


As to the failed impeachments when he was in office, they didn't pass the Senate at the time they were submitted for vote, I doubt anything else will be heard of them.
Particularly in view of new evidence showing doubt as to just whom it actually was that conspired and instigated the J6 rally issues, and just whom it was that allowed
it to happen by ignoring repeated warnings of potential unrest, and denying requests for additional police resources.

The first impeachment attempt over the phone call with Zelensky, was a pipe dream with no there, there.

A trial arising from old impeachment attempts, would allow Trump disclosure rights, subpoena power, and a chance to turn the table on the accusers.

For vaguely similar reasons Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial as it would have provided him with the legal standing to fight the Civil War all over again before the Supreme Court.

That is the DC case I'm referring to and the reporting is essentially factual. Yes, the SCOTUS will allow the DC Court of Appeals to rule before deciding, which is the normal course, and not unexpected. Jack Smith's certiorari writ to the SCOTUS was an attempt to move things along but doesn't really count as a win for Trump, and one might think that Trump would welcome an earlier ruling since he's been claiming he has a water tight (or something) case for immunity and all of this would just evaporate.

Also, this DC case is not a retrial of the impeachment. Impeachment can only be brought to a sitting officer and it's successful outcome is removal from office..

[bweiss]

That is the DC case I'm referring to and the reporting is essentially factual. Yes, the SCOTUS will allow the DC Court of Appeals to rule before deciding, which is the normal course, and not unexpected. Jack Smith's certiorari writ to the SCOTUS was an attempt to move things along but doesn't really count as a win for Trump, and one might think that Trump would welcome an earlier ruling since he's been claiming he has a water tight (or something) case for immunity and all of this would just evaporate.

Also, this DC case is not a retrial of the impeachment. Impeachment can only be brought to a sitting officer and it's successful outcome is removal from office..


In as much as questions have been raised about the source(s) I've cited, here are some well established, if not often spurious, alt-left wing sources:


Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute

By Devan Cole (https://www.cnn.com/profiles/devan-cole), CNN

Updated 5:47 PM EST, Fri December 22, 2023

"The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump"

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html



Supreme Court declines to fast-track Trump immunity dispute in blow to special counsel
By Melissa Quinn, Robert Legare
Updated on: December 22, 2023 / 7:57 PM EST / CBS News

The Supreme Court's decision Friday is a blow to Smith and his team of prosecutors, who have pushed the courts to move quickly to hold trials in the Washington case and the second prosecution in Florida (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charges-against-donald-trump-indictment-documents/) before the presidential election swings into full gear. Trump's attorneys, meanwhile, have urged the courts to delay the trials until after the election."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-declines-to-fast-track-trump-immunity-dispute-in-blow-to-special-counsel/


Trump transformed the Supreme Court. Now the justices could decide his political and legal future

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER (https://apnews.com/author/alanna-durkin-richer) and LINDSAY WHITEHURST (https://apnews.com/author/lindsay-whitehurst)
Updated 9:33 AM EST, December 21, 2023

“The Supreme Court now is really in a sticky wicket, of historical proportions, of constitutional dimensions, to a degree that I don’t think we’ve ever really seen before,” said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin."

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769



Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case on Trump’s Immunity Defense for Now

By Adam Liptak (https://www.nytimes.com/by/adam-liptak)
Reporting from Washington
Dec. 22, 2023

"The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-immunity.html


When I referred to the in-office impeachments, I was talking about any future effort to retry said impeachments now that Trump is out of office, as indicted in your previous post about the possibility of such a thing happening, and did not mean that it was connected in some fashion to the Jack Smith case. Sorry about any confusion.

[bweiss]

I do not doubt what you are saying(writing)Since I haven't that much knowledge about your Amendment and their sections.

What I wonder is, if it is true they have removed this section or Amendment why did Colorado use this then ?

Markus


Why did the bank robber wash his clothes before escaping? He wanted to make a clean getaway.

IMO, the answer is; because they can.

The point isn't so much that it might work, rather it is to consume more of Trumps funds fighting endless lawsuits, in an effort to harm his campaign ability, and the
negative information whether true or an outright fabrication, can and will carryover into the election cycle and maybe, just maybe influence people - (no matter how ridiculous
any story may be, there is always a percentage of people that will believe it, and a certain percentage that will claim they "don't know."

Also, bear in mind here the lawsuit that initiated all this was filed by a Trump political opponent to gain an advantage over a competitor, and filed with or through an opposing
political apparatus. Using the old; "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" tactic.

[mapuc]

Why did the bank robber wash his clothes before escaping? He wanted to make a clean getaway.

IMO, the answer is; because they can.

The point isn't so much that it might work, rather it is to consume more of Trumps funds, in an effort to harm his campaign ability, and the negative information whether true
or an outright fabrication, can carryover into the election cycle and maybe, just maybe influence people - (no matter how ridiculous any story may be, there is always a
percentage that will believe it, and a certain percentage that will claim they "don't know."

Also, bear in mind here the lawsuit that initiated all this was filed by a Trump political opponent to gain an advantage over a competitor, and filed with or through an opposing
political apparatus. Using the old; an enemy of my enemy is my friend tactic.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm one of these who don't know more than what I read in this thread when it comes to US-Politics and I find it very interesting.

"Because they can" Here, it's gonna be interesting to hear what your Supreme court has to say about it.

Markus

[Catfish]

^ "Interesting", yes.
The corrupt supreme court has been installed by Trump's yes-men. Not that others would make it different, but up to Trump there had been at least a bit of decency.
To answer bweiss I will not delve into Trump's felt or real wrongdoings or whatever again, I did this ages ago and the net is full of it (sans Gateway pundit or Fox of course) and i am frankly not interested in wasting time anymore. If some people think Trump did it all correct and should not be prosecuted (for reasons of party politics or whatever) no one will be able to change their mind anyway. It is their country.
:salute:

[August]

^ "Interesting", yes.
The corrupt supreme court has been installed by Trump's yes-men.


Can you back up your claim that the US Supreme court is corrupt or that it's members are Trump "yes-men"?

[bweiss]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm one of these who don't know more than what I read in this thread when it comes to US-Politics and I find it very interesting.

"Because they can" Here, it's gonna be interesting to hear what your Supreme court has to say about it.

Markus


No problem shipmate, glad to be of service. :salute:

Being on the outside looking in as it were, you are fortunate to be living in a moment in time when dirty American politics is at the best of its worst in all of American history.

Some folks think the Brits have a patent on dirty politics, but IMO American politics, particularly at the Presidential level has always been a cut throat and back stab affair.
I believe it's a fair conclusion it rises at least to the bar set by the British and in view of current events, perhaps beyond.

Why it's even said that honest George Washington, who distilled his own whiskey producing nearly 11,000 gallons in 1799, was not averse to handing out jugs of it around the local
taverns to get election votes.

The current CEO, hands out our money to those who owe the government for the loans they received of, our money.

Same strategy, different tactic.

I prefer the one with whiskey... :03:

[mapuc]

^ "Interesting", yes.
The corrupt supreme court has been installed by Trump's yes-men. Not that others would make it different, but up to Trump there had been at least a bit of decency.
To answer bweiss I will not delve into Trump's felt or real wrongdoings or whatever again, I did this ages ago and the net is full of it (sans Gateway pundit or Fox of course) and i am frankly not interested in wasting time anymore. If some people think Trump did it all correct and should not be prosecuted (for reasons of party politics or whatever) no one will be able to change their mind anyway. It is their country.
:salute:

That's your words.

I don't care who's the President or who will become the next in USA. What I care about is that Mr. Trump is treated fair, whether he's guilty or not in all these cases against him

Markus

[Buddahaid]

That's your words.

I don't care who's the President or who will become the next in USA. What I care about is that Mr. Trump is treated fair, whether he's guilty or not in all these cases against him

Markus

But who decides it's fair? Courts and the law decide, because from Trump's perspective, everything is unfair where he doesn't get his way. I'll continue to follow the litigation and read the motions which usually finds me at odds with pretty much everything that Trump, or Alina Habba, say out of court to the media.

In trying to prosecute Trump over the 2020 election results and aftermath, you have to wonder why basically all of the evidence against him comes from Republican testimony.

