• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

January 6 Hearings Live

Elixir said:
ZiprHead said:
www.rollingstone.com

Exclusive: Trump's Lawyers Think Mark Meadows Is Going Down

The Jan. 6 Committee is probing the former chief of staff’s finances, Rolling Stone has learned, adding to a long list of legal headaches
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
Click to expand...
Yawn.
Wake me up when the mug shots come out.
Click to expand...
The trouble we are running into is that the 1/6 Committee is clearly making a case to imprison or execute Trump for sedition. They have established he knew he was lying, that he inspired and created the mob, and he ordered them to wreak havoc and overturn the election. The only thing that saves him from the gallows right now is that the Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol Building due to obvious security issues.

As convictable as this is, this case can't go to court though. It'll be held up for years. It should have been resolved in Congress in early 2021. So we are going to end up with an investigation proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump is guilty of sedition, and him being the GOP nominee in 2024.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab
Jimmy Higgins said:
The only thing that saves him from the gallows right now is that the Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol Building due to obvious security issues.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps that's the only thing that saved Mikey, Nancy et al from the gallows.

Jimmy Higgins said:
we are going to end up with an investigation proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump is guilty of sedition, and him being the GOP nominee in 2024.
Click to expand...

I believe that will depend on the November '22 results. In the unlikely* event that Republicans manage to lose ground in Congress, I don't think Cheato will head up the '24 GOP ticket.

* Becoming slightly less unlikely in recent weeks
 
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
The only thing that saves him from the gallows right now is that the Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol Building due to obvious security issues.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps that's the only thing that saved Mikey, Nancy et al from the gallows.
Click to expand...
Naw. Security would have mowed down the Trump supporters.
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
we are going to end up with an investigation proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump is guilty of sedition, and him being the GOP nominee in 2024.
Click to expand...

I believe that will depend on the November '22 results. In the unlikely* event that Republicans manage to lose ground in Congress, I don't think Cheato will head up the '24 GOP ticket.

* Becoming slightly less unlikely in recent weeks
Click to expand...
Honestly, things are looking good for the Dems in the Senate. A gain of 2 or 3 seats is not remotely unlikely. The GOP has managed one thing in the past couple of decades, and that is fucking up their chances in the Senate. Todd Akins, Christine O'Donnell, Roy Moore, Herschel Walker... while the Dems are always accused of seizing losing from the jaws of victory, the GOP have managed to nominate blithering idiots and poison in primaries to end up losing in the statewide elections. It is as if gerrymandering has made right-wingers think states are as easy to win as their packed districts.

The funny thing is that the Dems put these loonies in House races and the right-wing mocks them. But the GOP puts these people in the Senate races and the left-wing just beats them.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Security would have mowed down the Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
WHAT security?
The mob had assault rifles and even grenades, and were itching to use them. Cops with handguns would have been mowed down. If Trump had been there, he would have commanded it.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Elixir said:
ZiprHead said:
www.rollingstone.com

Exclusive: Trump's Lawyers Think Mark Meadows Is Going Down

The Jan. 6 Committee is probing the former chief of staff’s finances, Rolling Stone has learned, adding to a long list of legal headaches
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
Click to expand...
Yawn.
Wake me up when the mug shots come out.
Click to expand...
The trouble we are running into is that the 1/6 Committee is clearly making a case to imprison or execute Trump for sedition. They have established he knew he was lying, that he inspired and created the mob, and he ordered them to wreak havoc and overturn the election. The only thing that saves him from the gallows right now is that the Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol Building due to obvious security issues.

As convictable as this is, this case can't go to court though. It'll be held up for years. It should have been resolved in Congress in early 2021. So we are going to end up with an investigation proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump is guilty of sedition, and him being the GOP nominee in 2024.
Click to expand...
They’re going for treason.

Yes, they’re going slowly in the eyes of those of us who are attuned yo the 24/7 news cycle but not by ordinary standards. The stakes are incredibly high. Trump was impeached twice and managed to escape conviction.

Evidence is being turned over to the Justice Department.

The real issue is filing charges before Trump files for election.
 
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Security would have mowed down the Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
WHAT security?
The mob had assault rifles and even grenades, and were itching to use them. Cops with handguns would have been mowed down. If Trump had been there, he would have commanded it.
Click to expand...
Or someone in the crowd may have shot him by accident.

Or on purpose.

They we're literally crazed fanatics so it's hard to say.
 
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Security would have mowed down the Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
WHAT security?
The mob had assault rifles and even grenades, and were itching to use them. Cops with handguns would have been mowed down. If Trump had been there, he would have commanded it.
Click to expand...
The security in the the chambers, the person that shot the idiot trying to get through the glass. There were fallback points in the security, where they were willing to cede ground to, but not any further. Had the rioters either used force or had larger numbers and sought to cross thresholds, they'd been killed.

Yes, it'd been ugly up front, but the invaders would have been cut down.
 
Toni said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Elixir said:
ZiprHead said:
www.rollingstone.com

Exclusive: Trump's Lawyers Think Mark Meadows Is Going Down

The Jan. 6 Committee is probing the former chief of staff’s finances, Rolling Stone has learned, adding to a long list of legal headaches
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
Click to expand...
Yawn.
Wake me up when the mug shots come out.
Click to expand...
The trouble we are running into is that the 1/6 Committee is clearly making a case to imprison or execute Trump for sedition. They have established he knew he was lying, that he inspired and created the mob, and he ordered them to wreak havoc and overturn the election. The only thing that saves him from the gallows right now is that the Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol Building due to obvious security issues.

As convictable as this is, this case can't go to court though. It'll be held up for years. It should have been resolved in Congress in early 2021. So we are going to end up with an investigation proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump is guilty of sedition, and him being the GOP nominee in 2024.
Click to expand...
They’re going for treason.

Yes, they’re going slowly in the eyes of those of us who are attuned yo the 24/7 news cycle but not by ordinary standards. The stakes are incredibly high. Trump was impeached twice and managed to escape conviction.

Evidence is being turned over to the Justice Department.

The real issue is filing charges before Trump files for election.
Click to expand...
And they'll go to SCOTUS... where they'll rule treason is "free speech". Twitter didn't exist in the 18th century, so anything on it can't be used against the President in trial.
 
Cannon Bannon will have his trial next week. He doesn't seem to have much of a defense. So the Judge is considering something - if you don't have a defense, then why go to trial?
 
The problem is that some of you are making absurd stereotypes about people. Plenty of highly educated people voted for Trump. My brother in law is a dentist who voted for him twice, although he has recently admitted that Trump is nuts. Still, if Trump were to run against a rather liberal Democrat in 2024, I'm pretty sure that the bro in law would hold his nose and vote for Trump. Many if not most physicians vote Republican. I know this because I used to read and comment on a medical discussion comment section of a place that releases medical news. A nurse friend of mine is a hardcore Republican who had Trump sign in her yard. She's a decent person who is easily indoctrinated, just like most evangelical Christians. People choose to vote for candidates for many different reasons, and lots of people don't really study the issues. Sometimes people vote for the party their parents did, without really considering another option. Some are simply brainwashed by right wing radio. Humans are weird animals. That's for sure.

Here's another example. About a mile or so from my home is a quaint street that is a mix of nice small homes and mansion like homes. One of the larger, expensive homes has a big Herschel Walker sign in his front yard. When I pass that home, I'm always wondering how the fuck someone who is so successful, at least when it comes to material things, vote for a total idiot?

A lot of generalizations have been made about rural areas. In Georgia, there are lots of poor Black people who live in rural areas. If they bother to vote at all, they usually vote for Democrats. I live in a small Black majority town and while all of my Black friends vote in every single election, there are a lot who never vote. I will give credit to Stacey Abrams for getting more people to register to vote and to actually show up on Election Day. If she doesn't win in November, I hope she will continue with her activism. She is being so demonized by her opponent, that I'm not optimistic. She is a warm, compassionate, brilliant person, but the Republicans claim she's a radical, far left demon who will destroy the state of Georgia. But, I digress.

