Rorschach wrote:Bloody hell.
... butcher THEIR children...
Deebank wrote:
Just one nutter of course but it still amazes me that people keep insisting there is some sort of moral parity between Trump's fascist supporters and BLM / Antifa. I read a number of posts in 'the other place' doing just this.
Deebank wrote:
Just one nutter of course but it still amazes me that people keep insisting there is some sort of moral parity between Trump's fascist supporters and BLM / Antifa. I read a number of posts in 'the other place' doing just this.
Rorschach wrote:Like the BBC giving climate change deniers equal time.
Rorschach wrote:Deebank wrote:
Just one nutter of course but it still amazes me that people keep insisting there is some sort of moral parity between Trump's fascist supporters and BLM / Antifa. I read a number of posts in 'the other place' doing just this.
I went and had a look. Toby. Not entirely surprising.
Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?
Flower wrote:I just did a google search.
Minnie the Minx wrote:Reading accounts (and watching videos) of the Democrat trying to hand out masks to the Republicans as they sat barricaded, with them laughing at her and sneering, feltlike the last straw of last straws. Trump's obvious contempt for anyone following infection protocols should reserve him a special place in hell. A Presidential show of acknowledgement and encouragement to wear masks would have been so influential. He dissed doctors days after discharge from hospital. What a mountain of cunt he is.
I read at the start of the pandemic about the chuckling thrills people got from being stopped in public because they were maskless - and how they enjoyed scurrying home and relaying tales of what a wag they were for "forgetting." Never had to take someone off a ventilator, never showed a mother's corpse to their kids. But all their mates laughed! The failure of leadership on these simple measures and the deliberate, slow poisoning of people's minds about the roles and agendas of those who have spent their lives caring for others is a fucking disgrace.
Footy wrote:Last week, I discovered that the cordless drill I bought about 5 years ago is, in fact, a cordless screwdiver.
Until now, Trump has been protected from prosecution largely because of a 1973 Justice Department memorandum that prohibits indicting a sitting president. But as Mueller’s report noted, that policy presupposes that a future administration can proceed with prosecution. The memo rests on a determination that a criminal charge would unfairly burden a president and hinder him from executing his duties. These concerns, of course, are no longer salient after the president leaves office.
This doesn’t mean that future prosecution is guaranteed. In fact, even if Trump were to leave office without taking any steps to immunize himself from prosecution, the next attorney general may take into account several factors that weigh against pursuing charges. The next Justice Department will have to review the evidence and determine whether prosecutors are likely to secure a conviction — an outcome that is by no means assured, especially given Trump’s profile and some of the constitutional defenses he might assert. Another consideration may be whether there are other jurisdictions — like the states — that are better suited to bring charges on the same evidence. If confirmed as attorney general, Merrick Garland may also think about the impact on the nation of prosecuting a former president, and whether it would strengthen or weaken the public’s faith in the impartiality of the Justice Department. (History suggests that at least some of these considerations played into President Gerald Ford’s decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon.) Garland would be remiss not to at least consider these factors, many of which lean in Trump’s favor.
All of this, however, would go out the window in the event of a self-pardon, because a self-pardon would effectively be a declaration by Trump that he is above the law, and that would be a direct challenge to the authority and legitimacy of the Justice Department. A self-pardon negates the very idea of prosecutorial discretion — the latitude to weigh all the factors above — and makes the president, as a possible future defendant, his own prosecutor, judge and jury.
It would also carry disastrous implications beyond Trump. Allowing a self-pardon would set a precedent whereby any future president could commit crimes — like soliciting or benefiting from foreign campaign assistance — to win office. Once there, he or she could abuse presidential powers for personal gain, engaging in obstruction of justice and perjury to thwart any investigations. Then the president could commit crimes up to the last day in office, like extortion and fraud, to remain in the White House illegally. If it works, and Congress doesn’t impeach and remove them, great! If not, they can pardon themselves and obtain a get-out-of-jail-free card on their way out. The presidency would effectively become a risk-free, crime-laundering opportunity, which is fundamentally at odds with a nation built on the rule of law.
But to challenge a self-pardon, the Justice Department has to charge the former president with a crime. This is because courts in the United States do not offer “advisory opinions” — they don’t answer legal questions in the abstract, only where there is an active “case or controversy” that affects a person directly. So there’s no way to know if the idea of a self-pardon is valid without testing it in court. The only person directly affected by the validity of a self-pardon would be Trump, and he would assert it as a defense only if the Justice Department charged him with a federal crime.
And here is where Garland, if he’s attorney general, is in luck. Imagine a previous president, like George W. Bush or Barack Obama, randomly pardoning himself at the end of his term, despite not having committed any obvious crimes. It would be unseemly, and inappropriate, for an attorney general to go on a fishing expedition to “find” a crime to charge, just to test a legal proposition. In Trump’s case, by contrast, such charges are already waiting, with evidence gathered and ready. Trump is basically the perfect test case for a self-pardon, and by granting one to himself, he would place the feather on the scale in favor of his prosecution.
Prosecution is the only way forward if Trump chooses this route.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.
Belle Lettre wrote:It's more likely Giuliani was channelling GoT than Germanic traditions, Hightea
Hightea wrote:Yikes just heard some disturbing news- this isn’t over- rumor is there is another demonstration happening in the next 10 days and it’s going on in all 50 states. That is why Parlor, Trump Twitter account and others have been censored, there is an attack being organized so the FBI is trying to shut down communication.
U.S. campaign finance system rocked as major firms pause or halt political contributions after election results challenged
The funding of U.S. political campaigns is being rocked as major firms such as Facebook, BlackRock, Marriott and Dow announced plans to halt some or all political contributions as a result of last week’s insurrection at the Capitol — a sign of corporate America’s growing uneasiness with the election doubts and violent attacks inspired by President Trump.
Major companies that collectively pour millions of dollars annually into campaigns through employee-funded political action committees are registering their worry and anger about last week’s chaos by pledging to reexamine their role in American politics.
Facebook and Microsoft said they will halt all political donations while they reviewed their giving. BlackRock made a similar announcement in a memo to its employees, noting its decision was spurred by “the horrific events in the nation’s capital.” Others, such as Marriott, announced more targeted action: A pause to the campaign cash flowing to Republicans who voted against certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win.
Marriott, the world’s largest hotel chain, said its decision suspending donations to 147 Republican U.S. representatives and senators was motivated by “the destructive events at the Capitol to undermine a legitimate and fair election.”
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said it would do the same, with the provider of health insurance to more than 100 million people pledging to end contributions “to those lawmakers who voted to undermine our democracy.”
American Express struck a similar note in a memo sent to all employees Monday, halting contributions to the Congress members who voted “to subvert the presidential election results and disrupt the peaceful transition of power.”
It was strong language. Last week’s violence at the Capitol appears to have companies scrambling to figure out how to react, as they increasingly realize that this is not an ordinary political dispute and the option of sitting on the sidelines grows increasingly unsatisfying.
“These corporations are doing something very new, and something that could potentially alienate an important base for them,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a money-in-politics group. “I’ve never heard of this happening before.”
Dow said its decision to cut off political donations to the 147 Republican U.S. representatives and senators would last for an entire election cycle — two years for House members and six years for senators.
Commerce Bank — a holding company with branches in five mostly Midwestern states — said in a statement that its PAC has “suspended all support for officials who have impeded the peaceful transfer of power.”
Some of the corporate decisions were first reported by the online newsletter Popular Information.
Shortly after a mob breached the Capitol, companies and trade groups rushed to register their outrage, with statements ranging from condemnations to direct calls for Trump’s removal from office.
Marriott’s PAC — which is funded by employee donations — gave more than $410,000 in the last election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data.
The hotel chain also has a direct business relationship with Trump. It books travel to Trump Turnberry through the Marriott Luxury Collection program.
Marriott’s decision — along with ones such as from Blue Cross Blue Shield — would hurt the fundraising efforts of those who voted last week against certifying the presidential election results.
More pressure on companies is coming. The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, in the coming days will launch a multimillion-dollar ad campaign targeting companies that bankroll Republicans who voted against certifying the results of the election, pushing those firms to cease donations to these and other Republicans.
The project will launch broadcast and cable advertising aimed at these companies and their senior leaders. The Lincoln Project will also target advertising for these corporation’s workers, hoping to “destabilize the companies’ operations by fomenting employee rebellions,” said Steve Schmidt, co-founder of the Lincoln Project.
Schmidt declined to comment on the companies the Lincoln Project plans to campaign against but pointed out that AT&T, BlackRock and Charles Schwab are among the corporate entities that donate to Republican lawmakers.
“Eighty-$90 million was spent by corporate America on political committees … on extremist groups that have destabilized American democracy,” Schmidt said. “After this point, nothing goes back to normal.”
