Jump to content

Martial law , fuck the constitution


Recommended Posts

Heated Oval Office meeting included talk of special counsel, martial law as Trump advisers clash

(CNN)President Donald Trump convened a heated meeting in the Oval Office on Friday, including lawyer Sidney Powell and her client, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two people familiar with the matter said, describing a session that began as an impromptu gathering but devolved and eventually broke out into screaming matches at certain points as some of Trump's aides pushed back on Powell and Flynn's more outrageous suggestions about overturning the election.

Flynn had suggested earlier this week that Trump could invoke martial law as part of his efforts to overturn the election that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden -- an idea that arose again during the meeting in the Oval Office, one of the people said. It wasn't clear whether Trump endorsed the idea, but others in the room forcefully pushed back and shot it down.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is a deeply confusing issue for Trump supporters. Half of them think that Marshall Law was a character from a famous Western, or one of the rules of rock guitar, you gotta have a Marshall (most ass

Thanks for posting the definition of misunderstood.  It may well be no skin off your nose, but hardly “Meh”, your whiny dance consumes a great amount of PA bandwidth. 

Who? Oh! You mean Trump and Flynn? Only took you 4 years dopey, but hey, nothing wrong with being a bit simple.   

Posted Images

I'm sure the elk will be along shortly to denounce Trump for allowing it to even be suggested in the Oval Office. Tomorrow Trump will obviously hold a press conference to assure the public that he has no plans, nor would he ever approve or remotely entertain, such a crazy idea. Because that is the kind of leader Trump is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

This does not bode well at all . . 

Do you really imagine the next authoritarian wanna-be 

will be so incompetent at autogolpe making ?? 

It would be hard to imagine the GOP being able to find someone that is so completely devoid of principals, character, or intelligence as Trump. But give it four years, and a couple hundred episodes of Fox and Friends and I'm sure they'll come up with someone that can finally get the job done for Putin. 245 years wasn't a bad run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a deeply confusing issue for Trump supporters. Half of them think that Marshall Law was a character from a famous Western, or one of the rules of rock guitar, you gotta have a Marshall (most assume Marshall amps are American), the other half can't work out what the fuck Martians have to do with it, but if Trump wants Martian Law they'll donate money for it.

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bhyde said:

It would be hard to imagine the GOP being able to find someone that is so completely devoid of principals, character, or intelligence as Trump. But give it four years, and a couple hundred episodes of Fox and Friends and I'm sure they'll come up with someone that can finally get the job done for Putin. 245 years wasn't a bad run.

The last four years have demonstrated that there are plenty of people, a lot of them that have achieved public office by people voting for them, that have the "qualities" you imagine are difficult to find.  I would be more worried that some of them might be more intelligent than Trump, and also surround themselves with people of higher competency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They should have pushed them down and shot them.in the back.

The Russians like to drag them out into the hallway, in the USA we don't like to get blood on the carpet and drag them a little further into the back yard (rose garden?)

I actually wonder if anyone (other than the Secret Service agents) in the Oval Office is packing.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dog said:

Get back to us when you have a named source.

Flynn was there

This is what he thinks trump should do

Of course, best to assume the subject was never discussed

Honorable men would not ever suggest such a thing because trump is an honorable man

ask Shakespeare

d

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the same people who have railed that wearing a mask at Walmart somehow contravenes their constitutional rights. The intellectual contortions would be humorous if the whole thing wasn't so dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I actually wonder if anyone (other than the Secret Service agents) in the Oval Office is packing.

Seems likely. In some states, Senators carry openly (like Amanda Chase) thus there are definitely those who pack concealed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

My Pillow Guy tweeted that martial law should be called in 7 states to overturn the election.  Then deleted the tweet. Might should have slept on that tweet first.

I know where our next pillows are not coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

My Pillow Guy tweeted that martial law should be called in 7 states to overturn the election.  Then deleted the tweet. Might should have slept on that tweet first.

oh, so he's crazier than a shithouse rat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Short enough to quote outright, and the author is correct. Why aren't the Democrat leaders screaming about this? WTF is wrong with them?

Quote

I’ve been a Democrat for 15 years. As a former Republican/Libertarian, I’ve always felt that the Democrats tend to be a bit wimpy compared to other political parties. But I never thought I would see the day when a retired general and convicted criminal, corruptly pardoned by the president, would have a meeting with said president in the Oval Office to discuss the possibility of a military coup to install the president as a dictator despite losing a democratic election — and yet, powerful Democrats are remaining silent.

I’ve been watching and reading the news, but I haven’t yet heard of President-elect Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, or any other prominent Democratic elected officials publicly condemning the seditious act of Gen. Flynn advocating an attempted coup and actually meeting with the president in the White House to discuss the idea.

When are these people going to grow a backbone?

They seem to think that by just ignoring the insanely anti-American and illegal activities of Trump’s political allies, it will all somehow magically go away.

Here’s what I think: They need to stand up and say that sedition won’t be tolerated. They need to call upon all patriotic Republicans to take a stand with them, in a broad nonpartisan coalition to protect and preserve American democracy and the rule of law. They need to call for Trump’s immediate resignation from the office of President of the United States. And they need to call upon the U.S. military to begin an investigation into the seditious activities of Gen. Flynn, with appropriate consequences for his actions.

If Democratic leaders don’t do this, they shouldn’t be surprised if many voters will be so turned off by their cowardice that they won’t bother to vote anymore. And I think that’s exactly what Trump is counting on, which could result in a comeback victory in 2024. Trump’s supporters are incredibly energized by his fighting spirit, viewing him as an epic hero. Democrats, on the other hand, risk demoralizing their supporters if Trump and his allies are allowed to get away with nearly killing our democracy.

We’re unlikely to get much in the way of progressive policy through a narrowly divided Congress during the Biden administration. But can we at least count on our Democratic leaders to stand up confidently for basic American values — really simple stuff such as that presidents and generals are not allowed to have meetings to discuss plans for a possible military coup?

Why do we even have to be discussing such things? In a sane country, Gen. Flynn would have already been under military arrest for what he did. Democratic leaders, please, start saying the obvious — stop being afraid of your own shadow — and earn the respect of the millions and millions of Americans who want politicians with spine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
27 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Short enough to quote outright, and the author is correct. Why aren't the Democrat leaders screaming about this? WTF is wrong with them?

Quote

I’ve been a Democrat for 15 years. As a former Republican/Libertarian, I’ve always felt that the Democrats tend to be a bit wimpy compared to other political parties. But I never thought I would see the day when a retired general and convicted criminal, corruptly pardoned by the president, would have a meeting with said president in the Oval Office to discuss the possibility of a military coup to install the president as a dictator despite losing a democratic election — and yet, powerful Democrats are remaining silent.

I’ve been watching and reading the news, but I haven’t yet heard of President-elect Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, or any other prominent Democratic elected officials publicly condemning the seditious act of Gen. Flynn advocating an attempted coup and actually meeting with the president in the White House to discuss the idea.

When are these people going to grow a backbone?

They seem to think that by just ignoring the insanely anti-American and illegal activities of Trump’s political allies, it will all somehow magically go away.

Here’s what I think: They need to stand up and say that sedition won’t be tolerated. They need to call upon all patriotic Republicans to take a stand with them, in a broad nonpartisan coalition to protect and preserve American democracy and the rule of law. They need to call for Trump’s immediate resignation from the office of President of the United States. And they need to call upon the U.S. military to begin an investigation into the seditious activities of Gen. Flynn, with appropriate consequences for his actions.

If Democratic leaders don’t do this, they shouldn’t be surprised if many voters will be so turned off by their cowardice that they won’t bother to vote anymore. And I think that’s exactly what Trump is counting on, which could result in a comeback victory in 2024. Trump’s supporters are incredibly energized by his fighting spirit, viewing him as an epic hero. Democrats, on the other hand, risk demoralizing their supporters if Trump and his allies are allowed to get away with nearly killing our democracy.

We’re unlikely to get much in the way of progressive policy through a narrowly divided Congress during the Biden administration. But can we at least count on our Democratic leaders to stand up confidently for basic American values — really simple stuff such as that presidents and generals are not allowed to have meetings to discuss plans for a possible military coup?

Why do we even have to be discussing such things? In a sane country, Gen. Flynn would have already been under military arrest for what he did. Democratic leaders, please, start saying the obvious — stop being afraid of your own shadow — and earn the respect of the millions and millions of Americans who want politicians with spine.

 

Not a question of "respect" IMHO it's a question of likely results.

