Anybody watching the Jan 6 hearings?

Skip to: New Posts  Last Post
Page:  Next »
Posted by Jinnistan
7/12/2022 9:19 am
#61

I'm not sure how the focus of the Committee's narrative will get shaken up by all of the new developments that have come up.  Today's hearing is supposed to focus on the plan (crafted by Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn) to use the military to seize voting machines and ballots, and is also supposed to look at the ties between the Trump team and the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.  As I already pointed out, Flynn was using the OK as his personal security detail on Jan. 6, so that's one clear connection to Trump's ear.  Hutchinson testified that Trump ordered his chief of satff, Mark Meadows, to contact both Flynn and Roger Stone (who also had the OK as his personal security detail, and also has season tickets to Trump's ear) the day prior on Jan. 5.  Would the OK keep a secret from Stone and Flynn about their stashed cache of weapons at a motel outside of DC?  Would Trump have been surprised when told about people being armed among the crowd?  Was Trump so confident in his own safety had he arrived at the Capital because he knew that the OK would protect him?  Also, the OK leader, Stewart Rhodes, has expressed a desire to testify publicly for the Committee, but that's not likely to happen today.  Instead, I understand that a former spokesperson and message board moderator for the militia is set to testify.

Thursday night will be the second prime time hearing, and I'm assuming that they'll save some big fireworks for that one.

Last edited by Jinnistan (7/12/2022 9:21 am)


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/12/2022 9:54 pm
#62

Pretty solid hearing today.  Got into the Oath Keepers' relationship with Stone and Flynn, and an inescapable sense that violence was a key ingredient of their plan, or I should say at the very least the threat of violence.  I think that a lot of it had to do with letting the Republicans inside Congress feel that if they failed to reject the official elector tallies from the states, that there would be trouble.  It was total intimidation and coercion that thankfully did not work, but should absolutely be prosecuted as criminal.

White House lawyers (as opposed to Trump lawyers, a distinction Trump had trouble discerning) Pat Cipollone and Eric Herschmann are proving to be two of the prominent heroes in doing their best to tamp down some of the worst aspects of Trump's plot.  We already saw how crucial they were in crushing Don's plan to fire his acting Attorney General and replace him with a low level Sven to do his bidding by launching a bogus DoJ investigation into election fraud, and thereby throwing the certification into limbo.  "A murder/suicide pact" was Cipollone's take.  Today we heard about a chaotic and confrontational Oval Office meltdown where Cipollone and Herschmann laid down the law against the plan to seize the voting machines which involved lots of profanity and threats of physical fighting.  Asked in his deposition why he felt seizing voting machines was not a good idea, Cipollone was indignant: "Do I need to explain to you why this was a terrible idea?"  Herschmann continues to appear to be Iannucci's wet dream, and I'd love to see him hold his own against Peter Capaldi from In The Loop.

One damning little nugg comes from an email from Bernard Kerik, who was working with Giuliani's team in investigating voter fraud.  Of course, as Giuliani has admitted, they never found any evidence of voter fraud.  Kerik sent an email to Mark Meadows laying out the strategy as plainly as possible: "We can do all the investigations we want later, but if the president plans on winning, it's the legislators that have to be moved, and this will do just that."  In other words, Trump's "winning" was paramount to finding fraud, and it's more important that Trump win before we worry about the evidence, and winning hinges on "moving" the legislators (from the state, to push false electors; from the Senate to refuse certification) through the sheer perception of election fraud.  This is why it was so crucial for Trump that his DoJ declare the election "corrupt" and leave the rest to him and his team.

(Bernard Kerik, for those who may not remember, was the NYC chief of police who resigned in disgrace after it was discovered that he had used taxpayer funds to, among other things, pay for a diamond embossed police badge and pay for a downtown apartment overlooking Ground Zero where he could take his mistresses for scenic trysts, because everyone knows that terrorist rubble is better than Viagra.)

