US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.

[Zorral]

21 minutes ago, Week said:

draw the line at violent insurrection. 

Because of Their fear of getting prosecuted Themselves for treason, I quite, quite suspect. They more than likely understood that the military generally speaking would not support a violent federal government coup.  At this point at least, the military is still better armed, and more disciplined, than the mobs the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, etc. muster.

Plus that word Hutchinson used to describe her reactions to what she saw Them doing at and to the Capitol -- the damage, which one can relate too, to her description of romperisto throwing his lunch at the wall of the president's dining room and the ketchup running down -- "disgusting". 

It's 'suggested' it was more than unlikely that she, aide to the White House Chief of Staff, would do such a thing.  But she might have been hoping to mitigate staff's disgust w/romperisto by pitching in.  Also, the way she grew up -- not so privileged -- and her still very young years -- may have made pitching in to clean up a domestic food mess not so unthinkable as Those Others, white, male, privileged already for years, might think.  This is pure speculation on my part, not a proven fact.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's just slang for someone tossed in jail for life with the expectation they'll get no protection within.

Always heard it used as "under the jail," never "under the prison."

[LongRider]

44 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's 'suggested' it was more than unlikely that she, aide to the White House Chief of Staff, would do such a thing.  But she might have been hoping to mitigate staff's disgust w/romperisto by pitching in

Like many of us I've had some bad bosses, and underlings with shared negative experiences will sometimes help each other out to commiserate and express their humiliation.   It's quite possible the valet was very unhappy about the incident, and she helped him out as form of empathy.   That's how it looked to me.

[DMC]

Don't think it's been mentioned here, but both Robert Engel and Tony Ornato have said they're willing to testify Hutchinson's account is not true.  I don't doubt Hutchinson is the one actually telling the truth here, but I think it was a mistake for the committee to include that testimony (well, it could and should have been included for posterity in her private depositions of course, I mean highlighting it such as they did) .  As far as I'm aware (I didn't watch her whole testimony), that story was the only "hearsay" from yesterday - all the other damaging testimony was from her firsthand.  So this just made it way too easy for the fucks to dismiss her credibility.

[Zorral]

She was asked after relating her hearsay, that she'd relayed to both Robert Engel and Tony Ornato -- IIARC -- in the same room, if either of them pushed back on what she'd been told.  She answered that neither of them did.

[Maithanet]

She was testifying to what someone else said in her presence.  She was clearly not actually there, and thus can only repeat what was said to her. 

It's possible Engel and Ornato will straight up lie and say that this never happened AND that they didn't say this to her.  But the issue for them both is that to do so they would have to get under oath and would be asked a bunch of other questions that they probably would rather not answer.  My understanding is that Engel and Ornato have already given depositions under oath to the committee, but it's unknown how cooperative they were and whether those depositions were taken prior to the committee learning what Hutchinson had to say. 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But the issue for them both is that to do so they would have to get under oath and would be asked a bunch of other questions that they probably would rather not answer.

Yes, to be clear, I strongly suspect at least Ornato is doing the same thing Ginny Thomas is - saying he's willing to testify about this but doing everything to avoid doing so.  My point is the story made it way too easy to attack her credibility - especially if the committee suspected Ornato and Engel would deny her account, which they probably should have - compared to the rest of her testimony.

[Jace, Extat]

Thefuck are you silly gooses getting agitated about? Y'all know nothing's coming of this right? Some witness' credibility being questioned, yo, this whole hearing is just whistling in the dark by a bunch of inept assholes trying to rustle up some donations so they'll get slightly less eviscerated in November. 

You motherfuckers are arguing over the credibility of a witness to something the public, the police, and the political class have -through inaction at least- condoned. Ransacking CVS is a crime. Ransacking the capitol is a political statement. Get that through your fucking heads and maybe you'll start to figure out a thing you could actually talk about DOING to forestall this slide into the abyss. But until then you're wasting server space. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

But until then you're wasting server space. 

Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Thefuck are you silly gooses getting agitated about? Y'all know nothing's coming of this right? Some witness' credibility being questioned, yo, this whole hearing is just whistling in the dark by a bunch of inept assholes trying to rustle up some donations so they'll get slightly less eviscerated in November. 

You motherfuckers are arguing over the credibility of a witness to something the public, the police, and the political class have -through inaction at least- condoned. Ransacking CVS is a crime. Ransacking the capitol is a political statement. Get that through your fucking heads and maybe you'll start to figure out a thing you could actually talk about DOING to forestall this slide into the abyss. But until then you're wasting server space. 

What do you think people should be doing?  Pray tell?

[Week]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Look… I think their “line” is far to accepting of horrible shit from the losing one term former President who lives in Florida and loves the Russian dictator… regardless I’m glad they have a line.

My point, which I poorly made typing on my phone, is they've enabled him to stay viable to return to politics without people like them with "a line". Essentially, he'll be worse.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What do you think people should be doing?  Pray tell?

If your enemy is allowed an action that you refuse to adopt, you lose any contest of wills automatically. Do I have to spell it out? 

Maybe less time on bemoaning the facts the the board state (they took Roe, they couped, they ally with foreign powers, we're gonna get CRUSHED at the midterms) and more time thinking of solutions that don't require fuckwit politicians with too much to lose and not enough to gain.

Do I have to spell it out, Scott? We're past the point of committees and marketing campaigns. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

My point, which I poorly made typing on my phone, is they've enabled him to stay viable to return to politics without people like them with "a line". Essentially, he'll be worse.

The possibility of his return to the White House disturbs me too.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Babblebauble said:

If your enemy is allowed an action that you refuse to adopt, you lose any contest of wills automatically. Do I have to spell it out? 

Maybe less time on bemoaning the facts the the board state (they took Roe, they couped, they ally with foreign powers, we're gonna get CRUSHED at the midterms) and more time thinking of solutions that don't require fuckwit politicians with too much to lose and not enough to gain.

Do I have to spell it out, Scott? We're past the point of committees and marketing campaigns. 

Yes.  Spell it out.  Adopting the tactics I oppose in my opponents is not my habit.  Ever.

[Ran]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't doubt Hutchinson is the one actually telling the truth here, but I think it was a mistake for the committee to include that testimony (well, it could and should have been included for posterity in her private depositions of course, I mean highlighting it such as they did) . 

Yeah, when I saw people were shocked by her testimony I checked it out and as soon as I realized it was hearsay... well, I hope they've thought through bringing her on to repeat hearsay, that they have supporting evidence or something, because as you say, it distracts from stuff she was personally witness to.

[Jace, Extat]

Your opponents were ready to kill or be killed in order to see their vision of an authoritarian Daddy keep power and wield it against their enemies. 

Until you folks are ready to kill or be killed to STOP them from doing that again -which they probably won't even have to- you're wasting more than time. You're wasting the last moments to do something that can arrest the collapse. 

People notice these things. They flock to strength, because they'd rather be in the in group that looks like it's going to win than attached to the piteous losers whose only observable recourse is to whine instead of act. The fascists understand that.

[straits]

10 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Do I have to spell it out, Scott? We're past the point of committees and marketing campaigns. 

The underlying implication is that you'd like to fix things through violence. That's not okay.*

 

*In a western country. It's okay if it involves invading a MENA country.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So Colonel Jace is now armed to the teeth, and is ready to go full prepper. 

That's the short of it.

 

[JGP]

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  Spell it out.  Adopting the tactics I oppose in my opponents is not my habit.  Ever.

They'll correct me if I'm wrong, but BB seems to be insinuating rather what Republicans like to do [and did during Drumpf's term] 

• filling as many available seats as possible in the Courts
• 'flooding the zone with shit' but a different polemic [bog down the MAGA and Republican yappers with distraction]
• DOJ challenging everything they can under the aegis of Human Rights, another flood
• put fire under the FBI, and perhaps even the DOD if National Security can be argued [not sure at all about latter]
• an unending stream EOs from Biden
• if your appointments aren't happening, circumvent by appointing Acting positions
• get. the fuck. on it. all of it. more. everything

etc et so on 

   

 

edit: or maybe not lol, I see

edit ii: request Garland's resignation and/or fire him. Appoint a firecracker who will weaponize the FBI and existing law. That'll stir up conservative rubes for months 

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Babblebauble said:

Until you folks are ready to kill or be killed to STOP them from doing that again -which they probably won't even have to- you're wasting more than time. You're wasting the last moments to do something that can arrest the collapse. 

Thanks, Chicken Little. We've had a few of these freakouts over the years, and "This too shall pass" has so far always been right.

But if you want something actionable to do about real problems facing real people, here's solid advice, especially as regards to providing donations or even volunteering to help keep women's right to choose alive in Kansas, where there's an important referendum set for the GOP primary that will try to do away with the state constitution's protections for privacy and personal autonomy that keeps abortion legal there and accessible to women in Kansas and in neighboring states where abortion rights are in danger.