Thank you! I needed that…I had been watching Bits of Fry & Laurie right before seeing the CNN “rescue” clip and it seemed like a continuation of same (not a knock on F& L—they were brilliant)(not looking up their politics, can’t face any more celebrity disappointments)….and the rest of the posting did not disappoint…you da man!
Could someone provide a link to the data supporting this claim? Thanks.
“This is exactly what the data suggests, with Biden getting swing-state after-polling-close votes in ratios not seen anywhere else in the country. Anywhere. In. The. Country.”
This is why they wanted to count mail-in ballots last: they're the easiest ones to fake.
But you'll note that non-swing states didn't see this overwhelming late Biden surge. We're supposed to instead think that Milwaukee voted MORE OVERWHELMINGLY than DC for the Democrats. And Atlanta. And Pittsburgh.
We are being so played on an epic scale. Getting Americans to wait patiently for a deliberately and professionally rigged election when the alternative strategy of we the people would have been to get started with throwing the bums out. So many Trojan horses.
When President Joe Biden called out “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans” last Thursday as representative of “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” he drew a clear line between those supporting the former president and those from all parties who support democracy. He quite deliberately drew a line between Trump supporters and “mainstream Republicans” who do not embrace the “extreme ideology” of their former allies.
Immediately, Trump supporters attacked the president and rushed to defend Trump, just as more news broke about his theft of classified documents and other presidential records when he left the White House. This tied the Republican Party to Trump, along with what is a stunning national security story that continues to unfold.
Just tonight we learned that FBI agents found a document detailing the military defenses of a foreign government, including its nuclear capabilities, during last month’s search of Mar-a-Lago. What is at stake here is not simply information about the U.S., or even information about the way our leaders conceive of what is best for the U.S. What is at stake is the security of the U.S. and our democratic allies. Some of the documents they found were so highly restricted that they required special clearances on a need-to-know basis. Trump kept them in boxes at Mar-a-Lago.
This situation is extraordinary, but yesterday, Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated his loyalty to Trump when he referred to Trump’s theft and mishandling of the documents as “a fight over storage of documents.” Rubio is the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Yesterday’s decision by Judge Aileen Cannon further illustrated the strength of the MAGA Republicans and their positions in places of power.
Cannon was nominated by Trump and confirmed after he lost the 2020 election. Yesterday she granted Trump’s request for a special master to review the government documents the FBI recovered from Mar-a-Lago on August 8. Today, Ian Millhiser at Vox explained that Cannon’s order could delay the FBI investigation by as much as years (other analysts argue that she has cut off only one avenue of investigation, so they believe it will not be that big a speedbump). The Department of Justice can appeal the decision, which Millhiser agrees with other legal analysts is “riddled with legal errors,” but an appeal would go to the 11th circuit, where Trump appointed 6 of the 11 judges who, if they wished, could further delay the case, and then agree with Cannon. The Department of Justice could then appeal to the Supreme Court: which now has a 6 to 3 Republican majority, three of whom Trump himself appointed.
Cannon’s order appears to have been intended to send a message. Bloomberg News legal and political reporter Zoe Tillman said today that seven senior officials who served in Republican administrations, including two former governors, a former attorney general, a former acting attorney general, and a former deputy attorney general, asked to send in a “friend of the court” brief in opposition to Trump’s request. Cannon denied their request, saying the court “appreciates the movants’ willingness to participate in this matter but does not find…[it]...warranted.”
Millhiser asked: “Why would a judge do this unless they are trying to advertise the fact that they are not open to opposing arguments? Just accept the…brief and then don’t read it if you don’t want to make a public spectacle out of not caring what anyone says.” Los Angeles Times legal affairs columnist Harry Litman said he didn’t think he’d ever seen a court reject a friend of the court brief before.
MAGA Republicans are standing behind Trump in his determination to overturn the 2020 election. In Michigan on Friday, six people filed a suit to order Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to “work together to rerun the Michigan 2020 presidential election as soon as possible.” One of those joining the suit previously handed over her township’s vote tabulator to a group trying to prove “voter fraud” in the election.
And today, Zachary Cohen and Jason Morris of CNN reported that newly released surveillance video shows that on January 7, 2021, a Republican county official in Georgia escorted into her county’s election offices two operatives working with Trump’s attorneys to try to find voter fraud. That same day the voting systems were breached. The official, Cathy Latham, is under investigation for her role as a fake elector and has given conflicting testimony about her actions. Some of Trump’s allies in the fake election scheme seem also to have launched a multistate effort to gain access to voting machines after the 2020 election.
Lies about the election from right-wing media convinced these MAGA Republicans of the Big Lie that the election had been stolen, but documents emerging from the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against the Fox News Channel are illustrating that the people feeding those lies knew they were false. Dominion has sued the media giant for defamation, saying its hosts knew the stories they told of the voting machines switching votes were false and that it has been “irreparably harmed” by the lies that will lead to more than $600 million in lost profits over the next 8 years. The document production has yielded a November 2020 email from an FNC producer insisting that it must keep host Jeanine Pirro off the air because she was spreading conspiracy theories to back Trump’s lies that the election had been stolen.
And, today, New Mexico judge Francis J. Mathew ruled that Couy Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, must be removed from his office as Otero County commissioner for participating in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In a lawsuit brought by New Mexico citizens, Mathew ruled that Griffin is disqualified for office under the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits from holding office anyone who had engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the country. This is the first time this clause has been enforced since 1869, and the first time a court has found the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection.
Now other Republicans are weighing in to suggest that, now that the lines have been made very clear indeed, they will stand with the Constitution if there is an attempt to take the government by force. Today, eight former secretaries of defense and five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff published an open letter in the national security outlet War on the Rocks outlining the “principles of civilian control and best practices of civil-military relations.” The leading illustration was an image of the U.S. Constitution.
These former military leaders noted the many factors that have created “an exceptionally challenging civil-military environment,” and reiterated that “civilian control of the military is part of the bedrock foundation of American democracy.” They noted that “[t]he military—active-duty, reserve, and National Guard—have carefully delimited roles in law enforcement [that] must be taken only insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution and relevant statutes,” and that “[m]ilitary and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity.”
This is a calmer echo of the open letter the ten living former secretaries of defense published on January 3, 2021, in the Washington Post, which called for a peaceful transition of power after the 2020 election and seemed to warn colleagues not to back the former president’s attempts to create an uprising. They said: “Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.”
Perhaps most notably, in an interview with Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, published today, longtime conservative Bill Kristol said that, at least in the short term, the Republican Party cannot be saved. “And,” he offered, “if we don’t have two reasonably healthy parties, the unhealthy party has to be defeated.”
First of all, what is “afternath”? Also, did that group mount an insurrection when Congress gathered to count the electors for Trump during the peaceful transfer of power from Obama to Trump? I think I would have remembered seeing that on the news... 🤔
Six police officers were injured and 217 protesters arrested Friday after a morning of peaceful protests and coordinated disruptions of Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony gave way to ugly street clashes in downtown Washington.
At least two DC police officers and one other person were taken to the hospital after run-ins with protesters, DC Fire Spokesman Vito Maggiolo told CNN. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said the officers’ injuries were considered minor and not life threatening.
Bursts of chaos erupted on 12th and K streets as black-clad “antifascist” protesters smashed storefronts and bus stops, hammered out the windows of a limousine and eventually launched rocks at a phalanx of police lined up in an eastbound crosswalk. Officers responded by launching smoke and flash-bang devices, which could be heard from blocks away, into the street to disperse the crowds.
Sorry TM, SC buried you in facts. You suggested the transfer of power from Obama to Trump was peaceful or you "would have seen it in the news". There was an ongoing never ending attempt by many to deny, discredit, and destroy Trump's presidency starting well before his win and continuing to this day. That is a fact but you will never see it because you hate Donald Trump. You tune out anything that does not support your belief. You actually, literally, wrote that the transfer of power was peaceful, I saw it just now while reading your comment. Then when you were confronted by evidence that you are (demonstrably) wrong, you pretended it was not your question. You pretend that the non stop
crying and screaming and investigations of Russian Collusion didn't happen. Sorry but they did. You are totally absolutely wrong and you probably know it deep down inside, but whether you know it or not it happened. You are wrong when you say that it did not. Massively way off base. Like famously and wildly off base. You are wrong about the transition of power from Obama to Trump, for sure. Very very wrong. It is nearly incoherent for you to claim otherwise, the transfer of power was not peaceful. At all. Meanwhile look what you have in the white house today. Do you pretend to like what you see? Or would you rather just tune it all out and focus your energy on writing truly nonsensical claims that the transfer of power from Obama to Trump was calm and peaceful? Even Hillary would disagree with you. She remembers vividly the many, many investigations into Russian collusion. She said to anybody who would listen that she was robbed of the presidency. You don't remember that? It was in the media. I think you are wrong about most everything you claimed. Did I mention that? The transfer of power from Obama to Trump was the messiest transfer of power in our lifetimes. Until 2020, when millions of people saw an incredible amount of fraud but not a single supporter of "looking into it" in one single mainstream outlet. This includes Fox News, other than a few opinion hosts. You are very very wrong. Sorry you hate Trump but that doesn't make you right about your claims. You are very wrong. There. How does it feel to have your belief in something buried in a filibuster? Not fun, is it? There was massive fraud in 2020. You know it too. You just hate to think about it. Cuz wow do you hate Trump. Me? Not crazy about Biden.
Also, it’s adorable how you pick and choose with parts of which sentence to acknowledge as to sidestep inconvenient questions. Yeah, I used the phrase “peaceful transfer of power”. What was in the first half of that sentence? Do you even remember? Probably not because it is one of those pesky inconvenient parts that you have to avoid like the plague in order to maintain your worldview.
I’ll remind you. I’ll just copy and paste. Only don’t lose the plot this time maybe? Ahem:
“And this has what to do with congress approving the electors during the peaceful transfer of power?”
And in case you’re tempted to find another non sequitur to obsess over instead of the actual point of the question, I’ll highlight the actual point of the question in bold letters:
“And this has what to do with CONGRESS APPROVING THE ELECTORS during the peaceful transfer of power?”
You want to obsess over some video you found that you are ascribing to the Democratic response to trump getting elected. I haven’t verified that. That could be from anywhere. But I can certainly say this: Compared to January 6th, the Democratic reaction to Trump getting elected was a pillow fight.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There’s a movement by the deep state or the shadowy, cannibalistic, democratic Cabal or Hillary’s emails or Hunter’s laptop to discredit Donald Trump that no one can ever verify or give evidence of but it’s definitely there. I just have to take your word for it. And the reason I haven’t seen it is because I hate trump so my hatred of Trump is blinding me from seeing the evidence of this deep state movement to destroy Trump. Got it.
So the reason I can’t see it is because I’m biased against Trump. What I don’t understand is the fact that you AREN’T biased against Trump so that would mean that you CAN see the evidence that I can’t. So why won’t you share any of that evidence with me so I can see the movement against Trump, that you claim is keeping Trump from being able to put up a fair fight in all this?
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m asking you to show me. Now is your chance to convert a lib. You show me evidence of these activities and I will become one of Trump’s biggest defenders. So here I’ll wait with bated breath. Please. Pull away the veil and enlighten me.
Why would I waste any more time engaging people who are clearly not interested in challenging the narrative that they’ve been fed? I met my quota for debating people who are only participating in bad faith already when I walked away from this conversation yesterday.
Well, lightweight, practice up and come on back when you are interested once again in challenging that narrative you've bought into.
Next time, however, try participating in good faith, instead of spewing ad hominem and non-substantive insult with your argument. You'll find we (and especially our host) will honor your differing opinion and consider your substantive points with open minds.
But unlike M. Sim, who remains gracious, I will respond to you in kind, as I have done these two days. I never find that a waste of time!
Believing truth doesn’t require opening your mind. It’s simply the truth. But what is true in today’s world? In lieu of finding the answer to THAT doozy of a question, I’ll defer to sworn testimony. Whomever gives testimony under oath, I’ll believe it. And the only things I’ve been sharing here are born of sworn testimony.
One of us has certainly bought into a narrative but it isn’t me.
There is no left or right. It is just a construct created by the political class to hold on to power. We need to come together to beat these evil fuks.. They will stop at NOTHING to hold on to power.
Wow. It's remarkable that someone cannot absorb information at the level at which you are demonstrating you cannot absorb information. I am dumbstruck over what Little information you managed to retain from the posts and Data that I have painstakingly spelled out for you. Wow. You didn't pick up one thing I said correctly. You got it all backwards and upside down and twisted inside out in a manner so profoundly incorrect that I must applaud you. I was raised that if you were going to do something, don't half ass it. Commit. Go all the way. And I respect your level of missing the point and getting everything absolutely wrong so deeply and so profoundly. You double down and I respect that level of commitment to not knowing what you're talking about. That is a gift. Bravo and God bless.
I treat people who choose to be willfully obtuse with disrespect because there are few things I respect less than someone choosing to not see something that doesn’t fit into their worldview.
I’ll repeat my wildly effective antidote to all of the malignancy of reality you all are attempting to drown me in on this thread: Everything I have shared comes from those who are willing to make sworn testimony under oath. If you find yourself clinging to the narrative of someone who isn’t willing to repeat that same narrative under oath, then you’re trusting the wrong source.
The thing is, everyone around here is intelligent. And yet they are falling for this very elementary-level deception. It leads me to believe that there’s an element of allowing oneself to be lied to rather than being ruled by logic and pondering why certain individuals will come up with every excuse under the sun to NOT have to be sworn in and testify under oath. Slavery is abhorrent. The only thing worse is a slave that chooses to be a slave.
Thanks; yes, I believe that most around here are intelligent. But I no longer rely on what used to be reliable sources of information. There have been too many times when supposedly reliable information, such as sworn testimony, has proven to be less than a North Star of truth. Perjury occurs every day in every courtroom. Or less than reliable sources- Cassidy Hutchinson, anyone?
You think we cling to a certain view no matter what. A look in the mirror might reveal the same failing on the opposite side. If you are so certain of your interpretation of Jan 6, what would it hurt to release everything? Truth will out, as a famous writer wrote.
Ok. The simplest first. The DOJ is in the middle of one of the most important criminal investigations in the history of our country concerning J6. If the J6 committee released all of its evidence, it would imperil that criminal investigation, alerting potential suspects, allowing for The destruction of evidence, and revealing key witnesses, who could be dealt with one way or another before the DOJ ever gets a chance to interrogate them. There are other reasons but that seemed to be the most accessible explanation for any reasonable person. Which is why I’m sure that won’t be good enough for you…
I’ll entertain your notion that Cassidy Hutchinson isn’t reliable for a moment. (Although it must be stated that just saying a thing doesn’t make it real. You could say that your arguments are vetted and based on fact and evidence but that wouldn’t make them so in reality. A perusal of this thread would quickly render such a statement baseless. And you continuing to make the same claims wouldn’t stop reality from being reality.) So for The sake of debate, Hutchinson isn’t a reliable source….Until her story gets corroborated again and again and again UNDER OATH by people who are in a position to corroborate or refute her testimony. Oh, sure. There are people who are attempting to besmirch her word but those people aren’t doing so under oath because those people are lying.
No, I deal with sworn testimonies given under oath. You can call me whatever you want to call me but don’t call what I rely upon my “opinion”. I only accept facts given in the court of law under oath as worthy to build my understanding of these events. Opinion fits handily with YOUR point of view though because most of it is quite fanciful in its creativity and imagination. But until the people you trust state these notions under oath, all you got are basically fairytales.
And if testimony under oath that *would* support my point-of-view/contention/perception/opinion is not allowed to be given, then, according to your modus operandi, it does not exist, conveniently relegating what I contend to be truth mere "fanciful creativity and imagination."
Boy, you've got it *all* figured out.
But I think you miss the vast majority of reality using your very convenient method, otherwise known as "ignorance is bliss."
Now you are inventing an out. If you get logic’d into a corner just paint yourself a door, right?
I’d love to hear who is an individual that COULD testify that your point-of-view/conception/perception/opinion is correct but isn’t being allowed to do so? Anyone and everyone with something to share about January 6th are implored to come forward. The J6 committee will take anything anyone has to say. The door is wide open. If *I* had intel, they’d glad hear from me. If *YOU* had intel, they’d glad hear from you.
So please tell me who this person is that is desperately trying to share information under oath that would validate you beliefs but they aren’t being allowed to speak?
Perhaps "painstakingly spelled out for you" might become a full article because I may have not tracked your comments well. I can agree the topic is quite complex and we can differ on interpretations.
I mean, I’m the course of these comments, I had to define what a select committee actually was, it’s legislative purpose, the difference between it and the department of Justice, etc. I’m trying to teach him a civics course in these comments and he still only heard what he wanted to hear. I know a person whose not interested in challenging their bias when I see them. If the level of detail I went into in my explanations didn’t seem painstakingly spelled out for you then we really shouldn’t waste any more time engaging. We clearly do not see eye to eye.
This is not an objective piece stating the facts and nothing but the facts, ma’am, but an article of writing so abjectly biased that it holds no interest for me.
The video footage of little old ladies and children waving US flags is much too violent and extreme for the public. Thus it will never be released. What a freakshow we've been watching for way too long now. Sigh. But as for me and my house, we refuse to allow these monsters to urge us to violence or retribution of any kind. It's really what this is all about. People who are frothing with evil, violence and hatred in their hearts *always* want to drag the good people down with them because it makes them feel better about themselves. I will *never* give them the satisfaction.
You may take a second to note that the people in the videos above, the pundits and talking heads, all have something in common apart from a hate-on for Trump and his supporters.
There's an angle to this americans seem loathe to discuss - I'd wager because what the Democrats and their versions of the Sturmabteilung is so un- (or anti even) american it becomes impossible to process.
From the outside based on what's been done to Europe these past 25 years, it's pretty obvious what's happening.
Thank you! I needed that…I had been watching Bits of Fry & Laurie right before seeing the CNN “rescue” clip and it seemed like a continuation of same (not a knock on F& L—they were brilliant)(not looking up their politics, can’t face any more celebrity disappointments)….and the rest of the posting did not disappoint…you da man!
Could someone provide a link to the data supporting this claim? Thanks.
“This is exactly what the data suggests, with Biden getting swing-state after-polling-close votes in ratios not seen anywhere else in the country. Anywhere. In. The. Country.”
You just have to look at the actual results. He got the votes he needed exactly WHERE and exactly WHEN he needed them.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2020/biden-trump-election-vote-counting/
This is why they wanted to count mail-in ballots last: they're the easiest ones to fake.
But you'll note that non-swing states didn't see this overwhelming late Biden surge. We're supposed to instead think that Milwaukee voted MORE OVERWHELMINGLY than DC for the Democrats. And Atlanta. And Pittsburgh.
We are being so played on an epic scale. Getting Americans to wait patiently for a deliberately and professionally rigged election when the alternative strategy of we the people would have been to get started with throwing the bums out. So many Trojan horses.
I love how he just glosses over the fact we could be nearly done counting mail-ins before election day.
Here's hoping the MAGA Republicans win their primaries on the DNC dime, the country's voters suddenly wake up, and MAGA cleans house
And now?
Are you still waiting now?
The 2016 election deniers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvQpW--sUM8
Sep 7
When President Joe Biden called out “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans” last Thursday as representative of “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” he drew a clear line between those supporting the former president and those from all parties who support democracy. He quite deliberately drew a line between Trump supporters and “mainstream Republicans” who do not embrace the “extreme ideology” of their former allies.
Immediately, Trump supporters attacked the president and rushed to defend Trump, just as more news broke about his theft of classified documents and other presidential records when he left the White House. This tied the Republican Party to Trump, along with what is a stunning national security story that continues to unfold.
Just tonight we learned that FBI agents found a document detailing the military defenses of a foreign government, including its nuclear capabilities, during last month’s search of Mar-a-Lago. What is at stake here is not simply information about the U.S., or even information about the way our leaders conceive of what is best for the U.S. What is at stake is the security of the U.S. and our democratic allies. Some of the documents they found were so highly restricted that they required special clearances on a need-to-know basis. Trump kept them in boxes at Mar-a-Lago.
This situation is extraordinary, but yesterday, Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated his loyalty to Trump when he referred to Trump’s theft and mishandling of the documents as “a fight over storage of documents.” Rubio is the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Yesterday’s decision by Judge Aileen Cannon further illustrated the strength of the MAGA Republicans and their positions in places of power.
Cannon was nominated by Trump and confirmed after he lost the 2020 election. Yesterday she granted Trump’s request for a special master to review the government documents the FBI recovered from Mar-a-Lago on August 8. Today, Ian Millhiser at Vox explained that Cannon’s order could delay the FBI investigation by as much as years (other analysts argue that she has cut off only one avenue of investigation, so they believe it will not be that big a speedbump). The Department of Justice can appeal the decision, which Millhiser agrees with other legal analysts is “riddled with legal errors,” but an appeal would go to the 11th circuit, where Trump appointed 6 of the 11 judges who, if they wished, could further delay the case, and then agree with Cannon. The Department of Justice could then appeal to the Supreme Court: which now has a 6 to 3 Republican majority, three of whom Trump himself appointed.
Cannon’s order appears to have been intended to send a message. Bloomberg News legal and political reporter Zoe Tillman said today that seven senior officials who served in Republican administrations, including two former governors, a former attorney general, a former acting attorney general, and a former deputy attorney general, asked to send in a “friend of the court” brief in opposition to Trump’s request. Cannon denied their request, saying the court “appreciates the movants’ willingness to participate in this matter but does not find…[it]...warranted.”
Millhiser asked: “Why would a judge do this unless they are trying to advertise the fact that they are not open to opposing arguments? Just accept the…brief and then don’t read it if you don’t want to make a public spectacle out of not caring what anyone says.” Los Angeles Times legal affairs columnist Harry Litman said he didn’t think he’d ever seen a court reject a friend of the court brief before.
MAGA Republicans are standing behind Trump in his determination to overturn the 2020 election. In Michigan on Friday, six people filed a suit to order Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to “work together to rerun the Michigan 2020 presidential election as soon as possible.” One of those joining the suit previously handed over her township’s vote tabulator to a group trying to prove “voter fraud” in the election.
And today, Zachary Cohen and Jason Morris of CNN reported that newly released surveillance video shows that on January 7, 2021, a Republican county official in Georgia escorted into her county’s election offices two operatives working with Trump’s attorneys to try to find voter fraud. That same day the voting systems were breached. The official, Cathy Latham, is under investigation for her role as a fake elector and has given conflicting testimony about her actions. Some of Trump’s allies in the fake election scheme seem also to have launched a multistate effort to gain access to voting machines after the 2020 election.
Lies about the election from right-wing media convinced these MAGA Republicans of the Big Lie that the election had been stolen, but documents emerging from the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against the Fox News Channel are illustrating that the people feeding those lies knew they were false. Dominion has sued the media giant for defamation, saying its hosts knew the stories they told of the voting machines switching votes were false and that it has been “irreparably harmed” by the lies that will lead to more than $600 million in lost profits over the next 8 years. The document production has yielded a November 2020 email from an FNC producer insisting that it must keep host Jeanine Pirro off the air because she was spreading conspiracy theories to back Trump’s lies that the election had been stolen.
And, today, New Mexico judge Francis J. Mathew ruled that Couy Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, must be removed from his office as Otero County commissioner for participating in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In a lawsuit brought by New Mexico citizens, Mathew ruled that Griffin is disqualified for office under the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits from holding office anyone who had engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the country. This is the first time this clause has been enforced since 1869, and the first time a court has found the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection.
Now other Republicans are weighing in to suggest that, now that the lines have been made very clear indeed, they will stand with the Constitution if there is an attempt to take the government by force. Today, eight former secretaries of defense and five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff published an open letter in the national security outlet War on the Rocks outlining the “principles of civilian control and best practices of civil-military relations.” The leading illustration was an image of the U.S. Constitution.
These former military leaders noted the many factors that have created “an exceptionally challenging civil-military environment,” and reiterated that “civilian control of the military is part of the bedrock foundation of American democracy.” They noted that “[t]he military—active-duty, reserve, and National Guard—have carefully delimited roles in law enforcement [that] must be taken only insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution and relevant statutes,” and that “[m]ilitary and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity.”
This is a calmer echo of the open letter the ten living former secretaries of defense published on January 3, 2021, in the Washington Post, which called for a peaceful transition of power after the 2020 election and seemed to warn colleagues not to back the former president’s attempts to create an uprising. They said: “Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.”
Perhaps most notably, in an interview with Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, published today, longtime conservative Bill Kristol said that, at least in the short term, the Republican Party cannot be saved. “And,” he offered, “if we don’t have two reasonably healthy parties, the unhealthy party has to be defeated.”
September 6, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
THANK YOU.
Check out the 2016 election deniers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvQpW--sUM8
First of all, what is “afternath”? Also, did that group mount an insurrection when Congress gathered to count the electors for Trump during the peaceful transfer of power from Obama to Trump? I think I would have remembered seeing that on the news... 🤔
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html
Six police officers were injured and 217 protesters arrested Friday after a morning of peaceful protests and coordinated disruptions of Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony gave way to ugly street clashes in downtown Washington.
At least two DC police officers and one other person were taken to the hospital after run-ins with protesters, DC Fire Spokesman Vito Maggiolo told CNN. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said the officers’ injuries were considered minor and not life threatening.
Bursts of chaos erupted on 12th and K streets as black-clad “antifascist” protesters smashed storefronts and bus stops, hammered out the windows of a limousine and eventually launched rocks at a phalanx of police lined up in an eastbound crosswalk. Officers responded by launching smoke and flash-bang devices, which could be heard from blocks away, into the street to disperse the crowds.
And this has what to do with congress approving the electors during the peaceful transfer of power? Because that was the question I actually asked.
Sorry TM, SC buried you in facts. You suggested the transfer of power from Obama to Trump was peaceful or you "would have seen it in the news". There was an ongoing never ending attempt by many to deny, discredit, and destroy Trump's presidency starting well before his win and continuing to this day. That is a fact but you will never see it because you hate Donald Trump. You tune out anything that does not support your belief. You actually, literally, wrote that the transfer of power was peaceful, I saw it just now while reading your comment. Then when you were confronted by evidence that you are (demonstrably) wrong, you pretended it was not your question. You pretend that the non stop
crying and screaming and investigations of Russian Collusion didn't happen. Sorry but they did. You are totally absolutely wrong and you probably know it deep down inside, but whether you know it or not it happened. You are wrong when you say that it did not. Massively way off base. Like famously and wildly off base. You are wrong about the transition of power from Obama to Trump, for sure. Very very wrong. It is nearly incoherent for you to claim otherwise, the transfer of power was not peaceful. At all. Meanwhile look what you have in the white house today. Do you pretend to like what you see? Or would you rather just tune it all out and focus your energy on writing truly nonsensical claims that the transfer of power from Obama to Trump was calm and peaceful? Even Hillary would disagree with you. She remembers vividly the many, many investigations into Russian collusion. She said to anybody who would listen that she was robbed of the presidency. You don't remember that? It was in the media. I think you are wrong about most everything you claimed. Did I mention that? The transfer of power from Obama to Trump was the messiest transfer of power in our lifetimes. Until 2020, when millions of people saw an incredible amount of fraud but not a single supporter of "looking into it" in one single mainstream outlet. This includes Fox News, other than a few opinion hosts. You are very very wrong. Sorry you hate Trump but that doesn't make you right about your claims. You are very wrong. There. How does it feel to have your belief in something buried in a filibuster? Not fun, is it? There was massive fraud in 2020. You know it too. You just hate to think about it. Cuz wow do you hate Trump. Me? Not crazy about Biden.
Also, it’s adorable how you pick and choose with parts of which sentence to acknowledge as to sidestep inconvenient questions. Yeah, I used the phrase “peaceful transfer of power”. What was in the first half of that sentence? Do you even remember? Probably not because it is one of those pesky inconvenient parts that you have to avoid like the plague in order to maintain your worldview.
I’ll remind you. I’ll just copy and paste. Only don’t lose the plot this time maybe? Ahem:
“And this has what to do with congress approving the electors during the peaceful transfer of power?”
And in case you’re tempted to find another non sequitur to obsess over instead of the actual point of the question, I’ll highlight the actual point of the question in bold letters:
“And this has what to do with CONGRESS APPROVING THE ELECTORS during the peaceful transfer of power?”
You want to obsess over some video you found that you are ascribing to the Democratic response to trump getting elected. I haven’t verified that. That could be from anywhere. But I can certainly say this: Compared to January 6th, the Democratic reaction to Trump getting elected was a pillow fight.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There’s a movement by the deep state or the shadowy, cannibalistic, democratic Cabal or Hillary’s emails or Hunter’s laptop to discredit Donald Trump that no one can ever verify or give evidence of but it’s definitely there. I just have to take your word for it. And the reason I haven’t seen it is because I hate trump so my hatred of Trump is blinding me from seeing the evidence of this deep state movement to destroy Trump. Got it.
So the reason I can’t see it is because I’m biased against Trump. What I don’t understand is the fact that you AREN’T biased against Trump so that would mean that you CAN see the evidence that I can’t. So why won’t you share any of that evidence with me so I can see the movement against Trump, that you claim is keeping Trump from being able to put up a fair fight in all this?
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m asking you to show me. Now is your chance to convert a lib. You show me evidence of these activities and I will become one of Trump’s biggest defenders. So here I’ll wait with bated breath. Please. Pull away the veil and enlighten me.
Election deniers nonetheless. They must be called domestic terrorists as well.
Congratulations, M. Sim: Your popularity and effectiveness have attracted detractors for us to play with!
Why would I waste any more time engaging people who are clearly not interested in challenging the narrative that they’ve been fed? I met my quota for debating people who are only participating in bad faith already when I walked away from this conversation yesterday.
"I met my quota..."
Well, lightweight, practice up and come on back when you are interested once again in challenging that narrative you've bought into.
Next time, however, try participating in good faith, instead of spewing ad hominem and non-substantive insult with your argument. You'll find we (and especially our host) will honor your differing opinion and consider your substantive points with open minds.
But unlike M. Sim, who remains gracious, I will respond to you in kind, as I have done these two days. I never find that a waste of time!
Believing truth doesn’t require opening your mind. It’s simply the truth. But what is true in today’s world? In lieu of finding the answer to THAT doozy of a question, I’ll defer to sworn testimony. Whomever gives testimony under oath, I’ll believe it. And the only things I’ve been sharing here are born of sworn testimony.
One of us has certainly bought into a narrative but it isn’t me.
But you repeat yourself...again, especially "sworn testimony under oath."
I get it. I could argue your position very well, now, thank you very much.
I won't lie, I'm kind of stoked.
Ha! As am I!!…. Yeah…you’re kinda one of my heroes for going anywhere near that conversation!!xo
There is no left or right. It is just a construct created by the political class to hold on to power. We need to come together to beat these evil fuks.. They will stop at NOTHING to hold on to power.
“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
― George Orwell
Yep. It's the State vs. The People now.
Still, I'll be voting against the obviously greater evil. imo, it's our only hope at this point.
Finally had a chance to read this. Thank u! So good!
People unhappy with 2016 results as well. Maybe every election from now on...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvQpW--sUM8
Sounds like a dangerous insurrection!
Wow. It's remarkable that someone cannot absorb information at the level at which you are demonstrating you cannot absorb information. I am dumbstruck over what Little information you managed to retain from the posts and Data that I have painstakingly spelled out for you. Wow. You didn't pick up one thing I said correctly. You got it all backwards and upside down and twisted inside out in a manner so profoundly incorrect that I must applaud you. I was raised that if you were going to do something, don't half ass it. Commit. Go all the way. And I respect your level of missing the point and getting everything absolutely wrong so deeply and so profoundly. You double down and I respect that level of commitment to not knowing what you're talking about. That is a gift. Bravo and God bless.
Do you treat all people who disagree with you with such absurd disrespect?
I treat people who choose to be willfully obtuse with disrespect because there are few things I respect less than someone choosing to not see something that doesn’t fit into their worldview.
I disrespect those who reach a conclusion from a given set of facts, then assign their own conclusions the same weight as a fact.
Fact: All men have eyes.
Fact: John has eyes.
Leftist conclusion: John is a man.
Me: John might be a dog.
Leftist: Conspiracy theorist! Dangerous misinformation! Threat to our democracy!
Your conclusions are not necessarily facts, especially when, as Timothy pointed out, not all of the facts have been presented.
I’ll repeat my wildly effective antidote to all of the malignancy of reality you all are attempting to drown me in on this thread: Everything I have shared comes from those who are willing to make sworn testimony under oath. If you find yourself clinging to the narrative of someone who isn’t willing to repeat that same narrative under oath, then you’re trusting the wrong source.
The thing is, everyone around here is intelligent. And yet they are falling for this very elementary-level deception. It leads me to believe that there’s an element of allowing oneself to be lied to rather than being ruled by logic and pondering why certain individuals will come up with every excuse under the sun to NOT have to be sworn in and testify under oath. Slavery is abhorrent. The only thing worse is a slave that chooses to be a slave.
Thanks; yes, I believe that most around here are intelligent. But I no longer rely on what used to be reliable sources of information. There have been too many times when supposedly reliable information, such as sworn testimony, has proven to be less than a North Star of truth. Perjury occurs every day in every courtroom. Or less than reliable sources- Cassidy Hutchinson, anyone?
You think we cling to a certain view no matter what. A look in the mirror might reveal the same failing on the opposite side. If you are so certain of your interpretation of Jan 6, what would it hurt to release everything? Truth will out, as a famous writer wrote.
Oy. So many things….
Ok. The simplest first. The DOJ is in the middle of one of the most important criminal investigations in the history of our country concerning J6. If the J6 committee released all of its evidence, it would imperil that criminal investigation, alerting potential suspects, allowing for The destruction of evidence, and revealing key witnesses, who could be dealt with one way or another before the DOJ ever gets a chance to interrogate them. There are other reasons but that seemed to be the most accessible explanation for any reasonable person. Which is why I’m sure that won’t be good enough for you…
I’ll entertain your notion that Cassidy Hutchinson isn’t reliable for a moment. (Although it must be stated that just saying a thing doesn’t make it real. You could say that your arguments are vetted and based on fact and evidence but that wouldn’t make them so in reality. A perusal of this thread would quickly render such a statement baseless. And you continuing to make the same claims wouldn’t stop reality from being reality.) So for The sake of debate, Hutchinson isn’t a reliable source….Until her story gets corroborated again and again and again UNDER OATH by people who are in a position to corroborate or refute her testimony. Oh, sure. There are people who are attempting to besmirch her word but those people aren’t doing so under oath because those people are lying.
You are right. I did not see something until just now, and it fits perfectly with reality (*my* worldview):
You are a Fascist. No one is allowed to disagree with your opinion. You fit right in with the Democrats. Are you with the administration?
No, I deal with sworn testimonies given under oath. You can call me whatever you want to call me but don’t call what I rely upon my “opinion”. I only accept facts given in the court of law under oath as worthy to build my understanding of these events. Opinion fits handily with YOUR point of view though because most of it is quite fanciful in its creativity and imagination. But until the people you trust state these notions under oath, all you got are basically fairytales.
And if testimony under oath that *would* support my point-of-view/contention/perception/opinion is not allowed to be given, then, according to your modus operandi, it does not exist, conveniently relegating what I contend to be truth mere "fanciful creativity and imagination."
Boy, you've got it *all* figured out.
But I think you miss the vast majority of reality using your very convenient method, otherwise known as "ignorance is bliss."
Now you are inventing an out. If you get logic’d into a corner just paint yourself a door, right?
I’d love to hear who is an individual that COULD testify that your point-of-view/conception/perception/opinion is correct but isn’t being allowed to do so? Anyone and everyone with something to share about January 6th are implored to come forward. The J6 committee will take anything anyone has to say. The door is wide open. If *I* had intel, they’d glad hear from me. If *YOU* had intel, they’d glad hear from you.
So please tell me who this person is that is desperately trying to share information under oath that would validate you beliefs but they aren’t being allowed to speak?
I’ll wait.
Perhaps "painstakingly spelled out for you" might become a full article because I may have not tracked your comments well. I can agree the topic is quite complex and we can differ on interpretations.
I mean, I’m the course of these comments, I had to define what a select committee actually was, it’s legislative purpose, the difference between it and the department of Justice, etc. I’m trying to teach him a civics course in these comments and he still only heard what he wanted to hear. I know a person whose not interested in challenging their bias when I see them. If the level of detail I went into in my explanations didn’t seem painstakingly spelled out for you then we really shouldn’t waste any more time engaging. We clearly do not see eye to eye.
A good article about this by one of my favorite substackers:
https://moneycircus.substack.com/p/opinion-it-is-the-hour-of-the-time?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I tried. That’s straight up propaganda with no filter. I don’t like that flavor of kool-aid, friend.
Huh? How so?
This is not an objective piece stating the facts and nothing but the facts, ma’am, but an article of writing so abjectly biased that it holds no interest for me.
Someone should tell those dumb fucks at CNN a color approximating Pepto doesn't exactly help their case.
Like they think they can turn the Fascist Left into Candyland with whitewash.
Did they figure out how to mask the smell of corpses yet?
No live audience so no need...yet.
- or -
The Russians have offered to rocket them to space, where no one can smell the rot after no one could hear the screams.
Oh. Well space burial would be neat!
Mine or yours?
Why not both?
Burial buddies.
Lol that’s dark
The video footage of little old ladies and children waving US flags is much too violent and extreme for the public. Thus it will never be released. What a freakshow we've been watching for way too long now. Sigh. But as for me and my house, we refuse to allow these monsters to urge us to violence or retribution of any kind. It's really what this is all about. People who are frothing with evil, violence and hatred in their hearts *always* want to drag the good people down with them because it makes them feel better about themselves. I will *never* give them the satisfaction.
You may take a second to note that the people in the videos above, the pundits and talking heads, all have something in common apart from a hate-on for Trump and his supporters.
There's an angle to this americans seem loathe to discuss - I'd wager because what the Democrats and their versions of the Sturmabteilung is so un- (or anti even) american it becomes impossible to process.
From the outside based on what's been done to Europe these past 25 years, it's pretty obvious what's happening.