Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

A lawyer could easily argue that the witness could provide a deposition, therefore, does not need to be placed on a no-fly list if I'm understanding the law correctly. The law seems a bit controversial as well and should be used as a last resort, because it sure as hell would seem in this case it would be an infringement on 1st amendment rights (I only mean this for individuals that did not hurt LEO or enter Capitol grounds).

Obviously my opinion and only what I interpret from the law.

 

I get the sentiment, I really do, but, on balance, this is unhealthy. Democrats need to forcefully denounce what happened, but maintain the high road of intelligent and clear discourse.

Every last person in the mob that breached the Capitol or otherwise committed an unlawful act must be called out, arrested and punished to the maximum extent of the law.

But, as much as we might abhor and disagree with the other trumpers out there, and as much as we might believe they egged on and otherwise supported the law breakers, if the other trumpers out there did not break the law, they didn’t break the law and should not be lumped in with the invaders.

 

He does not need to be in the country to do fund his pacs none of this "deal" makes sense there will just be somebody else picking up the mantle.

A deal will only embolden somebody else because Trump would get away with it.

 

Dude WTF is wrong with you?

There is no way you have a family.

 

Plan Z

 

This is an ongoing investigation into an insurrection inside the US Capital, I'd say we at the 'last resort' level.
I believe the FBI would want to do their questioning in person. A trained interrogator can tell a lot about truth and lies in a one on one interview. Certainly more so than with a lawyer monitored deposition.

This is the most heinous crime committed against the United States since 9/11. Many laws were set up after that to address Terrorist crimes.
The FBI is packed with lawyers to interpret them and what is legal and what is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure they have a handle on what they can and can't do.

Ship all those f*ckers down to GITMO

 

...see...

...if the Space Force was mobilized...

...he could've had Scotty beam his a$$ up and outta here...

 

I just can't agree with this. I am 100% with your thoughts on those that hurt LEO and entered Capitol grounds, but I won't support this for those that were standing back and did not take their peaceful protest any further.

 

If you were there, you are either a criminal or a material witness.

 

Salvy should start his own thread on his ideas about his experiences and theories about African American poverty, culture etc. HE SHOULD DEPART FROM THIS THREAD

 

I think him being a white man and a Republican is the difference and why he is different from Obama and the reason he could have gotten more done but I admit i don't know how he really governed in Mass and might have just fallen in line with Mitch.

I also think in retrospect Obama was just to green and did not have the temperment to build coalitions, I think if Mitt won there is no way Trump is elected sad as it is to say Obama unlocked something in America making it easier for Trump to get a foothold.

But you are right maybe this was just kicking the can down the road.

 

I agree and I think it just forces the Merritt Garland DOJ to do this to a much deeper level then if Trump didn't issue pardons. I'm just saying that Trump is brazen enough to think that well if he just buys himself enough time, like he has with every other lawsuit, he'll eventually win by exhausting the judicial process, and he simply has seen for the past 4 years that just saying "I do not recall" when under subpoena is all you have to do to get away with being a witness, or lying under oath.

That's why just letting what happened in the Mueller probe go in the history books is so damaging to our system of justice. What the Trump regime and Bill Barr did to destroy a legitimate criminal and counterintelligence probe will forever destroy that process. Garland's DOJ is in for a nightmare of a 4 year term, and they'll have no way to avoid what they have to do which is to investigate the Trump crime family, and make Trump dominate the headlines for another 4 years.

 

Unlike Benghazi and Ukraine I might spend a bit more time on this one. It has been so interesting that it has even interfered with one of the Netflix series we have been watching. Cable TV will need a replacement for the donald in office.

 

I've always thought it was the cleanest way to rip the band aid off, but I agree it's not going to happen as I alluded to later on in that post.

I'm interested in why you think someone else will pick up the mantle of Trumpism and the current white nationalist fascist party that currently is MAGA?? I don't see it but would love to get your thoughts on how you see that playing out.

 

I am not spinning anything and all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth especially during an election.

I am more interested in how he actually governed than what he said in a election, at that time he had to pander but I will admit that he might have continued to pander to appease and to win another term.

I also think there is somethings that he could have gotten done like infrastructure and .a better healthcare plan that republicans.

I am still a huge Obama supporter but I realize he might have been overwhelmed and too green.

Just an interesting thought experiment.

 

Just look at Hawley Gaetz and Cruz.

Or even JR.

As we saw there are 70+ million people on board for this.

There is also the monetary motive, I am not saying they will be as effective as Trump but somebody is gonna try.

 

It will be jr and the excuse will be he saw the mistakes trump made, he want do those again. He plans to really drain the swamp so donate...and LOCK AOC UP

 

See I think they believe they are the heir apparent, or are vying to be that. 100% believe that. The question is the ability for Trump to hold that power, or the power of his campaign fundraising after he's gone in February.

I think if Rupert Murdoch wanted to, tomorrow FoxNews could deify any one of these guys, and it's a done deal, but I don't know. Trump has so much of the party of Fox by the balls, and every time I think they might give up on the guy, they double down time and time again.

So I guess we'll see. But I think if Trump has any say over it, there's not a snowball in hell's chance that the next nominee will not be named Trump. Trump despises people like Cruz or Hawley that he thinks ride his coat tails, and has nothing but distain for them.

 

The problem is that how he governed in no way resembled how he campaigned in 2012. Hell his 2008 campaign was much more moderate than his 2012 campaign.

I guess I specifically objected to the idea that he was principled. His 2012 campaign was absurd. He backtracked on everything he ever did as governor and just embraced whatever flavor of the month Republican/Tea Party position his opponents were pushing. He flip flopped on everything.

In 2008 he was still arguing in favor of implementing a health insurance mandate and exchanges. In 2012, he was calling for the full repeal of the ACA. In 2008, he said that climate change was real. In 2012, he said that there was no scientific proof. As governor he was pro choice and as a presidential candidate he was pro life. Romney supported the stimulus, TARP and the auto bailout in 2008 but flip flopped on those when the rest of the primary field went the other way. The list goes on and on.

That isn't principle or courage. I do applaud Romney for voting for impeachment and generally maintaining some criticism of the administration but the bar has been set so low that he looks good in comparison. But that doesn't make up for 2012 and the fact that he soiled his principles and reputation to sell out to the loonies in his party. The only difference was that the party hadn't started openly embracing authoritarianism at the time.

 

The Trump brand is toast. You want to elect Kamala Harris President? Nominate Junior.