Finally, although it wasn't a direct issue for the hearing today, there had been a major development regarding Steve Bannon.  Bannon had been charged with contempt for refusing the Committee's subpoena, and was set to start his trial later this month, after his last unsuccessful attempt to further delay it.  Bannon has been claiming 'executive privilege', despite the fact that he was not a White House employee, an official advisor and was working with Trump's campaign efforts rather than in the capacity of official executive duties.  On Friday, the DoJ dropped the tidbit that another Trump lawyer, Justin Clark (not Jeffery Clark), testified that Trump never invoked executive privilege regarding his communications with Bannon.  So Bannon is likely eager to avoid a trial where he looks to add a perjury charge to his contempt, and 180-reversed to saying that he would be happy to cooperate with the Committee, and in fact he'd prefer it.  No shit.  Trump's people then put out a palliative statement to the effect of "we've decided to waive executive privilege so Bannon can testify as he wants so very much to", even though, you know, legally speaking, there never was an executive privilege to waive in the fist place.  Anyway, we'll see what happens when Bannon sits for his deposition.  I'll be surprised if he doesn't throw a couple more stalling tactics until then.

Last edited by Jinnistan (7/12/2022 10:01 pm)


 
Posted by Rampop II
7/14/2022 1:21 pm
#63

Another one of the more disturbing takeaways was the former Proud Boys member talking about things like explosives training, and saying he fears for the next election cycle.

 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/14/2022 6:23 pm
#64

The proper way to read this article is that Trump's team is anonymously reaching out to the media to lay the groundwork for throwing his chief of staff Mark Meadows under the bus.

Optimistically, I think the reason why may be because Meadows is preparing to cooperate with the House Select Committee, and Trump's team is digging trenches.


 
Posted by Rampop II
7/15/2022 12:50 pm
#65

Jinnistan wrote:

The proper way to read this article is that Trump's team is anonymously reaching out to the media to lay the groundwork for throwing his chief of staff Mark Meadows under the bus.

Optimistically, I think the reason why may be because Meadows is preparing to cooperate with the House Select Committee, and Trump's team is digging trenches.

Makes my skin crawl to read it that way, like I'm seeing Rolling Stone willingly participate, allowing themselves to be used as a messenger for Trump's threats to those who might speak out against him. Veiled, pre–emptive witness–tampering? 

 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/15/2022 1:29 pm
#66

Rampop II wrote:

Makes my skin crawl to read it that way, like I'm seeing Rolling Stone willingly participate, allowing themselves to be used as a messenger for Trump's threats to those who might speak out against him. Veiled, pre–emptive witness–tampering?

I don't think these RS writers have a lot of sympathy for Meadows, but they're more or less upfront about the situation to where it's clear what the ulterior motive of Trump's people here is, even ending on Liz Cheney's quote about Trump's long-standing strategy of finding ways to blame others for his actions.

(When Trump finds himself backed into a corner or a moment of legal jeopardy, he will often claim — however flimsily — that he barely knew a top aide who was doing his bidding, or that he didn’t know what his own personal lawyers were doing for him.)

Though it remains to be seen who will ultimately be saddled with the bulk of the blame and legal baggage, it is clear this collective — long known for petty backbiting and infighting before, during, and after the Trump administration — has no intention of all going down together.

That last one is buried at the bottom of the article, but it says it all.


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/20/2022 1:47 pm
#67

Jinnistan wrote:

So Bannon is likely eager to avoid a trial where he looks to add a perjury charge to his contempt, and 180-reversed to saying that he would be happy to cooperate with the Committee, and in fact he'd prefer it.  No shit. 

I'll be surprised if he doesn't throw a couple more stalling tactics until then.

Looks like Bannon was too late to avoid his contempt trial, which started this week.  The stalling continued though, first trying to push the trail back another month, and, when that didn't, trying to call Nancy Pelosi to the stand as a witness.  The judge in the case, Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, dismissed both motions while trying his best not to laugh in their face.  Naturally, Bannon's lawyers are desperate for anything to stick.

"What's the point of going to trial here if there are no defenses?", David Schoen, one of Bannon's attorneys, asked in frustration.

"Agreed", the judge responded.

Ouch.


 
Posted by Rampop II
7/22/2022 12:05 am
#68

Well, among the takeaways from tonight's broadcast (Chump not wanting to say election is over, not wanting to use the word "peace"), I did get a morsel of satisfaction watching his angry outtakes. 

As jaw–dropping as this all has been, none of it is surprising. We knew what this guy was before he was even elected. And when he was elected, we knew an outcome like this was in store. The American Psychological Association even broke with convention to warn us. Shit, we've known for decades what this man is and what he's about. And as destructive as he is, he is still only a symptom of a larger problem. 

Seeing Kinsinger and Cheney demonstrate that maybe spines still exist was somewhat encouraging. It's hard to stay optimistic these days. And the footage of Bitch McTurtle actually talking like a statesman feels as rare as a Bigfoot sighting. Maybe he keeps a pair of balls locked in a tiny freezer, miles underground, only taking them out once a year to look at them. Or maybe he just picks up a disposable pair OTC for single–use when the occasion arises. Come to think of it, those must be covered under the standard Congressional health benefits "package," yuk yuk. 

BTW I'm happy to report that my mom and I appear to be pulling through. Just in time to fly back home. Boy am I not looking forward to getting back on that plane. I'm still mad as fuck. I'm tempted to do some shrill shit like wear a shirt saying "So, my mother's health was your 'personal decision,' was it? You must be so proud of yourself," or better yet, "I caught COVID on this plane." (Enjoy your flight). 

 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/22/2022 8:34 am
#69

Bannon's defense team threw in the towel, in a way, resting their defense a day after the prosecution rested theirs and without calling a single witness, introducing any evidence or making any defensive arguments.  I'm sure this will go well for Steve.

Thus concludes "the Misdemeanor From Hell" (L&O *kunk-kung*)


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/22/2022 9:10 am
#70

I think there were several intersting bits from yesterday.  Most graphically perhaps were the live tapes of Pence's Secret Service dispatches (thankfully no one erased those) and testimony from NSO officials that some agents were asking to pass along their farewells to loved ones as Trump was tweeting about Pence's lack of "courage".

It's true that the main point is something that we all knew - that Trump sat and watched the carnage over 2 and a half hours without lifting a finger, even as everyone around him is desperately trying to get him to do something.  Anyone thick enough to have failed to understand this from any previous testimony ("You heard him, Pat, he thinks he deserves it.") isn't going to get a smoking gun in terms of audio recordings of Trump cackling in real time or cheering like his team just broke the quarterback's spine.  And anyone still holding onto the absense of such evidence deserves our deepest contempt.  The absense of action is far more telling, and damning.

But even with such actionable ignorance, it's harder still to ignore the part about Kevin McCarthy's attempts to sway the president, which is either proof of Trump's psychotic dementia (the more generous defense) but far more plausibly demonstration of mens rea, willful insincere deception, as opposed to a feeble understanding of reality.  "Well, Kevin, these aren't my people, these are Antifa."  Funny, I thought they were his people ("Let my people in") when he demanded the police to stop searching them for weapons, and when he promised to join them at the Capital - the very same Capital in fact which was under seige.  Anyone want to go to bat for the theory that Trump honestly believed this was Antifa?  Obviously not.  So, why would he say that, I wonder?  Maybe because somewhere in his greased skillet of a skull he recognized that his people were committing several felonies at that moment?  Like a child who just broke a vase but who wasn't really running?  Such reflexive dishonesty tends to mean only one thing...



So, instead, let's go to the more honest answer that Trump gave immediately following this, almost as if he hadn't just lied through his teeth at all.  (Old school troll tactic: "Now you don't know what to believe!")

"Well, Kevin, I guess they’re more upset about the election theft than you are."

Taken together, as they were uttered in tandem, this is your mens rea, your demonstration of criminal motive, of deliberate and sober (in)action for the purpose of a corrupt cause, which, even as Trump admitted it again hours before the hearing, was to shut down the congressional certification of the state's electors.  Should be open and shut, but some people are still begging for a smokier gun.


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/22/2022 9:28 am
#71

Also, Sarah Matthews and Cassidy Hutchinson fall right into my preference for 'Jeopardy-sexy', frisky librarians disguised in conservative office attire who keep snitchy lists of their bosses' dirt.  Where are they growing this generation of Republican interns?


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/26/2022 1:30 pm
#72

Tom Cotton (aka, the worst knock-off non-Twain character ever) is one of those prick Senators - like Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley - whose horseshit we instinctively wish to ignore on general principle, but, in clear-eyed estimate, we also have to recognize that each have quite serious aspirations for higher office, which forces us to not greet their lunacy with mockery but with foreboding.  Each of them, in their way, are auditioning for the the reins of the Maga cattle, and, as we've painfully reconciled, that is a force to reckon with.

In terms of this thread, Cotton was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday where his primary function was to criticize and downplay the Jan. 6 hearings:

They’ve never released the full transcripts. They’ve never released the full videos.  We have no idea what those witnesses said in the full context of their depositions. And even if we had those, there was no lawyer in the room who was probing in the other direction.

He's speaking of the depositions, and he's wagering, probably correctly, that his audience is less familiar with how legal depositions are conducted than he, a JD graduate from Harvard Law. certainly is.  Cotton knows very well that depositions do not involve cross-examination, just as he's aware that there are indeed "lawyers in the room" whose responsibility is to protect their client's interests and rights under questioning.  Cotton is also taking advantage that his audience may not have noticed the complete lack of contextual pushback from these intervewees in the aftermath of these hearings.  So far, only a single Trump campaign lackey has raised concern, and his concerns don't even begin to alter the arch of the narrative being presented.  And of course Trump himself has claimed 'selective editing' of these interviews, but, I think we can safely say, he doesn't exactly count.  None of the primary witnesses have publicly argued that their testimony has been misconstrued.  That gives us a pretty good idea of what these witnesses said in their full depositions.

But this is all par for the course.  An old adage says that if you can't argue the substance, argue the process.  And, so far, pretty much all of these Republican pushbacks on these hearings involve, not the substance of evidence, but the more cosmetic aspects, namely the lack of Republican participation (because Cheney and Kinzinger, and the couple dozen Republican professionals, DoJ, state-level and party operatives who have willingly participated without protest aren't true Republicans) in order to paint it as a purely partisan exercise.  But ignorance is still the best, most effective tool these tools are sticking in the sockets of their rubes.

Which brings us to the "context".  Cotton is worried about the full context, which he fears may not be faithfully portrayed here.  So, I wonder, exactly what context is Cotton currently operating under?

I did not watch that hearing, and I have not watched any of the hearings, so I’ve not seen any of them out of the context that I see a snippet here or there on the news.

Aw-oh!  And I assume that the audience to which he is speaking on this right-wing radio show likely is similarly unaware of any actual informed context based on what the hearings have actually said or produced, but based on their reliance of "news snippets" from places like FOX, OAN, Newsmax and similar insular echo chambers (most of which proudly ignored any coverage of the hearings), they haven't gotten the full context that they need in order to flatter the context of their bias.

Amazingly, this isn't even the biggest problem that I have with Cotton here.  And this problem may be more relevant to one of the other threads, maybe the SCOTUS one.  Or maybe "The Fuck" one.  It has more to do with his more overt grab for the Maga posse which isn't even ambiguous enough to qualify as a dog-whistle:

I think what you’ve seen over the last few weeks is why Anglo-American jurisprudence going back centuries has found that adversarial inquiry, cross-examination is the best way to get at the truth.

Does this cracker-ass actually believe that Socrates was an 'Anglo-Anything'?  Again, this Harvard Law graduate understands that the Greek dikastes, the Roman praetura, Confucian pán wèn, the Hammur-fucking-rabi Code all involved degrees of "adversarial inquiry", and all of these people are, let's say, sub-Anglo (south of England/Germany).  And Cotton understands that his audience does not understand any of this, other than what he's saying with Anglo-American jurisprudence is "white man's law".  Or, as Alito and Gorsuch would call it, our common "history and traditions".  "Going back centuries", but not, you know, before 1066 AD in the Western European subpenisulas and isles.

Let's see if anyone calls Cotton out for saying this racist shit.

Last edited by Jinnistan (7/26/2022 1:44 pm)


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/27/2022 8:54 am
#73



So help me God, I swear I can't even write satire this hilarious anymore. 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
8/08/2022 9:03 pm
#74

Sure, the Mar-a-Lago raid has been exciting, but it appears to be more about the National Archives situation rather than any of the other criminal investigations that could land him in jail.  I mean, theoretically, I guess, it is a felony to remove classified documents from a government building, in addition to violating the National Archive Act, but I doubt anyone will make a federal case out of that.

Instead, it will be very interesting to see what's in these 15 boxes of documents that Trump clearly did not want to be viewed by historians or the public.  That could well point towards an actual federal case.


 
Posted by Jinnistan
8/10/2022 3:12 pm
#75

I like how Trump went out and bought a big old safe.  Beautiful safe.  Safest safe you've ever seen.  No safe safes quite like this safe.  In fact, this safe is so safe, Trump couldn't bear to soil its safeness with incriminating valuables.  He just likes having beautiful empty safes in his home.


 
Posted by Jinnistan
8/10/2022 4:03 pm
#76

Jinnistan wrote:

Sure, the Mar-a-Lago raid has been exciting, but it appears to be more about the National Archives situation rather than any of the other criminal investigations that could land him in jail.  I mean, theoretically, I guess, it is a felony to remove classified documents from a government building, in addition to violating the National Archive Act, but I doubt anyone will make a federal case out of that.

Hm, maybe I was looking at the wrong Act.  The Presidential Records Act uses a more interesting part of the US Code:

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Well, that just might make it all worth it.  Of course, his minions will say that this would be the whole reason behind it, to keep Trump from running again, because they're too dumb to understand that the penalty only applies if he's guilty.  Defund the National Archives!


 
Posted by crumbsroom
8/10/2022 6:34 pm
#77

Jinnistan wrote:

Jinnistan wrote:

Sure, the Mar-a-Lago raid has been exciting, but it appears to be more about the National Archives situation rather than any of the other criminal investigations that could land him in jail.  I mean, theoretically, I guess, it is a felony to remove classified documents from a government building, in addition to violating the National Archive Act, but I doubt anyone will make a federal case out of that.

Hm, maybe I was looking at the wrong Act.  The Presidential Records Act uses a more interesting part of the US Code:

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Well, that just might make it all worth it.  Of course, his minions will say that this would be the whole reason behind it, to keep Trump from running again, because they're too dumb to understand that the penalty only applies if he's guilty.  Defund the National Archives!

Ah, now that is interesting and the kind of thing I wanted to hear.

I was similar to you in thinking, great, they are following up on the least of his crimes. How typical. But that actually might be the golden ticket to keep him from running. Something that maybe easier to prove definitively and gets the most important trick done of removing him from being a serious public figure ever again.

Of course, more needs to happen to that cunt than this. But considering I've never expected anything at all to happen as a result of any of this, I'll take this possiblity with some optimism.

 
Posted by Jinnistan
8/10/2022 7:58 pm
#78

crumbsroom wrote:

I was similar to you in thinking, great, they are following up on the least of his crimes. How typical. But that actually might be the golden ticket to keep him from running. Something that maybe easier to prove definitively and gets the most important trick done of removing him from being a serious public figure ever again.

Although I do care about the posterity issues of preserving any documents that he may not want in the public domain, my post was a little coy about the implication though that I'm about 85% certain that this is because these particular documents contain additional potentially criminal activity.  For reference, after Trump initially got caught taking boxes of documents to Mar-a-Lago, in January, he handed over 15 boxes of material to the Archives in February.  But in June, federal agents came back (not with a warrant) and were shown a basement room with a lot of additional documents.  So even after all of that, finally they felt they need to get a warrant, when they knew he wouldn't be there, in order to seize all of the documents that they didn't tell them about, plus the safe to boot.  I imagine that he could get charged with each time he said, "Well, that's all of them".

And that safe.  I can't stress enough.  Ftr, I do not believe that the safe was empty, as Trump says.  The reason why I find it so funny is because Trump actually thinks that anyone would believe that he would buy an expensive safe and install it in his house and then just decide not to put anything in there.  Welp.  I'm going out on a limb and guessing that whatever was in there is pretty damning.  And now Trump, the lying little baby he is, has already pivoted to his next fib - The FBI must have PLANTED it!!!!

But, ok, let's say I'm overreacting.  At the very least, if, say, this was just irresponsibility in storing documents that happened to include some classified information, then at a bare minimum even that would prevent Trump from running for president again (although I got $50 that says he will anyway and force the FEC to shut him down).


 
Posted by Jinnistan
10/06/2022 11:37 am
#79

Well, it's been fun watching the escalating farce with Trump, the DoJ and the "special master".  The latter was requested by Trump's lawyers, and granted by the Trump-appointed judge, but the resulting master in question (a FISA court veteran) has proven to be a pretty true-blue straight shooter, much to Trump's consternation.  So we get the spectacle of Trump's lawyers now trying to stonewall and evade the very same special master that they were pleading to install in the first place.  Now, the Trump-appointed judge in the case is now fighting both the special master and multiple appeals court rulings which 1) claimed the judged "erred" on the special master ruling and restarted the DoJ document review that the judge had temporarily blocked; 2) and allowing the DoJ to expedite their appeal based on that decision.  And so, predictably, Trump is now trying to get Clarence Thomas, his most reliable sympathizer on the Supreme Court, to override all of this and bail him out.  (Even in my low opinion of the conservative court, I cannot see a majority ignoring the issues, which are not controversial for any serious legal mind across the partisan spectrum, regarding the issues of what does and does not constitute "presidential records", the rightful ownership of those records, and the classification/declassification process for those records, at least with a straight face.  Thomas and Alito?  Sure.  Gorsuch and Roberts?  I strongly doubt it.)

But maybe the juiciest drama lies within Trump's camp of lawyers.  For starters, it's a shallow pool.  At least two of his lawyers are potential witnesses, even in other investigations, or potentially complicit in document mishandling, many of them have likely committed perjury on his behalf, and it's beginning to look as if they aren't willing to go down with Captain Don, and at any rate appear to be in complete disarray and in CYA mode.
 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
10/16/2022 1:47 pm
#80

The consensus seems to be that the latest Jan. 6 committee hearing fell a bit flatulent.  Not too much in the way of hot new revelations.  The Roger Stone footage was fun, in it's fascistic way.  The quote from Trump about "I don't want anyone to know I lost the election" seems to be a pretty clear admission that he does understand the knowledge of his loss.  But, for the most part, it's hard to fathom how anyone at this point is going to change their minds based on even some actual foolproof evidence (ie, video footage of Trump saying something to the effect of "This election belongs to me as soon as I grab it.  Just like pussy.  It's all mine.  They may not know it right away, but they'll wise up.  Why do you think they call it 'snatch'?").  There are roughly two catagories of Trump supporter at this point - the true believers, who are crazy and unreachable through rational discourse and evidentiary demonstration; and the partisan enforcers who have already proven how easily it is to sacrifice integrity for sheer power and victory.  The latter is also playing out in plain sight over the Herschel Walker fiasco, the right-wing media drumbeat is, "who cares if he's stupid and unqualified, we need the win".  Any means necessary.  "Gimme a break".  So what if Trump was planning on claiming his election win regardless of vote tallies some 5 months prior to the election?  If Pubs could get away with it, they'll go ahead and claim wins in '24-'40 just to save us the trouble.

So if the metric of the hearings' success is whether or not it managed to move the needle for either of those catagories of people (which seems to be the main metric being used by the corporate news media's coverage), then I suppose that the entire exercise was pretty fruitless.  Or if the success of the exercise was to eliminate as many excuses that Pubs can use to defend the actions of not only Trump and his goons but the listless dithering of their own apologetic ranks, then that requires forcing their hand and making them admit that it's all bullshit, who cares?, the wins belong to us because we're bold enough to take them.  In other words, exactly what Pubs have been doing in defense of Hershel Walker.  Pubs have discovered that 2022 America is a lot less hostile to open expressions of fascism (might makes right) than the America of previous decades, and there's a growing industry (Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson) who are capitaizing on the ripe thirst for fascism among today's young generation of American males.

I don't think that the inevitability of corruption is a sufficient reason to not have a public display of how Trump has laid the groundwork for it.  I think the only futility in this process has been in the presumption that it will sway anyone left who still is willing to be reasonable.  I think the true elephant in the room that the media seems intent to continue to ignore is the fact that such a large segment of the populace, and overwhelming one party in particular, is no longer willing to be reasonable, and it's proving to be very dangerous to try to "fair and balance" reasonable debate with the raw force of fascism.

Now for a diifferent perspective, let's go to Tulsi Gabbard, with a unique take on today's developments, and why it may be the Democrats who are the actual fascists.....  "Thanks, Chuck"....
 


 


Page:  Next »

 
Main page
Login
Desktop format