First of all, attempting to place Flynn under arrest  could problematic.

You would need a judge willing to put out a warrant and a law agency willing to perform the arrest; then imagine the trial. All that would happen is that it would unite more Republicans in a howling festival of victimhood and the next Republican President would have a license to arrest any Democrat he wanted, on any pretext.

The two parties are not equivalent. The Democratic Party's best tactic is to ignore it as contemptible and ineffective. The Republican Party has already called for Hillary's arrest etc etc and they ended up going nowhere with it. Even their most dictatorial Attorney General wouldn't cross that bridge.

So leave it

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Short enough to quote outright, and the author is correct. Why aren't the Democrat leaders screaming about this? WTF is wrong with them?

 

 They may view it as Flynn only trying to milk some of those Qanon/RW bubble buck$ for himself.  He has to at least act insane to get that done and he has considerable legal bills to pay. The odds the military would obey such an order are about nil, and Trump is tweeting all this is fake news, so it's a fair bet the generals have unequivocally assured him of that. Why give Flynn more free press? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we just been lucky this time? The Pentagon just happens to lack any enticing adventures, is a bit shy having lost a dozen wars in a row, and most importantly has all the money/weapons/meat they could ever dream of. A slightly different situation at the Pentagon might see the brass cutting a deal with the wanna-be autocrat: Martial law re-election traded for a super-fun-made-for-cable-tv overseas adventure (to ya know, spread democracy).

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, El Borracho said:

Have we just been lucky this time? The Pentagon just happens to lack any enticing adventures, is a bit shy having lost a dozen wars in a row, and most importantly has all the money/weapons/meat they could ever dream of. A slightly different situation at the Pentagon might see the brass cutting a deal with the wanna-be autocrat: Martial law re-election traded for a super-fun-made-for-cable-tv overseas adventure (to ya know, spread democracy).

I think the Flynns and the Norths are actually pretty thin on the ground in the military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

This does not bode well at all . . 

Do you really imagine the next authoritarian wanna-be 

will be so incompetent at autogolpe making ?? 

DUDE!  Where have you been all this time???  I said almost this exact thing 4 years ago.  I've said numerous times since, when y'all were so skeered back when that trump was going to become a dicktator and democracy was sure to be over..... that shitstain is NOT the threat you all think he is.  The REAL threat is the next guy or gal who has a filter and knows how to keep their mouths shut, their finger off the send button on twitter and has enough subtlety and cunning to actually do some of the things trump's instincts have led him to want to do, but was too fucking stupid, narcissistic and abrasive to git-r-dun. 

I said back then that there ARE authoritarian populist minded folks who are taking notes that are the real threat.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Flynn should be charged with sedition at 12:01 PM on January 20th

Maybe the new AG can do it sooner when he takes office on the Dec 23rd.  Why wait?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, d'ranger said:

My Pillow Guy tweeted that martial law should be called in 7 states to overturn the election.  Then deleted the tweet. Might should have slept on that tweet first.

Does your wife know about your BF?  Is it an open marriage or something?  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Short enough to quote outright, and the author is correct. Why aren't the Democrat leaders screaming about this? WTF is wrong with them?

Quote

I’ve been a Democrat for 15 years. As a former Republican/Libertarian, I’ve always felt that the Democrats tend to be a bit wimpy compared to other political parties. But I never thought I would see the day when a retired general and convicted criminal, corruptly pardoned by the president, would have a meeting with said president in the Oval Office to discuss the possibility of a military coup to install the president as a dictator despite losing a democratic election — and yet, powerful Democrats are remaining silent.

I’ve been watching and reading the news, but I haven’t yet heard of President-elect Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, or any other prominent Democratic elected officials publicly condemning the seditious act of Gen. Flynn advocating an attempted coup and actually meeting with the president in the White House to discuss the idea.

When are these people going to grow a backbone?

They seem to think that by just ignoring the insanely anti-American and illegal activities of Trump’s political allies, it will all somehow magically go away.

Here’s what I think: They need to stand up and say that sedition won’t be tolerated. They need to call upon all patriotic Republicans to take a stand with them, in a broad nonpartisan coalition to protect and preserve American democracy and the rule of law. They need to call for Trump’s immediate resignation from the office of President of the United States. And they need to call upon the U.S. military to begin an investigation into the seditious activities of Gen. Flynn, with appropriate consequences for his actions.

If Democratic leaders don’t do this, they shouldn’t be surprised if many voters will be so turned off by their cowardice that they won’t bother to vote anymore. And I think that’s exactly what Trump is counting on, which could result in a comeback victory in 2024. Trump’s supporters are incredibly energized by his fighting spirit, viewing him as an epic hero. Democrats, on the other hand, risk demoralizing their supporters if Trump and his allies are allowed to get away with nearly killing our democracy.

We’re unlikely to get much in the way of progressive policy through a narrowly divided Congress during the Biden administration. But can we at least count on our Democratic leaders to stand up confidently for basic American values — really simple stuff such as that presidents and generals are not allowed to have meetings to discuss plans for a possible military coup?

Why do we even have to be discussing such things? In a sane country, Gen. Flynn would have already been under military arrest for what he did. Democratic leaders, please, start saying the obvious — stop being afraid of your own shadow — and earn the respect of the millions and millions of Americans who want politicians with spine.

Again, I've been saying this since the Mueller report was released.  Nance and the boys should have been impeachifying this monster as soon as they had solid evadents of wrong doing.  Whether or not the senate would convict is utterly and totally irrelevant.  I also said that when they finally did get around to bringing impeachment charges - the two charges they did bring was fucking weak sauce.  I said then that it would come off the US public, even the left side of center as nothing more than the usual diplomatic sausage making exercise.  Nancy should have thrown the kitchen sink into that impeachment hearing...... Collusion, obstruction, the UKR thing, emoluments, everything.  What they did instead was come off looking petty and vindictive because they lost.  But with enough charges and enough evidence - if you make a compelling enough case to the American public that this guy really is a shitstain crook - you might have budged some R senators off the fence.  And he still was unlikely to be convicted in the senate - but that not the point.  The point is that bringing charges when there is serious wrongdoing by the POTUS IS the Nancy's and the House's #1 constitutional duty and responsibility to do.  They have and continue to utterly fail at this concept of leadership and doing the right thing even if it's unpopular.  And that lack of spine is why they will continue to get steamrolled by the GOP and rejected by average folks who just want a party to be strong and consistent.  

That the Dem House has not already started impeachment investigations into FUCKING blatant and obvious election fuckery by trump and the GOP as well as outright, unabashed sedition on the part of several members of the party and the president is absolutely fucking gobsmacking.  I guess going home for Christmas is more important than protecting the Constitution.  

Nancy..... DO YOUR FUCKING DUTY!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not a question of "respect" IMHO it's a question of likely results.

First of all, attempting to place Flynn under arrest  could problematic.

You would need a judge willing to put out a warrant and a law agency willing to perform the arrest; then imagine the trial. All that would happen is that it would unite more Republicans in a howling festival of victimhood and the next Republican President would have a license to arrest any Democrat he wanted, on any pretext.

The two parties are not equivalent. The Democratic Party's best tactic is to ignore it as contemptible and ineffective. The Republican Party has already called for Hillary's arrest etc etc and they ended up going nowhere with it. Even their most dictatorial Attorney General wouldn't cross that bridge.

So leave it

- DSK

Bullshit.  You're a pussy if you would give up because it might not get the end results you expect.  Sometimes, especially in this particular case, the process itself IS the ideal outcome.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

Bullshit.  You're a pussy if you would give up because it might not get the end results you expect.  Sometimes, especially in this particular case, the process itself IS the ideal outcome.  

Or fixed..... for those of you have asked for more brevity in my writing style.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Borracho said:

Have we just been lucky this time? The Pentagon just happens to lack any enticing adventures, is a bit shy having lost a dozen wars in a row, and most importantly has all the money/weapons/meat they could ever dream of. A slightly different situation at the Pentagon might see the brass cutting a deal with the wanna-be autocrat: Martial law re-election traded for a super-fun-made-for-cable-tv overseas adventure (to ya know, spread democracy).

No

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Again, I've been saying this since the Mueller report was released.  Nance and the boys should have been impeachifying this monster as soon as they had solid evadents of wrong doing.  Whether or not the senate would convict is utterly and totally irrelevant.  I also said that when they finally did get around to bringing impeachment charges - the two charges they did bring was fucking weak sauce.  I said then that it would come off the US public, even the left side of center as nothing more than the usual diplomatic sausage making exercise.  Nancy should have thrown the kitchen sink into that impeachment hearing...... Collusion, obstruction, the UKR thing, emoluments, everything.  What they did instead was come off looking petty and vindictive because they lost.  But with enough charges and enough evidence - if you make a compelling enough case to the American public that this guy really is a shitstain crook - you might have budged some R senators off the fence.  And he still was unlikely to be convicted in the senate - but that not the point.  The point is that bringing charges when there is serious wrongdoing by the POTUS IS the Nancy's and the House's #1 constitutional duty and responsibility to do.  They have and continue to utterly fail at this concept of leadership and doing the right thing even if it's unpopular.  And that lack of spine is why they will continue to get steamrolled by the GOP and rejected by average folks who just want a party to be strong and consistent.  

That the Dem House has not already started impeachment investigations into FUCKING blatant and obvious election fuckery by trump and the GOP as well as outright, unabashed sedition on the part of several members of the party and the president is absolutely fucking gobsmacking.  I guess going home for Christmas is more important than protecting the Constitution.  

Nancy..... DO YOUR FUCKING DUTY!  

Not everybody wants to expend their energy or their time jousting windmills.

FWIW I think the Mueller Report gave Congress a blueprint for impeachment, but the way to go about it was following up with witnesses that either lied to Mueller or refused to testify. To do that, they would have had to being down the hammer on anybody refusing a subpoena.

As for "making a compelling case to the American public" you really like to joust at windmills, doncha? No matter what, ~45% of USAnians are solidly Trump supporters. He could butt-fuck their daughters.... or their sons... right in front of them, and they'd still support him.

Just now, Burning Man said:
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Bullshit.  You're a pussy if you would give up because it might not get the end results you expect.  Sometimes, especially in this particular case, the process itself IS the ideal outcome.  

Or fixed..... for those of you have asked for more brevity in my writing style.  

It's not a question of "might not," stupid. It's a question of ZERO FUCKING CHANCE.

Why didn't General Eisenhower just parachute right the fuck into Germany in 1942? Huh? We're at goddam war, fight motherfucker! You some kinda pussy that actually wants a chance to win?

Congrats on the brevity though

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
24 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Maybe the new AG can do it sooner when he takes office on the Dec 23rd.  Why wait?

Because come Jan 21 2021, Trump can't pardon him.

FKT

That's a decent point I hadn't considered.  However, I don't think you can pardon someone who has not been convicted on anything.  And the trial and conviction for sedition wouldn't come for many months/years after trump was long gone.  Any pardon would have to be a blanket "pre-pardon".  Sort of like "Pre-Crime".  Just saying.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Again, I've been saying this since the Mueller report was released.  Nance and the boys should have been impeachifying this monster as soon as they had solid evadents of wrong doing.  Whether or not the senate would convict is utterly and totally irrelevant.  I also said that when they finally did get around to bringing impeachment charges - the two charges they did bring was fucking weak sauce.  I said then that it would come off the US public, even the left side of center as nothing more than the usual diplomatic sausage making exercise.  Nancy should have thrown the kitchen sink into that impeachment hearing...... Collusion, obstruction, the UKR thing, emoluments, everything.  What they did instead was come off looking petty and vindictive because they lost.  But with enough charges and enough evidence - if you make a compelling enough case to the American public that this guy really is a shitstain crook - you might have budged some R senators off the fence.  And he still was unlikely to be convicted in the senate - but that not the point.  The point is that bringing charges when there is serious wrongdoing by the POTUS IS the Nancy's and the House's #1 constitutional duty and responsibility to do.  They have and continue to utterly fail at this concept of leadership and doing the right thing even if it's unpopular.  And that lack of spine is why they will continue to get steamrolled by the GOP and rejected by average folks who just want a party to be strong and consistent.  

That the Dem House has not already started impeachment investigations into FUCKING blatant and obvious election fuckery by trump and the GOP as well as outright, unabashed sedition on the part of several members of the party and the president is absolutely fucking gobsmacking.  I guess going home for Christmas is more important than protecting the Constitution.  

Nancy..... DO YOUR FUCKING DUTY!  

Drunk? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:
12 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't think you can pardon someone who has not been convicted on anything. 

wrong.

Can you educate those of us less knowledgeable? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:
21 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't think you can pardon someone who has not been convicted on anything. 

wrong.

Which is why I prefaced it with the word "think".  Please edumacate us on the pre-crime pardon process, counselor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

No

Well ah, so you seem to be arguing here that the US military would not follow illegal orders . . 

One just has to inquire - Where have you been for the past fifty years ?? And . . . 

How did the brass's great and glorious loyalty to the constitution work out in 1860 ?? 

Vets For Peace - and the constitution, such as it is. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Again, I've been saying this since the Mueller report was released.  Nance and the boys should have been impeachifying this monster as soon as they had solid evadents of wrong doing.  Whether or not the senate would convict is utterly and totally irrelevant.  I also said that when they finally did get around to bringing impeachment charges - the two charges they did bring was fucking weak sauce.  I said then that it would come off the US public, even the left side of center as nothing more than the usual diplomatic sausage making exercise.  Nancy should have thrown the kitchen sink into that impeachment hearing...... Collusion, obstruction, the UKR thing, emoluments, everything.  What they did instead was come off looking petty and vindictive because they lost.  But with enough charges and enough evidence - if you make a compelling enough case to the American public that this guy really is a shitstain crook - you might have budged some R senators off the fence.  And he still was unlikely to be convicted in the senate - but that not the point.  The point is that bringing charges when there is serious wrongdoing by the POTUS IS the Nancy's and the House's #1 constitutional duty and responsibility to do.  They have and continue to utterly fail at this concept of leadership and doing the right thing even if it's unpopular.  And that lack of spine is why they will continue to get steamrolled by the GOP and rejected by average folks who just want a party to be strong and consistent.  

That the Dem House has not already started impeachment investigations into FUCKING blatant and obvious election fuckery by trump and the GOP as well as outright, unabashed sedition on the part of several members of the party and the president is absolutely fucking gobsmacking.  I guess going home for Christmas is more important than protecting the Constitution.  

Nancy..... DO YOUR FUCKING DUTY!  

   I think talking about sedition isn't a crime. You have to attempt to use force for it to be prosecutable. I'm way out of my area, but had Flynn had suggested all that to someone like Eric Prince or an officer in the military he could be nailed. A Tee Vee pundit? Not so much. 

 Nancy got Trump impeached but Moscow Mitch bailed him out. Barking at the wrong tree there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

No you're not. 

and that's not the actual headline, either. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Burning Man said:

That's a decent point I hadn't considered.  However, I don't think you can pardon someone who has not been convicted on anything.  And the trial and conviction for sedition wouldn't come for many months/years after trump was long gone.  Any pardon would have to be a blanket "pre-pardon".  Sort of like "Pre-Crime".  Just saying.  

It has to be after the crime's been committed; can be before it's been investigated or charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“My involvement is I was in the room when it happened. The raised voices included my own. I can promise you: President Trump is being terribly served by his advisers. They want him to lose and are lying to him. He is surrounding by mendacious mediocrities.”..In addition, any suggestion if there was talk of a military coup or martial law is also a flat lie. 100% false. I was there for 4 1/2 hours, I heard the entire conversation, that is a 100% fabrication.” ...Patcick Byrne

Treat that how you will but at least the source has a name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark K said:

   I think talking about sedition isn't a crime. You have to attempt to use force for it to be prosecutable. I'm way out of my area, but had Flynn had suggested all that to someone like Eric Prince or an officer in the military he could be nailed. A Tee Vee pundit? Not so much. 

 Nancy got Trump impeached but Moscow Mitch bailed him out. Barking at the wrong tree there.  

Correct. The crime is “seditious conspiracy.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

He would have to talk with other nutters about it, and if you watch the whole video clip, near the end he is very careful to note that he isn’t advocating it. So he is just raising thought provoking questions without taking a position. I recall seeing similar shitweaselry around here, though it was undoubtedly less profitable. 
 

“Advocating the Overthrow of Government” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

Allen West?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

“My involvement is I was in the room when it happened. The raised voices included my own. I can promise you: President Trump is being terribly served by his advisers. They want him to lose and are lying to him. He is surrounding by mendacious mediocrities.”..In addition, any suggestion if there was talk of a military coup or martial law is also a flat lie. 100% false. I was there for 4 1/2 hours, I heard the entire conversation, that is a 100% fabrication.” ...Patcick Byrne

Treat that how you will but at least the source has a name.

"Want him to lose" as opposed to what :unsure:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I truly don't get what Dog is trying to say here? What exactly is Trump winning or losing?

Dog is simply cautioning you to treat anonymous sources with skepticism. There are bullschiffers out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dog is simply cautioning you to treat anonymous sources with skepticism. There are bullschiffers out there.

Yeah?

And you consider "Patcick Byrne" a truthful source, who says ~"the President's advisors want him to lose"?

That's poppycick

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah?

And you consider "Patcick Byrne" a truthful source, who says ~"the President's advisors want him to lose"?

That's poppycick

 

At least you know who he is.

I know who Gen. Michael Flynn is, too; and he's stated several times publicly that he's urged the President to declare martial law. It may not have been at that meeting, plus Flynn is a well known liar.... in fact you could say that's what he's best known for.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

At least you know who he is.

I bet he thinks the use of the military by the current POTUS to "right" the elections in certain states is lawful and just. No coup or martial law needed.

This bunch has gone from denying to "so what, everyone does it" so many times that its hard to take anyone who still believes them seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy?

Patrick Byrne claims that he was complicit in facilitating a bribe for Hillary Clinton in the amount of $18M on behalf of the FBI in January 2016. The bribe, which she accepted, was then going to be used by members of the Obama administration against Hillary after she was elected.

:lol::lol:

 

I still don't get what "win/lose" is about. Win WHAT???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Summary of the reporting on the meeting . .  

Whom are we to believe, Dog or CNN?USA Today and others? 

Boy, that sure is a toughie  ..  

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/12/19/2003084/-Flynn-and-Powell-came-to-White-House-to-convince-Trump-to-move-forward-with-the-coup

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Summary of the reporting on the meeting . .  

Whom are we to believe, Dog or CNN?USA Today and others? 

Boy, that sure is a toughie  ..  

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/12/19/2003084/-Flynn-and-Powell-came-to-White-House-to-convince-Trump-to-move-forward-with-the-coup

What is my reporting on the meeting that should be believed or not believed?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Drumph and Flynn go down the martial law road . . 

I would expect the military to treat such orders as clearly illegal; 

but if they carry out such orders, then it is general strike time. 

I'll be out there with them . . 

It is being prepared now . . 

https://labornotes.org/2020/10/unions-are-beginning-talk-about-staving-possible-coup

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

If the Drumph and Flynn go down the martial law road . . 

I would expect the military to treat such orders as clearly illegal; 

but if they carry out such orders, then it is general strike time. 

I'll be out there with them . . 

It is being prepared now . . 

https://labornotes.org/2020/10/unions-are-beginning-talk-about-staving-possible-coup

The only people who need to go on strike are the ones who prepare the paycheques for federal politicians.   Stop that money flowing and martial law will be gone in seconds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dacapo said:

Sidney Powell has now gone to the top of most punchable face.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics/sidney-powell-white-house-trump-election/index.html

Backpfeifengesicht

Actually, she looks like it may have already happened.

image.png.776c3e4d5bfef05cb7b5df5abe202f29.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well ah, so you seem to be arguing here that the US military would not follow illegal orders . . 

One just has to inquire - Where have you been for the past fifty years ?? And . . . 

How did the brass's great and glorious loyalty to the constitution work out in 1860 ?? 

Vets For Peace - and the constitution, such as it is. 

What happened in the last 50 years that is relevant to this discussion?  Please be specific.  

And you're going back to the civil war????   Really?  

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

What happened in the last 50 years that is relevant to this discussion?  Please be specific.  

And you're going back to the civil war????   Really?  

giphy.gif

Your American Exceptionalism is showing. I can happen there as well as anywhere else. Nothing particularly admirable about the US military brass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dog said:

“My involvement is I was in the room when it happened. The raised voices included my own. I can promise you: President Trump is being terribly served by his advisers. They want him to lose and are lying to him. He is surrounding by mendacious mediocrities.”..In addition, any suggestion if there was talk of a military coup or martial law is also a flat lie. 100% false. I was there for 4 1/2 hours, I heard the entire conversation, that is a 100% fabrication.” ...Patcick Byrne

Treat that how you will but at least the source has a name.

“Maybe this goes away with heat and light. It seems like that’s the case,”  

 

that source has a name too.......

Link to post
Share on other sites