Also, the court case in Colorado which led to him being off the ballot, was brought by four Republicans and two unaffiliated persons, and those Republicans were not just random people off the street.

"Colorado law requires that, in order for a voter to challenge the placement of the candidate in the Republican presidential primary, that they be Republicans or unaffiliated voters," Sherman said in an interview. "So in order to have standing, they had to be Republicans."

But the petitioners aren't random Republican voters blindly plucked out of the Centennial State. Most have played a prominent role in politics or have been outspoken voices for their party.

The lead plaintiff, Anderson, 91, is a former state legislator who served as a Republican in Colorado's House of Representatives and state Senate.

[mapuc]

Yes He does act like a spoiled child sometimes.

Markus

[bweiss]

Yes He does act like a spoiled child sometimes.

Markus


Wonder why. Not that I really like it, but I can see why he says what he says.

So the story that's being crafted is that six random Colorado persons with nothing else to do decided to file this lawsuit I suppose out of the goodness of their hearts,
and presumably for the betterment of the entire world, but what one doesn't see so much attention about is just who's really backing all this, and more importantly
who is it that's doing all the funding? Where's the money coming from?


Always follow the money...

Turns out, it is an organization called Crew.

From a well established alt-left wing news site: (I prefer using citations as it is more credible than just espousing opinions).

Six Colorado voters sue to remove Trump from the state's 2024 ballot
Their lawsuit contends that Trump should be disqualified from running in future elections because
he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment with his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Sept. 6, 2023, 2:15 PM EDT
By Rebecca Shabad

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/six-colorado-voters-file-lawsuit-remove-trump-2024-ballot-rcna103660

Six voters in Colorado filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's election ballots because of his role in the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

The group called on the court to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot and declare that it would be "improper" and "a breach or neglect of duty" for Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold,
a Democrat, to allow his name to appear on any future primary or general election ballots.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and several law firms filed the lawsuit on behalf of the six voters — four Republicans and two unaffiliated.

What is the blazes is CREW you ask?

From "Influence Watch"

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington/

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a legal advocacy group with previous connections with political strategist David Brock.
The organization describes itself as a “nonpartisan” watchdog group directing litigation against government corruption in an effort to advance the public interest.
The group is part of Brock’s network of organizations including Democratic-aligned opposition research Super PAC American Bridge 21st Century (AB PAC) and media
criticism organization Media Matters for America."

"The organization has been recognized as having “played instrumental roles in building a stronger, more integrated progressive infrastructure” by the Democracy Alliance.
CREW has received funding from left-of-center foundations, including philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and singer Barbra Streisand’s Streisand Foundation."

"CREW has received criticism for the appearance of pay-for-play advocacy on behalf of for-profit universities."

Focus on Republican Members

"CREW’s efforts at “accountability” and “ethics” have been criticized as a partisan vendetta against conservatives and Republicans. An attorney who represents
nonprofit groups said in an interview with the Hill that obvious one-sided slant of CREW’s IRS complaints could potentially jeopardize the group’s standing."

Brock’s Clinton Family Ties

"During his tenure within a leadership position with CREW, the organization’s “Most Corrupt” and “Worst Governors” lists, which occasionally mentioned the misdeeds of Democrats,
were discontinued."

"Brock’s close ties with the Clintons and his own personal political agenda ultimately worked to undermine CREW’s ability to objectively investigate certain organizations.


Bloomberg reported that “Some former staffers say that Brock, who has moved into the vice chairman role, has pulled the watchdog into a partisan agenda and, in doing so, weakened its impact.”

Activities during the Trump Administration

"In keeping with the agenda of its former board chairman David Brock, CREW has been an aggressive opponent of the Trump administration. The so-called “Brocktopus,” which includes CREW, declared an intention to spend upwards of $40 million to oppose the Trump administration in 2017. CREW was reported to be “a particular locus of activity.”

Data from Federal Agencies and U.S Congress

"According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, CREW filed 54 complaints between March 2004 and September 2017 in which 84%,
were directed at conservative or right-leaning organizations."

"In addition, FEC data shows that only 41% of civil penalties of $50,000 or more applied by the FEC since 1980 were against Republican supporters or politicians."

Now don't believe your lying eyes, plainly there is no radical alt-left wing politically biased influence manipulation or funding peddling from left wing elitist donors going on here.
Just six lil Coloradans who have lost their way.

The Clnton's, and George Soro's in the funding mix too! Now just where is it we have heard of those names dropping money all around on left wing extremist
ideological benders before? Oh, oh, and Media Matters, also mentioned above as a co-operator in this little Colorado insurrection. Let's see, Media Matters...

According to "Allsides", it appears that Media Matters didn't pass the mustard with regard to the neutrality test for media. Apparently, media does matter.
Just not the media that lacks any credibility. They score a solid 4.5 definite alt-leftie, just a couple clicks near full blown extremists.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/media-matters-bias

More of the same ole-same ole, from the same ole people. "It's juss all fer the lil children..."

[Buddahaid]

As far as Trump's attitude, I'd sympathize some except the behavior is nothing new with him.

[Gorpet]

Yes,The Politicians " Actors and Liars" the most wealthy in every state across the United States. And the world, They have become our leaders and they are also the worst of society.They swoon amongst themselves loving themselves to the point there is only themselves.And this planet can only be overseen by the swoon.And to preserve this planet for themselves Let's start with a virus from 2 bats having sex in a Chinese cave. And we will call it 19 teen for a start.Ok so it goes good, millions of people across the planet are killed.

But what happens to the swoon? None of the oldest of the swoon die. Everybody at their age and our family members and neighbors die. But none of the swoon around the world dies.All the leader's and their family members that are eligible to die don't.They get 2 -3 weeks and the swoon are as good as new and today they are jet setting around the world.

So the crux of the biscuit is don't eat the yellow snow the swoon will feed you.

[em2nought]

My thought for this Christmas season is that the Potomac isn't nearly as wide as the Delaware. :har:

[Jimbuna]

My thought for this Christmas season is that the Potomac isn't nearly as wide as the Delaware. :har:

:haha:

[bweiss]

Uh-oh, somebody's on Santa's naughty list, again.


Allegations of Procedural Missteps Surface Against Special Counsel John Luman Smith, aka Jack Smith

by Jim Hᴏft (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/jezztoot/) Dec. 24, 2023 8:00 am

Former Ronald Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, along with Professors Gary Lawson and Steven Calabresi, submitted a petition to the Supreme Court (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/former-reagan-ag-edwin-meese-claims-legal-filing/)
last week seeking a writ of certiorari in response to Jack (John Lumen) Smith’s petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling. (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/just-jack-smith-ramps-up-effort-jail-trump/)
The former US Attorney General contends that Jack Smith, acting as Special Counsel, was not appropriately appointed.
Consequently, they argue, all legal actions undertaken by Smith should be considered null and void.

The trio, in their petition to the Supreme Court, argue that since Smith was directly hired by the current Attorney General,
Merrick Garland, the constitutional process of presidential nomination and full Senate confirmation was bypassed.
They state that Smith’s various legal actions, performed under the guise of law, should only be carried out by individuals
who have been duly appointed as federal officers to legitimately established federal offices.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/gateway-pundit-exclusive-allegations-procedural-missteps-surface-against/


Now that's the story, here's the red meat.

No. 23-624


In the Supreme Court of the United States


UNITED STATES, Petitioner,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP


On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF OF FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL EDWIN MEESE III AND LAW
PROFESSORS STEVEN G. CALABRESI AND
GARY S. LAWSON AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING NEITHER PARTY

QUESTION PRESENTED
"Whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority
to represent the United States, which jurisdictional re-
quirement must exist at all stages of litigation, and
which cannot be waived, in filing his Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari in this Court?"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final .pdf


From Canto VI, XVII in the play “Marmion” by Sir Walter Scott.

"Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

[bweiss]

RFK Jr. Denied Secret Service Protection a THIRD time

by Benjamin Wetmore (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/ben/) Dec. 24, 2023 9:30 pm

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/rfk-jr-denied-secret-service-protection-third-time/

"In a story broken by the Deseret News (https://www.deseret.com/2023/12/22/24012984/exclusive-robert-f-kennedy-jr-denied-secret-service-protection-for-third-time), Robert Kennedy Jr., son of slain 1968 Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Sr., and nephew of slain President John F. Kennedy,
is being turned down for any protection in his Presidential run."