I'm not as optimistic as some of you that justice will be served regarding the criminal Trump. The man has gotten away with crimes his entire life. It's the one thing that he's good at. I hope to dog I'm wrong. Btw, I read this morning that he's seriously considering announcing his plan to run in 2024 in August! We may be fucked, along with a good part of the rest of the world. Orwell may have had the year wrong. He may have been wrong about which side of the political coin would bring an extreme dystopia, but the world sure is starting to look a bit Orwellian to me. Add climate change to the mix and I quote the line from Ferris Bueller, one of my favorite comedic movies, "I weep for the future".
 
southernhybrid said:
The problem is that some of you are making absurd stereotypes about people. Plenty of highly educated people voted for Trump. My brother in law is a dentist who voted for him twice, although he has recently admitted that Trump is nuts. Still, if Trump were to run against a rather liberal Democrat in 2024, I'm pretty sure that the bro in law would hold his nose and vote for Trump. Many if not most physicians vote Republican.
Click to expand...
Just to make things clear, neither Biden or Clinton were liberal Democrats. And if either Clinton or Biden or Klobuchar or Bennett or Hickenlooper ran in 2024... he'd "hold his nose" and vote for Trump. To hell with those that can't vote for a moderate or conservative moderate Democrat because they are either clueless about politics, like Donald Trump/fascism, or wanted women to be sitting a bathroom weeping hysterically at the results of a pregnancy test (among other things).
 
Next hearing is Thursday the 21st. This one will be prime time. Speculation is it will be the last one and be a review and wrap up.
 
jimmy this post isn't directed at you even though i'm quoting you, some of the things you said just sparked a thought domino and i'm soap-boxing over it.

Jimmy Higgins said:
southernhybrid said:
The problem is that some of you are making absurd stereotypes about people. Plenty of highly educated people voted for Trump. My brother in law is a dentist who voted for him twice, although he has recently admitted that Trump is nuts. Still, if Trump were to run against a rather liberal Democrat in 2024, I'm pretty sure that the bro in law would hold his nose and vote for Trump. Many if not most physicians vote Republican.
Click to expand...
Just to make things clear, neither Biden or Clinton were liberal Democrats.
Click to expand...
just to make things doubly clear, there are two *maybe* 3 liberal democrats, but the DNC as a party is not liberal at all.

if you're an actual cultural conservative on the basis of moral beliefs, the democratic party is your party - they foster all of your values and engage in government according to your principles.

republicans are not... well anything, except for the equivalent of deciding to let 4chan be in charge of half of our country's government.

i can understand being a social or fiscal conservative in theory, and if you're one of those things then the democrats are the party of your values.
i can understand voting republican, but only in the sense that is a base and degenerate act of trolling that is no way connected to any sort of vision or goal for human progress or the living conditions of individuals in our society.
voting republican is like being upset that you lost your job, so you shove a screwdriver in a dog's ear just to listen to it whine.

Jimmy Higgins said:
To hell with those that can't vote for a moderate or conservative moderate Democrat because they are either clueless about politics, like Donald Trump/fascism, or wanted women to be sitting a bathroom weeping hysterically at the results of a pregnancy test (among other things).
Click to expand...
and that's the most fucked up thing, *all* the democrats are moderate or conservative... they're the moderate/conservative party in U.S. politics.
 
southernhybrid said:
Orwell may have had the year wrong. He may have been wrong about which side of the political coin would bring an extreme dystopia, but…
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that Orwell indicated that his dystopian future was the product of one particular side of the political coin?

It’s pretty clear to me that he did no such thing; 1984 was set in a world of authoritarianism, but there was no clear indication of whether this started with fascist or communist authorities, and indeed a major theme of the book is that it doesn’t matter - he describes power as being an end in itself, not a means to an end.

1984 wasn’t a warning against one side of the political coin; It was a warning against giving total power to anyone.

This may not have been something that the superpower bloc you were raised in was keen to emphasise, but Orwell wasn’t saying that the other side’s totalitarianism was bad - he was saying that all totalitarianism is bad.

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
Click to expand...

This was written in 1949; Not coincidentally, four years after the USSR had heroically won the war for freedom against the Third Reich, and at a time when the USSR was being portrayed as an eternal enemy of freedom.

Orwell very, very clearly wasn’t ascribing his dystopia to the dominance of one side or the other, but to the absolute loyalty demanded by authorities on every side. A loyalty so unthinking and deep-seated that even intelligent people would automatically assume that anything described in unflattering terms must be a description of the enemy de jour.

Such as, for example, an American reading his novel about totalitarianism, and believing that it must be descriptive of the Soviet Union, because it portrays a world that is harsh and unpleasant, and therefore couldn’t possibly be about the future of any of the “good guys”.
 
starwater said:
Cannon Bannon will have his trial next week. He doesn't seem to have much of a defense. So the Judge is considering something - if you don't have a defense, then why go to trial?
Click to expand...
Because trials take time. Prolonged enough, he might even get that pardon before he even needs a sentence commuted.
 
bilby said:
southernhybrid said:
Orwell may have had the year wrong. He may have been wrong about which side of the political coin would bring an extreme dystopia, but…
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that Orwell indicated that his dystopian future was the product of one particular side of the political coin?

It’s pretty clear to me that he did no such thing; 1984 was set in a world of authoritarianism, but there was no clear indication of whether this started with fascist or communist authorities, and indeed a major theme of the book is that it doesn’t matter - he describes power as being an end in itself, not a means to an end.

1984 wasn’t a warning against one side of the political coin; It was a warning against giving total power to anyone.

This may not have been something that the superpower bloc you were raised in was keen to emphasise, but Orwell wasn’t saying that the other side’s totalitarianism was bad - he was saying that all totalitarianism is bad.

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
Click to expand...

This was written in 1949; Not coincidentally, four years after the USSR had heroically won the war for freedom against the Third Reich, and at a time when the USSR was being portrayed as an eternal enemy of freedom.

Orwell very, very clearly wasn’t ascribing his dystopia to the dominance of one side or the other, but to the absolute loyalty demanded by authorities on every side. A loyalty so unthinking and deep-seated that even intelligent people would automatically assume that anything described in unflattering terms must be a description of the enemy de jour.

Such as, for example, an American reading his novel about totalitarianism, and believing that it must be descriptive of the Soviet Union, because it portrays a world that is harsh and unpleasant, and therefore couldn’t possibly be about the future of any of the “good guys”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I felt while reading 1984 in the 60’s that Orwell had gone way out of his way to emphasize that point. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and when people cede total power they earn the results.
 
Elixir said:
bilby said:
southernhybrid said:
Orwell may have had the year wrong. He may have been wrong about which side of the political coin would bring an extreme dystopia, but…
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that Orwell indicated that his dystopian future was the product of one particular side of the political coin?

It’s pretty clear to me that he did no such thing; 1984 was set in a world of authoritarianism, but there was no clear indication of whether this started with fascist or communist authorities, and indeed a major theme of the book is that it doesn’t matter - he describes power as being an end in itself, not a means to an end.

1984 wasn’t a warning against one side of the political coin; It was a warning against giving total power to anyone.

This may not have been something that the superpower bloc you were raised in was keen to emphasise, but Orwell wasn’t saying that the other side’s totalitarianism was bad - he was saying that all totalitarianism is bad.

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
Click to expand...

This was written in 1949; Not coincidentally, four years after the USSR had heroically won the war for freedom against the Third Reich, and at a time when the USSR was being portrayed as an eternal enemy of freedom.

Orwell very, very clearly wasn’t ascribing his dystopia to the dominance of one side or the other, but to the absolute loyalty demanded by authorities on every side. A loyalty so unthinking and deep-seated that even intelligent people would automatically assume that anything described in unflattering terms must be a description of the enemy de jour.

Such as, for example, an American reading his novel about totalitarianism, and believing that it must be descriptive of the Soviet Union, because it portrays a world that is harsh and unpleasant, and therefore couldn’t possibly be about the future of any of the “good guys”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I felt while reading 1984 in the 60’s that Orwell had gone way out of his way to emphasize that point. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and when people cede total power they earn the results.
Click to expand...
And importantly it wasn’t a warning that ‘they’ might invade and impose totalitarianism upon us, but rather that we must avoid making similar errors that led to totalitarianism in their societies, lest we impose it upon ourselves.

Loyalty, and it’s subset, patriotism, being amongst the most dangerous of those errors. When we replace obedience for independent reasoning, we do our entire society a disservice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom