Jump to content

US Politics: Elections, Defections, Insurrections, Oh My!


Durckad

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

I think those pardons could be sturck down in court (even if they were not paid for), and then when it gets taken to SCOTUS... oh, nevermind.

 

No. But if bribery is established after the fact the individual can be charged for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No. But if bribery is established after the fact the individual can be charged for that. 

Well, I tend to believe a 3 decades federal prosecutor who says they could be determined as corrupt pardons. I myself know nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Y'all do know that the price for having 'Darth Cheney on our side in this means she'll one day be your president, right? She's clearly playing the long game ...

While I think the praise she gets for this is nauseating, losing your leadership position then quite possibly your seat is not exactly the best career trajectory.  Can't imagine her winning a presidential primary in anything close to the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginni Thomas says she 'can't wait' to talk to Jan. 6 committee

WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) - Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is eager to appear before the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, she told the Daily Caller news website on Thursday.

Thomas was responding to comments by the committee's chairman, Democrat Bennie Thompson, that suggested the panel would seek her testimony.

"I can't wait to clear up misconceptions. I look forward to talking to them," Thomas told the Daily Caller.

(...) "We look forward to her coming," Thompson said, adding that the committee had sent Thomas a letter.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/head-congress-jan-6-committee-says-time-invite-ginni-thomas-talk-2022-06-16

I'll believe it when I see it, Ginny.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, DMC said:

While I think the praise she gets for this is nauseating, losing your leadership position then quite possibly your seat is not exactly the best career trajectory.  Can't imagine her winning a presidential primary in anything close to the foreseeable future.

If a non Trumpy Republican candidate was the nominee in 2024, wouldn't they look to Cheney to be a potential VP candidate?  Or do you think she's that toxic to the electorate overall?  

(There's not going to be a non Trumpy candidate in 2024, I know...just a matter of what flavor of Trumpy...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

(There's not going to be a non Trumpy candidate in 2024, I know...just a matter of what flavor of Trumpy...)

It's not fair when you answer your own questions.  

But to entertain the hypothetical, if someone was looking for a "non Trumpy" VP candidate in 2024 it'd be of the Youngkin or Nancy Mace variety who have managed to thread a middleground.  Hell even a Nikki Haley would be far more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Well, I tend to believe a 3 decades federal prosecutor who says they could be determined as corrupt pardons. I myself know nothing about it.

"Could" is the key word. I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere unless it was so overt and even then the options are limited.

 

And there is no non trumpy candidate winning in 2024. If anything they'll be even more crazy, and what's scary is almost anyone would be smarter than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing to consider is even if a non Trumpist won the nomination, they would almost certainly be looking for a comparatively more Trumpy VP to solidify the base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And there is no non trumpy candidate winning in 2024. If anything they'll be even more crazy, and what's scary is almost anyone would be smarter than him.

Oh, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I suspect there might be a Freudian typo, or ran has stolen a not from your sentence, too. How many nots do you need, ran, how many?

Yeah as I read over it, I wonder if I subconsciously stopped myself from saying they have a tough job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Ginni Thomas says she 'can't wait' to talk to Jan. 6 committee

WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) - Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is eager to appear before the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, she told the Daily Caller news website on Thursday.

Thomas was responding to comments by the committee's chairman, Democrat Bennie Thompson, that suggested the panel would seek her testimony.

"I can't wait to clear up misconceptions. I look forward to talking to them," Thomas told the Daily Caller.

(...) "We look forward to her coming," Thompson said, adding that the committee had sent Thomas a letter.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/head-congress-jan-6-committee-says-time-invite-ginni-thomas-talk-2022-06-16

I'll believe it when I see it, Ginny.

 

 

 

 

As required by law.

Ginni, quit living on dreams, Ginni admit what you did, Ginni time to come clean - yes, the entire point of this post is an obscure 1980s music reference. And to get a Falco tune stuck in your ears. You are very welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginni is going to be trumpy bobble head as he's been screaming regarding the Committee hearings need to, "GIVE ME FAIR TIME!" Comonjerkoff -- you got alla faux noose trumpeting for ya alla time. :whip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

an interesting read worth thinking about.

Quote

 

.... “Charging a former president would be incredibly divisive, could even spark a civil war, and I think that’s something that has to be considered before filing charges,” said Barbara McQuade, who spent seven years as a federal prosecutor during Barack Obama’s presidency. 

“I would at least come down on the side that you have to charge this if the evidence is there, because despite the risk of civil war, the only thing worse than that would be to not charge them, to allow this crime to go unaccounted for,” she said. “One of the purposes of criminal prosecution is not just to punish people for past misconduct, but to deter them and others from doing the same thing in the future.” ....

 

This has been the crux of the matter for Dems for over a decade.  Regarding everything They have done and do, and never stop doing.  Whereas further, a whole buncha Them -- a civil war / racial war / on women and all others is exactly what they desire with every fiber of their being, so They can finally just shoot a million bullets for days at a time.

In the meantime, the witnesses at these hearings say it out loud that they knew that the election was NOT stolen, that what was being planned, was being attempted was illegal, criminal and unconstitutional.  But they never told anybody else, such as the press (and would the frackin' press have even bothered to actually, you know, really, tell us what this meant?), or the FBI or or or or, until they are now trying to save their own asses and wash their anuses, to be free to participate in the next round of stealing elections and oppressing everyone who isn't them.  They are anything but heroes and u betcha that means Luttig and those god-bible-prayer invoking witnesses.  I vomit on them.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Just saw this article reflecting on today as the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break-in.  To be clear I do not share the underlying optimism/hopefulness, but still an interesting read worth thinking about.

I caught the last bit of the movie Gaslit, about Martha Mitchell, last night in HBO. Fuck, what a POS her husband was.

I totally forget that now days people who are telling the truth but their mental health professional, doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, tells them they are delusional are suffering from “Martha Mitchell Syndrome”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...