"Biden’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Kennedy campaign in a letter that U.S. Secret Service protection for Kennedy is
“not warranted.” Last month, Kennedy obtained a restraining order against a stalker who broke into his house in late October (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/robert-f-kennedy-jr-files-225005431.html)."

"Mayorkas shifts blame to these members of Congress even though Secret Service guidelines make clear (https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024) that the authority primarily rests with Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security."

[bweiss]

Hamas (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/hamas)
Democratic dark money giant behind anti-Israel protests has scored $81M in taxpayer dollars

by Gabe Kaminsky, Investigative Reporter (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/gabe-kaminsky)

December 23, 2023 05:00 AM

"An influential liberal dark money (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/dark-money) group propping up anti-Israel (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/israel) activism across the United States has pocketed massive amounts in taxpayer-backed grants and contracts in recent years, according to a Washington Examiner analysis of federal spending records."

"The Tides Center, which funds organizations (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hamas-protests-bankrolled-democratic-dark-money-tides-israel) behind Hamas-sympathetic protests held after the terrorist faction's deadly Oct. 7 attack against Israel, has long helped shape the progressive agenda with the financial backing of billionaire philanthropists such as Bill Gates and George Soros (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/george-soros). But the Democratic-allied charity sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in assets also retains another key supporter in the federal government, which directly or through subawards steered more than $81.2 million to the Tides Center between 2006 and 2023, documents show."


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democratic-dark-money-giant-anti-israel-activism-millions

[bweiss]

Sen. Manchin to Appear at N.H. Event, Stoking '24 Presidential Rumors

By Michael Katz | Monday, 25 December 2023 03:25 PM EST

"Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who is not seeking reelection in 2024, has added to rampant speculation of making a run for the presidency
with a scheduled appearance next month at a New Hampshire event usually reserved for major party presidential candidates."


"Democrats are worried a run by Manchin, coupled with independent campaigns by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West,
will syphon votes from President Joe Biden and cost him a second term."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/joe-manchin-americans-together-politics-and-eggs/2023/12/25/id/1147142/

[mapuc]

Sen. Manchin to Appear at N.H. Event, Stoking '24 Presidential Rumors

By Michael Katz | Monday, 25 December 2023 03:25 PM EST

"Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who is not seeking reelection in 2024, has added to rampant speculation of making a run for the presidency
with a scheduled appearance next month at a New Hampshire event usually reserved for major party presidential candidates."


"Democrats are worried a run by Manchin, coupled with independent campaigns by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West,
will syphon votes from President Joe Biden and cost him a second term."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/joe-manchin-americans-together-politics-and-eggs/2023/12/25/id/1147142/



Your comment made me remember a question I had but forgot.

I have heard and read on several occasions that the Dems hasn't exactly full trust in their President to win a second term.

My question was

Based what I have heard and read, are there other Dems going to run for office ? I know the party, Rep or Dem use their President as the only candidate

And you gave me the answer in your comment.

Follow up question

Has it happen before, that one of your party have chosen an another candidate than their sitting President for some reasons ?

Markus

[bweiss]

Your comment made me remember a question I had but forgot.

I have heard and read on several occasions that the Dems hasn't exactly full trust in their President to win a second term.

My question was

Based what I have heard and read, are there other Dems going to run for office ? I know the party, Rep or Dem use their President as the only candidate

And you gave me the answer in your comment.

Follow up question

Has it happen before, that one of your party have chosen an another candidate than their sitting President for some reasons ?

Markus


Ain't my party(s), I'm independent, if not self-sufficient, self-reliant, and self-congratulatory. :D

If I understand the question correctly;


From Time:

"four incumbents who were denied the nomination in the 19th century — John Tyler, Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur — had been Vice Presidents who rose to the Presidency following the deaths of their predecessors, perhaps suggesting they’d never won their parties’ full support in the first place."

"Both Tyler (https://millercenter.org/president/tyler/campaigns-and-elections) and Fillmore (https://millercenter.org/president/fillmore/campaigns-and-elections), who were Whig Party presidents, were denied the nomination because the political battles surrounding slavery: Tyler in 1844, over the annexation of Texas, which he supported but which would upset the balance of free and slave states; Fillmore in 1852 over his support of the Fugitive Slave Act. (Democratic President Franklin Pierce, who ended up winning the 1852 election, also lost his party’s nomination after one term, as many Northern Democrats felt his support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act (https://millercenter.org/president/franklin-pierce/key-events) was too conciliatory to pro-slavery Southerners.) Johnson (https://time.com/4185498/andrew-johnson-legacy-mice/) was the first president to be impeached (https://time.com/5552679/impeached-presidents/), in February 1868, so he didn’t get either party’s nomination. And Arthur, who succeeded President James Garfield, was denied (https://millercenter.org/president/arthur/campaigns-and-elections) the 1884 Republican nomination, though he didn’t actively seek it because he was suffering from kidney disease. (https://millercenter.org/president/arthur/campaigns-and-elections)"

https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/


From Newsnation:

"No sitting president has lost their party’s nomination to a primary challenger in modern U.S. history, but a few serious contenders have left their mark on presidential races. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan was the last major opponent to do so. In 1992, he earned nearly a quarter of votes across state primaries, despite losing each of those contests to President George H.W. Bush."

"An incumbent president hasn’t lost a state primary contest since 1980 when Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy defeated President Jimmy Carter in several races before ultimately failing to win the nomination."

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/incumbent-president-primary-nomination/

This ladder citation being the more recent of the two.

(Pointing to "modern" American history).

[mapuc]

^ Thank you :Kaleun_Salute:

Markus

[bweiss]

:up:

[mapuc]

Made a search and found this article

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-dont-want-biden-to-run-again-poll-analysis/

There's also a Danish article about the same thing.

As it is written in the Danish version

Many Senators and Congress members seem to have little trust in Biden, but who could take his place and win over Trump.

Markus

[bweiss]

Made a search and found this article

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-dont-want-biden-to-run-again-poll-analysis/

There's also a Danish article about the same thing.

As it is written in the Danish version

Many Senators and Congress members seem to have little trust in Biden, but who could take his place and win over Trump.

Markus


2024 wild card: A banner year for third-party candidates
Dec. 26, 2023, 6:00 AM EST
By Alex Seitz-Wald (https://www.nbcnews.com/author/alex-seitz-wald-ncpn385646)

With the potential for an unusually long presidential ballot, Democrats are worried and analysts say the only certainty is uncertainty.
While their chances of actually winning the White House may be tiny, the likelihood of several extra candidates on the ballot could tip a
close election and will further complicate an already muddied picture of the divided American electorate.

That uncertainty is already troubling both parties, but especially Democrats, who worry third-party candidates could spoil the election
for them as they say Green Party candidates did in 2016 and 2000, though insiders acknowledge it may be impossible to predict what
happens in a five- or six-way race.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/2024-wild-card-banner-year-third-party-candidates-rcna129937


US election 2024: The longshot candidates who could swing the vote

5th December 2023, 05:21 EST
By Bernd Debusmann Jr BBC News, Washington DC

Nearly a dozen people are running to become president of the United States in 2024 - but not all are Democrats or Republicans.
Three candidates are running on their own or with a third party, and a fourth could soon join their ranks. None are considered serious contenders
for the White House. Still, they all have the potential to siphon off support from President Joe Biden,the presumptive Democratic nominee,
in what may be a narrow presidential race.

Whoever wins the Republican nomination could also have to contend with these longshot outsiders, as well. Opinion polls show
former President Donald Trump is currently on track to become Republicans' nominee.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67383271


More than three-quarters of voters favor age limits for pols: poll

By Social Links for Ryan King
Published Sep. 11, 2023, 3:58 p.m. ET

More than three-fourths of Americans want elected officials to be barred from serving once they reach a certain age (https://nypost.com/2023/09/04/two-thirds-of-even-dems-say-biden-too-old-for-another-term-bipartisan-poll/), a new poll has found.
According to the CBS News/YouGov (https://www.scribd.com/document/670200251/cbsnews-20230910-SUN#) survey, 77% of respondents want a maximum age limit for politicians — despite an 80-year-old and a 77-year-old being on
track to meet in next year’s presidential election.A plurality (45%) of respondents who wanted an age limit put in place told pollsters the cutoff should be 70 years old;
another 22% said the age limit should be 60; 18% said it should be age 80 while 8% said the maximum age should be 50.

Support for age limits crossed party lines, with 79% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats in favor, according to the poll.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/11/three-quarters-of-voters-favor-age-restrictions-on-politicians-poll/

[vienna]

Uh-oh, somebody's on Santa's naughty list, again.


Allegations of Procedural Missteps Surface Against Special Counsel John Luman Smith, aka Jack Smith

by Jim Hᴏft (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/jezztoot/) Dec. 24, 2023 8:00 am

Former Ronald Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, along with Professors Gary Lawson and Steven Calabresi, submitted a petition to the Supreme Court (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/former-reagan-ag-edwin-meese-claims-legal-filing/)
last week seeking a writ of certiorari in response to Jack (John Lumen) Smith’s petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling. (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/just-jack-smith-ramps-up-effort-jail-trump/)
The former US Attorney General contends that Jack Smith, acting as Special Counsel, was not appropriately appointed.
Consequently, they argue, all legal actions undertaken by Smith should be considered null and void.

The trio, in their petition to the Supreme Court, argue that since Smith was directly hired by the current Attorney General,
Merrick Garland, the constitutional process of presidential nomination and full Senate confirmation was bypassed.
They state that Smith’s various legal actions, performed under the guise of law, should only be carried out by individuals
who have been duly appointed as federal officers to legitimately established federal offices.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/gateway-pundit-exclusive-allegations-procedural-missteps-surface-against/


Now that's the story, here's the red meat.

No. 23-624


In the Supreme Court of the United States


UNITED STATES, Petitioner,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP


On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF OF FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL EDWIN MEESE III AND LAW
PROFESSORS STEVEN G. CALABRESI AND
GARY S. LAWSON AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING NEITHER PARTY

QUESTION PRESENTED
"Whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority
to represent the United States, which jurisdictional re-
quirement must exist at all stages of litigation, and
which cannot be waived, in filing his Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari in this Court?"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final .pdf


From Canto VI, XVII in the play “Marmion” by Sir Walter Scott.

"Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"




A bit of a yawn and a massive "nothing burger"...




The above referenced court filing is of no material substance as far as actual procedural challenges go; it is not an actual charge or indictment; it is what is referred to as an amicus curiae brief or an amicus brief, for short; amicus curiae is Latin for "friend of the court" and is used by persons or entities not actually involved in a case being considered for appeal to express their concerns regarding a case being appealed; virtually anyone can submit an amicus brief and whether or not it has any relevant impact on a case is up to the appellate judge or judges; it is not a formal charge or cause of action and, in may cases, is often ignored in the final judgement; it may be noted the filing includes the wording "AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING NEITHER PARTY", which is more boilerplate language and a bit of sophistry since the intent of such filings is more often than not reveals the partiality of the filer...

In short, an amicus brief is little more than someone not involved in the actual appellant case give their "two cents", little more...


...and as far as Meese, Calibressi and Lawson are concerned, they appear to have a bit of a cottage industry, together or in various combinations, of filing amicus briefs for various entities and persons, usually of the Far-Right or Conservative leanings; Calibressi used to work for Meese under the Regan Administration; Lawson is an academic lawyer and had been a clerk for Justice Scalia (SCOTUS) for many years and a founder of the Federalist Society; impartiality is not a strong point for these guys...



<O>

[vienna]

This past Saturday, 23 Dec, Trump had his attorneys file an urgent motion of appeal to ask he U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule that Trump has full Presidential immunity and to throw out his court cases(s); this is interesting given how Trump and his legal team were so feverish to have the SCOTUS not expedite a decision on his claims of full immunity...


Trump's lawyers ask appeals court to rule on immunity in late-night filing --

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-appeals-court-filing-immunity/


“Be careful what you ask for”: Experts warn Trump’s “immunity” filing could backfire with judges --

https://www.salon.com/2023/12/26/be-careful-what-you-ask-for-experts-warn-trumps-immunity-filing-could-backfire-with/


I suspect what Trump is hoping for is a very, very, very long-shot affirmation of his claim of "absolute immunity" by a lower court so that he can then rush to the trial court and demand the trial court use the appeals court ruling to throw out his case(s); fat chance, Fat Donny: likely the trial judge will allow the prosecutors their day in court to appeal Trump's team's motion and stay any action on a motion to dismiss, pending a higher appeal ruling; this may actually serve to invoke what Trump has been seeking to avoid: by making waves now, an expedited resolution may be the best way forward for the courts...




<O>

[bweiss]

Biden would be ‘too exhausted’ to give inaugural address if re-elected as President

December 21, 2023 - 1:09PM

Fox News contributor and former wrestler Tyrus reveals his prediction for who will be giving the inaugural address after next year’s US presidential election.

“It’s one of two things,” he told Sky News Australia host Piers Morgan.
“One, there’ll either be a representative for an incarcerated president Trump reading the inauguration speech, or two, there’ll be Kamala reading for Biden because he’s exhausted.”

Mr Morgan said Trump will either end up “in prison or re-elected or potentially both”. “Because the Constitution would allow him to be president even if he’s incarcerated.”

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/piers-morgan/biden-would-be-too-exhausted-to-give-inaugural-address-if-reelected-as-president/video/06bd1340fffedd8469fa1fda4a7f8f60

[vienna]

Nothing like have the learned views of a former pro-wrestler on US politics... :haha:


...can he also tell us if a left Twixt is better than a right Twixt...?...:03:



<O>

[Buddahaid]

This past Saturday, 23 Dec, Trump had his attorneys file an urgent motion of appeal to ask he U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule that Trump has full Presidential immunity and to throw out his court cases(s); this is interesting given how Trump and his legal team were so feverish to have the SCOTUS not expedite a decision on his claims of full immunity...


Trump's lawyers ask appeals court to rule on immunity in late-night filing --

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-appeals-court-filing-immunity/


“Be careful what you ask for”: Experts warn Trump’s “immunity” filing could backfire with judges --

https://www.salon.com/2023/12/26/be-careful-what-you-ask-for-experts-warn-trumps-immunity-filing-could-backfire-with/


I suspect what Trump is hoping for is a very, very, very long-shot affirmation of his claim of "absolute immunity" by a lower court so that he can then rush to the trial court and demand the trial court use the appeals court ruling to throw out his case(s); fat chance, Fat Donny: likely the trial judge will allow the prosecutors their day in court to appeal Trump's team's motion and stay any action on a motion to dismiss, pending a higher appeal ruling; this may actually serve to invoke what Trump has been seeking to avoid: by making waves now, an expedited resolution may be the best way forward for the courts...




<O>

The 23’d was the deadline set by the court for a motion from Trump and the 30th will be the deadline for Jack Smith’s response. Oral arguments are set for January 9th. That’s the expedited schedule and the likely reason why the SCOTUS turned down Smith’s writ of certiorari.

There was also an amicus brief accepted by the court that pretty much spills all the wind from Trump’s sails based on Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
https://www.scribd.com/document/694937898/gov-uscourts-cadc-40415-1208578840-0-5

That section of the Constitution also names the presidentcy as an office.

[bweiss]

Made a search and found this article

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-dont-want-biden-to-run-again-poll-analysis/

There's also a Danish article about the same thing.

As it is written in the Danish version

Many Senators and Congress members seem to have little trust in Biden, but who could take his place and win over Trump.

Markus


According to polls, if they are to be believed, voters overall have little trust in Biden:

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/


The second part of the question is perhaps more mercurial. I would submit that when all is said and done, it is Trump who could defeat Trump.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/14/news/rivals-rip-haley-as-trump-running-mate-post-nh-endorsement/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/tucker-carlson-sends-warning-to-donald-trump/ar-AA1lJNk4

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4356232-greene-maga-would-revolt-over-trump-haley-team/

[bweiss]

Nothing like have the learned views of a former pro-wrestler on US politics... :haha:


...can he also tell us if a left Twixt is better than a right Twixt...?...:03:



<O>


His views were published by Sky News Australia for world-wide consumption for millions of daily viewers in an interview with Piers Morgan.
Your views were published on your own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread.


Big difference.

[August]

His views were published by Sky News Australia for world-wide consumption for millions of daily viewers in an interview with Pearce Morgan.
Your views were published on your own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread.


Big difference.


:haha: :up:

[Catfish]

People, eat sh .... Millions of flies cannot err :O:

[em2nought]

According to polls, if they are to be believed, voters overall have little trust in Biden:

From what I've seen most of them still believe Sleepy Joe is the anointed son of Barrack and can still do no wrong. They believe any bad is the result of President Trump's prior policies.

I think the news is going to believe their own lies so much so that when we do find ourselves in Greater Depression 2.0 it's going to be so much worse because we'll be five years into it before they admit it's happening. :har: They might be literally eating out of dumpsters, and still calling things fine and dandy. They'll just say the hot new trend is Pagpag from Philippine cuisine. :har: Meanwhile buy yourself a wheel barrow so you can carry enough greenbacks for a serving of Pagpag.

[bweiss]

They might be literally eating out of dumpsters, and still calling things fine and dandy.


The Blue Plate Special, "coming right up; would you like Meal Moths with that"...?


https://youtu.be/fuKiDHJZIMQ



https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2021/08/inv032416


https://insectipro.com/



https://youtu.be/MznHdJReoeo




https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BODlmYzVhYzMtZmI1NC00YTQwLThhMjUtOGFkNTU2MGQxMj A0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjU5MjcxOTg@._V1_SX200_CR0,0,200 ,200_AL_.jpg

From the movie: The Longest Day (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056197/)


Major General Gunther Blumentritt (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0432007/?ref_=tt_ch) :

"This is history. We are living an historical moment. We are going to lose the war because our glorious Führer has taken a sleeping pill and is not to be awakened. Sometimes I wonder which side God is on."

[vienna]

The 23’d was the deadline set by the court for a motion from Trump and the 30th will be the deadline for Jack Smith’s response. Oral arguments are set for January 9th. That’s the expedited schedule and the likely reason why the SCOTUS turned down Smith’s writ of certiorari.

There was also an amicus brief accepted by the court that pretty much spills all the wind from Trump’s sails based on Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
https://www.scribd.com/document/694937898/gov-uscourts-cadc-40415-1208578840-0-5

That section of the Constitution also names the presidentcy as an office.



Thank You for correcting me about the dates for the deadlines; I had switched around the Trump and Smith filing dates; yet another senior moment... :up:


In support of my point of how amicus briefs are routine filed by almost anybody; this is an amicus brief filed in the unlimited immunity case by, among others, members, including a former US Attorney General and other Justice Dept. officials, from five Republican Presidential administrations


Former GOP officials say allowing Trump’s immunity claim could open floodgates to future crimes --

In an amicus brief accepted by the D.C. Circuit, officials from five Republican presidential administrations argued that granting Trump immunity would “encourage” future presidents to go rogue.


https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-immunity-republican-amicus-brief-rcna131314


...and this is the actual filing:


MOTION BY FORMER OFFICIALS IN FIVE REPUBLICAN
ADMINISTRATIONS,ET AL., FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMICI CURIAE BRIEF SUPPORTING APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208578840.0_6.pdf#page=10


The amicus brief situation is a bit like a poker game: "I'll see your, amicus brief and raise you an amicus brief..."...






<O>

[vienna]

His views were published by Sky News Australia for world-wide consumption for millions of daily viewers in an interview with Piers Morgan.
Your views were published on your own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread.


Big difference.

People, eat sh .... Millions of flies cannot err :O:



Gee, I'm puzzled...


Am I supposed to consider this a righteous burn on me when it is, in fact, perpetrated by someone who is posting from his "own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread."...?...


Seems a bit meta to me...


Apparently he enjoys giving himself a hot foot... :03:


...to say nothing of his implied opinion of the rest of the forum members... :hmmm:


In reference and agreement with Catfish's succinct summation, being in the view of millions, or billions, is not the sole metric of whether or not a view, opinion, or belief is consequential or valid; you presented the ruminations of a fairly washed-up former "pro" wrestler as a sort of "Aha!!" in support of the view you were trying to put across; it is to be expected that someone might see the humor of such a laughable "endorsement" of a particular view; you presented as substantive the comments of, as I said, a washed-up former wrestler who made his name in the widely mocked and derided faux sport of pro wrestling, which little more than a glorified carny sideshow; those comments were expressed on a show hosted by someone who made his own name by muckraking and scandal, along the way garnering every sort of ostracism and censure and, even termination for his questionable antics, as he tries desperately to pass himself off as a "legitimate journalist"; the show is on a network that has already paid out over a billion dollars to satisfy legal actions against it for the conduct and utterances of its on-air personalities, while also finding itself in the unenviable position, among the world of journalism, to have had to admit it routinely published knowingly false (extravagantly false!) information as actual factual news to the public, and is facing yet another forthcoming $2.7 Billion court case in the Smartmatic defamation case, which, if Fox doesn't settle out of court, Fox will most very likely lose...


SO, if the idea of a wonky, faded, punch-drunk, "pro" wrestler, on a TV show hosted by a sleazeball parasite of a host, on a network that routinely lies to its viewers and pays dearly for being pricks being cited as a reference in otherwise relatively serious discussion and debate should seem amusing to me, well, pardon me for finding the whole thing ridiculous and pointing out the absurdity in a joking manner...


But you go ahead, make your case using pop culture to support serious political ideas; looking forward to your posting citing the great political authority of the Kardashians, or maybe a redux of Tyrus, or some other one name expert like Madonna, Cher, or maybe Beyonce... :03:


I have had disagreements with some on this and other SS forums on various issues, but I have always respect them when the have presented their views in thoughtful, and occasionally humorous, fashion; agree or not, I respect them and their ability to contribute to a discourse...


I do find it difficult not to want to comment on a blatant absurdity...


...and I will continue to enjoy the musings, considered opinions, and given information provided by those who sit behind their "own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread"...




PS: there's only one "l" in "politics"...





<O>

[Buddahaid]

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Donald Trump’s stay request in the E Jean Carroll case set for trial in January.

[Buddahaid]

Trump has been disqualified in Maine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/maines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375

[Jimbuna]

Wonder if further states will follow.

[August]

Wonder if further states will follow.


My guess is yes and we haven't seen the limits of just how far they will go either. The democrats will try anything to keep Trump from beating them next year and I would not put an assassination attempt past them if all else fails.

[mapuc]

Why remove Trump from their Ballot if Supreme court goes against them.

I would say they should wait until Jan 9th to hear what S.C. has to say about Colorado's step to remove Trump from their Ballot.

This I know for sure well I'm 150 % Sure.
If S.C. gives Colorado green light, you will be witness to an avalanche throughout the states in USA.

Markus

[bweiss]

Gee, I'm puzzled...


Am I supposed to consider this a righteous burn on me when it is, in fact, perpetrated by someone who is posting from his "own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread."...?...


Seems a bit meta to me...


Apparently he enjoys giving himself a hot foot... :03:


...to say nothing of his implied opinion of the rest of the forum members... :hmmm:


In reference and agreement with Catfish's succinct summation, being in the view of millions, or billions, is not the sole metric of whether or not a view, opinion, or belief is consequential or valid; you presented the ruminations of a fairly washed-up former "pro" wrestler as a sort of "Aha!!" in support of the view you were trying to put across; it is to be expected that someone might see the humor of such a laughable "endorsement" of a particular view; you presented as substantive the comments of, as I said, a washed-up former wrestler who made his name in the widely mocked and derided faux sport of pro wrestling, which little more than a glorified carny sideshow; those comments were expressed on a show hosted by someone who made his own name by muckraking and scandal, along the way garnering every sort of ostracism and censure and, even termination for his questionable antics, as he tries desperately to pass himself off as a "legitimate journalist"; the show is on a network that has already paid out over a billion dollars to satisfy legal actions against it for the conduct and utterances of its on-air personalities, while also finding itself in the unenviable position, among the world of journalism, to have had to admit it routinely published knowingly false (extravagantly false!) information as actual factual news to the public, and is facing yet another forthcoming $2.7 Billion court case in the Smartmatic defamation case, which, if Fox doesn't settle out of court, Fox will most very likely lose...


SO, if the idea of a wonky, faded, punch-drunk, "pro" wrestler, on a TV show hosted by a sleazeball parasite of a host, on a network that routinely lies to its viewers and pays dearly for being pricks being cited as a reference in otherwise relatively serious discussion and debate should seem amusing to me, well, pardon me for finding the whole thing ridiculous and pointing out the absurdity in a joking manner...


But you go ahead, make your case using pop culture to support serious political ideas; looking forward to your posting citing the great political authority of the Kardashians, or maybe a redux of Tyrus, or some other one name expert like Madonna, Cher, or maybe Beyonce... :03:


I have had disagreements with some on this and other SS forums on various issues, but I have always respect them when the have presented their views in thoughtful, and occasionally humorous, fashion; agree or not, I respect them and their ability to contribute to a discourse...


I do find it difficult not to want to comment on a blatant absurdity...


...and I will continue to enjoy the musings, considered opinions, and given information provided by those who sit behind their "own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread"...




PS: there's only one "l" in "politics"...





<O>



Well now don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about everyone.

I'm not the individual who engaged in a seeming tirade of attempted character assassination attacks against you or any one in this forum or as was included, an entire litany of personage as only known from their tv appearance in responding to someone's post of a simple news link. Without my even having added any comment to the post mind you.

But when out of nowhere someone excitedly leaps forth to engage in demeaning personal attacks against me, or media personas who are not even a point of discussion, it strikes me as a rather odd if not a patently unfair means of civil discourse particularly in this, as you characterized it "serious discussion". As aside from myself, the victims of those attacks are not even involved in this hallowed discourse. Isn't that what one might call a "Shout at the Devil"? Good WWI movie by the way, and let's try and refrain from the temptation of personally defaming Roger Moore or Lee Marvin's content of character shall we.

As such in my response, rather than engage in self-abasement with teeth gnashing attempts to personally attack or defame those I may disagree with, I merely posted what was an amicable and straight to the point statement regarding the difference in the two different means of communications and potential for impact, for those personal opinions by which methods of communications they are conveyed and perhaps how many other people thereby they potentially reach. Whether that be millions via the news media or a few handful pairs of eyes on a secondary thread to a forum who's primary focus is on subjects relating to gaming. I didn't realize there were such sensitive feelings at risk in discussing otherwise controversial content as to be so easily traumatized.

The point of the original post from Sky News Australia, which may apparently come as a surprise, was not even about Tyrus. In as much as I seem to have some shadow following that never-the-less fails to ascertain what's been said; I have made no secret of my opinions that the spurious claims made against Trump will be summarily dismissed by the courts at some juncture. A somewhat less emotional and more logical thought process might have deduced from that, that the statement made by Tyrus was not at all something which I would agree with, and therefore obviously would not be the reason for the posted link. I suppose that was after-all, a bit much to expect.

To reveal the apparent spoiler, the entire point of the news post was about Morgan's statement that; "Trump could potentially be elected from a jail cell and that outcome would be entirely constitutional; therefore he could still take the Oath of Office.", (my paraphrase), which for the sake of viewer convenience I even highlighted in the posted copy and paste text, a blue overlay on Morgan's statement, (still there) not exactly knowing how I might go about creating a giant red arrow pointing to the statement in the posted link as the, X marks the spot moment, for anyone that might otherwise find it a challenge to discern.

Subsequently I made a straight forward and amicable statement following your character attack against a person known to you only through the television set; not even germane to the reason for the posted link, which included barely veiled attempts to attack me personally for apparently having the audacity to post something you personally don't agree with, that by chance included an interview with someone you personally don't like, in this "serious discussion" and pointing out that such opinions being what they may, versus the facts of reality that should be self-evident to most everyone else; such as how many people are hearing/reading such opinions in the published news media versus reading opinions somewhere in this gaming forum's sub-threads, which simply do not compare as to the audience they reach. As it appears to be necessary to continually restate the obvious.

I did not indicate how many are subject to believing in them, someone else did, which was never mentioned by me as being of any relevance to the point of simply how many of the masses are exposed to said opinions in the mass media as opposed to this thread. Something which in my opinion and as perhaps just demonstrated, appears many people apparently encounter much difficulty in determining. Opinions as to how many of those are effected by such opinions/views, was not the point. The point was and remains how many "may" be subject to hearing/reading such opinions. Whereupon my post was then followed by the reply of a hostile outburst about the credibility, integrity, character, and occupation, leaving out bad breath at least, of a whole cast of people thrown in who were not even an original focus of discussion let alone mentioned in any of my posts.

Your entire manifesto of grievances leveled at me and half the people in Hollywood is amusing, however all of the denunciations provided therein amount to nothing more than your own personal opinions and although you have every right to possess them whether they are valid or entirely imaginary, otherwise do not automatically constitute known facts of reality as they are based solely upon a persons own perceived subjectivity.

However if it is of any consolation, by all means please do ban me from your ballot box of friends for being the leader of an obvious U.S. Politics sub-thread insurrection in the forum, amounting to what undoubtedly exists in someone's unsubstantiated opinion, guilt certain of no less than an outright obstruction of Robert's Rules of Order, or perhaps even blasphemy of Miss Manners dictum's, by no less than citing in this thread "pricks" as your diction has so colorfully described those who apparently in your opinion are so extremely insolent as to refuse to reaffirm your required agreement with your own particular views, otherwise apparently ending up being eloquently termed "pricks" by you for disagreeing with you, or as in citing them as a reference in this otherwise relatively serious discussion.


Talk about implied opinions of the rest of the forum members...


And thanks so much for your opinion. Next...

[Buddahaid]

My guess is yes and we haven't seen the limits of just how far they will go either. The democrats will try anything to keep Trump from beating them next year and I would not put an assassination attempt past them if all else fails.

Funny how a lot of this is being driven by republicans.

[bweiss]

My guess is yes and we haven't seen the limits of just how far they will go either. The democrats will try anything to keep Trump from beating them next year and I would not put an assassination attempt past them if all else fails.


Certainly it's something that history demonstrates is the extremist left is willing to go any lengths to retain their grip on power when they cannot win approval by the voters for their failed policies.

[Buddahaid]

Why remove Trump from their Ballot if Supreme court goes against them.

I would say they should wait until Jan 9th to hear what S.C. has to say about Colorado's step to remove Trump from their Ballot.

This I know for sure well I'm 150 % Sure.
If S.C. gives Colorado green light, you will be witness to an avalanche throughout the states in USA.

Markus

Some states fix their primary ballots earlier than others. I think Colorado is on January 4th.

[August]

Funny how a lot of this is being driven by republicans.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo

[Buddahaid]

Oral argument set for January 9th in the DC Court of Appeals by Trump. We should get Jack Smith's response argument today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f25cf425-77ad-4524-8101-fdfabc62ecd7.pdf

And the Blassingame decision.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A3464AEB2C1CB89985258A7800537E73/$file/22-5069-2029472.pdf

And the amicus brief again. I believe these lawyers are all republicans arguing against Trump.
https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/23-3228-Amici-Br.-of-Former-Govt-Officials-and-Constitutional-Lawyers-No.-23-3228-DC-Cir.pdf

And a new amicus brief arguing the DC Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and must remand it back to the lower court to reach a verdict.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24245907-american-oversight-amicus-brief-in-support-of-dismissal-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-us-v-donald-trump

[em2nought]

My guess is yes and we haven't seen the limits of just how far they will go either. The democrats will try anything to keep Trump from beating them next year and I would not put an assassination attempt past them if all else fails.

I don't know, "accidentally" releasing a deadly virus seemed pretty far to me. I certainly prefer this illegal "take him off the ballot" to their last stunt of kill with a virus a bunch of old Trump voters with a few acceptable losses of their own and then illegally change all the voting rules at the last minute.

I suppose they could start WW3 if they felt they really had to this time? :hmmm:

Their real plan is death by a thousand cuts.

[Buddahaid]

Here's Jack Smith's response filing.
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/12/gov.uscourts.cadc_.123023_trump_smith.pdf

[Buddahaid]

Here's the January 9th oral argument schedule.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Just-Security-Jan.-6-D.C.-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-D.C.-Circuit-order-allotting-time-in-Jan.-9-oral-arguments-Dec.-29-2023-.pdf

[Skybird]

[FAZ] For years, the United States were able to take out one loan after another. But soon the interest will cost the American state more than the Pentagon. America's politicians have lost their fear of government debt at some point in the past 15 to 20 years. In 2023, the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product in the US will be higher than in almost any other major industrialised country. Debt amounts to 98 per cent of economic output. Only in Japan and Italy is the debt ratio even higher. Never since the Second World War has the level of debt in the United States been so high.

----------------

Again, for sleepy ones and late risers: soon the interest will cost the American state more than the Pentagon

[Buddahaid]

Buckle up USA. January will be huge with several legal proceedings around Trump shaping the new landscape. Stormy Daniel's, E Jean Carrol, Engoron and New York fraud, DC Court of Appeals decision over DC election fraud, did I miss something?

[mapuc]

Buckle up USA. January will be huge with several legal proceedings around Trump shaping the new landscape. Stormy Daniel's, E Jean Carrol, Engoron and New York fraud, DC Court of Appeals decision over DC election fraud, did I miss something?

Not only for the American Jan. will be interesting, even for the rest of the world and its leader, who will be watching.

Even among ordinary citizens whether they support Trump or not. Will monitor it.

Markus

[Buddahaid]

DC Court of Appeals orders that counsel be prepared to argue the issues raised by the amicus curiae.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Just-Security-Jan.-6-D.C.-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-D.C.-Circuit-directing-parties-prepare-address-Jan.-9-oral-argument-questions-re-discrete-issues-raised-in-amicus-curiae-briefs-Jan.-2-2024.pdf

[Skybird]

High time for Biden to let it dawn upon him that if he wants to serve his country and party he must drop out of the race.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/12/19/jesse_waters_trumps_octagon_entrances_working_on_c ampaign_trail_lead_over_biden_is_largest_for_a_rep ublican_in_20_years.html

Do not count on the courts solving the Democrats' problems. Thats an uncertain bid with an open outcome. And even if they would do so, it could cause the unleashing of open civil unrest and violent confrontation. Civil war not completely ruled out.

Problem is the Democrats seem to have no credible alternative candidate. Who ever steps forward however maybe has a chance to prevail the elections due to hopefully many Americans being willing to in case of doubt go with him - for the only reason to not get Trump. And that is the argument that Biden still seem to hope for, and that worked last tiome, but will not work this time if he stays in the race.

Let it be, man.

Both parties now reap their chosen fates they have sown over the past years and decades. The Republicans turned into a Trumpist personal cult, and the Democrats having turned into an openly socialist, radical left-populist movement. The total degeneration of a political culture. And both putting their own power greed before the interest of the country and the people.

A "Freakistocracy".

The founders must be turning in their graves.


But the problem is an all-Western one. Everywhere I look I see the moral fundamets of the Western culture degenerating. "Your time of rule is over" seems to be written on every wall.

[Jimbuna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ5k2ybieXU

[August]

Ballot Cleansing: Democrats are Moving to Bar Republicans from Ballots Nationwide


As the decisions disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election work their way through the courts, a new filing in Pennsylvania seeks the same “ballot cleansing” by barring Repubfenablican Rep. Scott Perry.
It’s only the latest effort targeting congressional candidates as Democrats seek to bar opponents as “insurrectionists” for questioning the election of President Biden.
We have become a nation of Madame Defarges — eagerly knitting names of those to be subject to arbitrary justice.
Former congressional candidate Gene Stilp, who’s previously made headlines by burning MAGA flags with swastikas outside courthouses, filed the challenge.
Using the 14th Amendment to disqualify candidates like Perry is consistent with Stilp’s signature flag-burning stunts.
But what’s chilling is how many support such efforts, including Democratic officeholders from Maine’s Secretary of State to dozens of members of Congress.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory for challenging the election before Jan. 6, 2021.
Similar legislation from Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) to disqualify members got 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats, including New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman and Ritchie Torres and “Squad” members Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
When Maine’s secretary of state disqualified Trump, three in the state’s congressional delegation — Sens. Angus King (I) and Susan Collins (R) and Rep. Jared Golden (D) — condemned the decision. But others supported the antidemocratic action.
The grounds were virtually identical to those of Stilp. He accuses Perry of supporting challenges to Biden’s election and opposing its certification.
Of course, he ignores Democratic members who sought to block certification of Republican presidents under the very same law with no factual or legal basis.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) organized to challenge the certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election.
Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result — particularly ironic since he’s a leading voice calling for Trump to be disqualified.
He insisted last week on CNN that the effort to prevent citizens from voting for Trump is the very embodiment of democracy: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”
That is akin to treating every criminal charge as a consensual act of incarceration because the accused chose his path in life.
This is also being played out in state races.
The filing against Perry came the same day Pennsylvania Democratic state Sen. Art Haywood made public a complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee against his Republican colleague Doug Mastriano accusing him of playing a role in the plot to overturn the election.
Notably, in his effort to “hold insurrectionists accountable,” Haywood admitted he relied on the same evidence from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that was used in the Colorado case.
“Insurrectionist” is the newest label to excuse any abuse.
During the McCarthy period, individuals were accused of being Communists or “fellow travelers.”
Now you have Stilp accusing Perry of being “supportive of insurrectionists.”
Democrats and pundits have claimed civil libertarians and journalists who have testified against the government’s growing censorship efforts are enablers of insurrectionists and even “Putin lovers.”
These Democratic members and activists vividly demonstrated the dangerous implications of this unfounded theory.
Figures like Stilp are wrong on the law but right about one thing: There are few real limits once you embrace this theory.
If the challenges work, there is no reason they can’t be used unilaterally against any candidate (and without any criminal charges, let alone convictions).
It is instantly both self-executing and self-satisfying. It would put the world’s most successful democracy on a slippery slope to political chaos.
That is why the Supreme Court needs to take up this issue and put this pernicious theory to bed once and for all.
Until the court rejects this antidemocratic ploy, activists eager to win elections through the courts will keep using it, and it will metastasize throughout our body politic.
With the support of elected officials across the country, they can then join Stilp in moving from burning flags to torching the Constitution in a fit of exhilarating rage.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/01/05/ballot-cleansing-democrats-are-moving-to-bar-republicans-from-ballots-nationwide/

[mapuc]

I didn't expect this avalanche to start so quickly I would have expected it to start after your Supreme Court has given green light or red light.

What are they afraid of ?? Since they remove these Rep(Trump) from the ballot

Markus

[August]

I didn't expect this avalanche to start so quickly I would have expected it to start after your Supreme Court has given green light or red light.

What are they afraid of ?? Since they remove these Rep(Trump) from the ballot

Markus


It's not about just Trump anymore Markus. The Democrats are pushing for complete one party rule.

[mapuc]

It's not about just Trump anymore Markus. The Democrats are pushing for complete one party rule.

Relax Dave, if not the State court in Colorado put an end to this charade then your Supreme Court will.

Why are they, the Dems, so afraid for some competition ?

Sorry! Do not dare to think what would happen in the political arena if Supreme Court gives the green light(Using the 14th Amendment, sect. 3)

Edit
Through a Danish article I found this English article

Of note: The Colorado Republican Party urged the Supreme Court in a December petition to overturn the Colorado ruling and allow Trump's name to appear on the ballot, arguing that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision had "irreparably harmed" the Republican party.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/05/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ballot-appeal-14th-amendment
End edit

Markus

[em2nought]

Happy Insurrection Day! https://babylonbee.com/news/10-great-ways-to-celebrate-january-6-this-year

https://media.babylonbee.com/img/articles/article-8909-art60d51ce18ef9c.jpg

[Otto Harkaman]

https://i.imgflip.com/4hql4v.jpghttps://media.makeameme.org/created/kamala-harris-will.jpg

[Skybird]

[Frankfurter Rundschau] According to the survey, just under eleven percent of respondents believe that there is "solid evidence" that FBI agents organized and sponsored the attack on 6 January. A further 13 percent of respondents would only "suspect" FBI involvement in the storming of the Capitol. Overall, almost a quarter of respondents believe that the FBI was involved.
This narrative is particularly widespread among supporters of the Republican Party. 34 percent of Republicans stated that such claims were "definitely" or "probably" true. 44 percent of people who voted for Trump in the last election said that the FBI helped instigate the attack. Among Democratic supporters, the figure was only 13 percent.

[em2nought]

Looks like George Soros has had a little plastic surgery. :D

https://media.makeameme.org/created/kamala-harris-will.jpg

[Buddahaid]

New congressional report about Trumps record of foreign money accepted while in office.

https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2024-01-04.COA%20DEMS%20-%20Mazars%20Report.pdf

[Buddahaid]

Here’s a letter from Congress urging Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any decisions involving Trump due to his wife’s financial involvement with Trump.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24253846-20240104-letter-to-justice-thomas-final

[August]

Here’s a letter from Congress urging Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any decisions involving Trump due to his wife’s financial involvement with Trump.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24253846-20240104-letter-to-justice-thomas-final




"Congress" as in just eight partisan Democrats led by Hank Johnson who thinks the island of Guam will capsize if they put too many troops on it. :roll:

[mapuc]

There is only two things which are on my mind when it comes to US-Politics

1. 9th Jan
and
2. 8th Feb.

Markus

[Buddahaid]

"Congress" as in just eight partisan Democrats led by Hank Johnson who thinks the island of Guam will capsize if they put too many troops on it. :roll:

Which means very little since it's what's stated in the letter that counts.

Here's the Government's opposition to Trump's motion for cause in the DC case.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24254799-contemptresponse

[August]

Which means very little since it's what's stated in the letter that counts.

Here's the Government's opposition to Trump's motion for cause in the DC case.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24254799-contemptresponse


The letter means very little coming from just a handful of partisan Democrats who don't have any constitutional authority to demand what they are demanding.

[Buddahaid]

The letter means very little coming from just a handful of partisan Democrats who don't have any constitutional authority to demand what they are demanding.

Correct, so it wouldn't matter if the entire Congress signed it. The content remains as valid as ever.

[August]

Correct, so it wouldn't matter if the entire Congress signed it. The content remains as valid as ever.

It certainly does matter. With only 8 signers out of 435 members of Congress it's obvious that this hypocritical demand is not even supported by a majority of their fellow Democrats let alone a majority of the HoR so claiming that it's a "Letter from Congress" is misleading at best and you know it.

I hope the Court tells them to take their opinions and stick them where the sun don't shine.

[Buddahaid]

It certainly does matter. With only 8 signers out of 435 members of Congress it's obvious that this hypocritical demand is not even supported by a majority of their fellow Democrats let alone a majority of the HoR so claiming that it's a "Letter from Congress" is misleading at best and you know it.

I hope the Court tells them to take their opinions and stick them where the sun don't shine.

Sounds like you didn't read it.

EDIT: I think it will be a moot point anyway as I expect the DC Court of Appeals to rule Trump doesn't have criminal immunity and the SCOTUS to not take it up.

[August]

Sounds like you didn't read it.


I wasn't talking about Trump, you were in a lame attempt to change the subject which I ignored. I was talking about the letter from the 8 democrat reps who want Clarence Thomas to recuse himself. You know the ones led by that idiot Johnson who thinks that islands can be capsized by putting too many people on them?

[Buddahaid]

I wasn't talking about Trump, you were in a lame attempt to change the subject which I ignored. I was talking about the letter from the 8 democrat reps who want Clarence Thomas to recuse himself. You know the ones led by that idiot Johnson who thinks that islands can be capsized by putting too many people on them?

The whole point of the letter involves Trump.

[em2nought]

Mayorkas is such a lying scumbag! :arrgh!:

[August]

The whole point of the letter involves Trump.


As does everything you post bud, but as I have said already the demands of just eight partisan and rather dimwitted members of Congress do not equal a demand by the entire US Congress as you are so desperately trying to imply.

[Buddahaid]

As does everything you post bud, but as I have said already the demands of just eight partisan and rather dimwitted members of Congress do not equal a demand by the entire US Congress as you are so desperately trying to imply.

And again, it’s the content of the letter that matters, not how many signed it. Care to discuss that? It’s why I posted it and it’s in line with the code of conduct the SCOTUS recently created.

[Gorpet]

It's not about just Trump anymore Markus. The Democrats are pushing for complete one party rule.

You are exactly right.I'll take bets before 2026 there will be a Calamity, Catastrophe event that will require both parties to "Come Together" right now. Over me, that song is heartbeat of the Rich left Wing Socialist and the Cuck Republicans.Just look at the Elite and how they are the ones, Who live in wealth around this planet.They are the ones who start wars.But now days unlike the Kings and Battle Queens of old...They don't participate . So you are right The USA is headed for a one party rule. I will walk out on a plank and predict 2024 is the year that will bring about a One Party Rule for The United States.And as a "Republic" the country dies. For those who are young. Your Politicians today who look and act like they are so suave are the same people that couldn't get anywhere in life on their own out of college without their parents money.You with your common sense are smarter than these people. And they will never let you,Into their World Wide Country Club....Why you with a mind that hasn't been Educated are a threat. and Democracy requires the Elimination of threats.

[Buddahaid]

The oral arguments before the DC Court of Appeals can be heard here by audio.
https://www.youtube.com/live/s7rrDwatwT8?si=0_DInZJ55FSu8Y5y

[August]

And again, it’s the content of the letter that matters, not how many signed it. Care to discuss that? It’s why I posted it and it’s in line with the code of conduct the SCOTUS recently created.


Once again my objection is you calling it a "Letter from Congress" rather that the more accurate "Letter from a tiny number of partisan (and provably stupid) Democrat Members of Congress, most of who have their own ethical issues".

[Buddahaid]

Once again my objection is you calling it a "Letter from Congress" rather that the more accurate "Letter from a tiny number of partisan (and provably stupid) Democrat Members of Congress, most of who have their own ethical issues".

It is the letterhead whether you like it, or not. Do I have to post a picture?

[August]

It is the letterhead whether you like it, or not. Do I have to post a picture?




No it might cause the forum to capsize.

[Buddahaid]

No it might cause the forum to capsize.

:Kaleun_Cheers:

[em2nought]

So I guess President Trump raised the question of why we don't have our own "Iron Dome"? Seems a pretty valid question since the democrats seem determined to help Iran get "the big bomb". It was suggested on Gutfeld! that our missile defense be called a "dome over" in deference to orange man bad. :har: I wonder if our Secretary of Defense is available for comment or is he still AWOL? :D

https://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/24162941/12036449_903767126357957_4928103511818621634_n1.jp g

[Buddahaid]

I would expect the military leadership has that under control while the civilian leadership is compromised.

[Skybird]

In lack of a Europe thread, I put it here.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/

One of Europe's most senior politicians recounted how former U.S. President Donald Trump privately warned that America would not come to the EU's aid if it was attacked militarily.

"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO," Trump also said, according to Breton. "And he added, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense,'" Breton said about the tense meeting, where the EU's then-trade chief Phil Hogan was also present.

Breton told the anecdote at an event in the European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday, just days before the Republican Party holds its January 15 caucus in Iowa, the opening contest in Trump's bid to win the Republican nomination for a run at returning to the White House. Party members will cast their votes for candidates including Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who both trail way behind the ex-president in opinion polls (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/10/debate-haley-desantis-trump-2024-00134664).

[Jimbuna]

^ I can well believe that to be true but what must be more worrying in the US must surely be the havoc he is preparing in revenge tactics to all who have opposed him.

Personally, I'd like to see Bush and him step down and allow a fresh set of candidates take over the running.

[August]

^ I can well believe that to be true but what must be more worrying in the US must surely be the havoc he is preparing in revenge tactics to all who have opposed him.


By revenge tactics do you mean heaping civil and criminal charges against them like his opponents did to him, the Jan 6th protesters and many of his advisors and members of his cabinet? That is not very likely to happen but I wouldn't feel any sympathy for them if he did.

[mapuc]

So Nikki Haley is not an American citizens according to Trump, despite she was born in South Carolina-Her parents did not have an American citizenship then.

The law is clear on this-Everyone born in USA is an American citizen.

Markus

[Buddahaid]

By revenge tactics do you mean heaping civil and criminal charges against them like his opponents did to him, the Jan 6th protesters and many of his advisors and members of his cabinet? That is not very likely to happen but I wouldn't feel any sympathy for them if he did.

Apparently, according to you, all those people must be innocent, even the ones that have pled guilty. I find it difficult to understand how someone like you, who swore an oath to the Constitution, can so easily be turned against it.


Trump signed this in 2016 and 2020. I wonder why he won't now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXcADxlNIWY