Trump attorney struggle sessions have begun
(twitter.com)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
Fucking cowards. And, no, it's not about disloyalty to Trump or anything, it's about going along with this farce. It's about disloyalty to the Constitution. They have to know the precedent they're setting up. As well as the events they're setting up. They know exactly what they're doing, but would rather save their own asses.
Ironically, pleading guilty to this bullshit is a much bigger threat to "out democracy" than looking into election irregularities, or asking people to protest on January 6th.
I outright said it's not about Trump. Did you even read?
Judging by how much the Biden administration is trying to rush the US into a war, this isn't having the effect they wanted and Trump would probably still win in a prison cell (even though the whole security thing hasn't been worked out).
A theory I heard Styx put out today was they want a war because times past, the public being idiots stick with the leader they have for 'stability during a crisis'. I don't think Iran is taking the bait however (think that recent 'attack' by them is a false flag) and I think that's why Hamas is being left to hang, they KNOW he wants a war to stay in power so willing to wait even if Trump gets back in and they have to actually negotiate again.
This is correct. It worked with FDRoosevelt, probably the most economically and socially damaging president of the 20th century prior to LBJ, yet because he was President during WWII (and put forth a lot of programs that socialists who later infested education loved), he's within the top 5 whenever "Best presidents" are brought up. He doesn't deserve to even be in the top 20.
I hate FDR. He originated the idea of packing the Supreme Court when it ruled against his New Deal policies.
He also had a philosophy that he would get unconstitutional legislation pushed through and then fight to defend it in court. That attitude of knowingly passing defective laws continues today in things like all the unconstitutional gun control the left passes and then drags out in court.
He's also the reason for the 22nd Amendment, despite various media always showing the POTUS that goes over 2 terms as being (R), like with Nixon in Watchmen because "it's (D)ifferent when they do it".
Specifically, they actually fucking did it!🙄
Not even just that, the 22nd Amendment was proposed by a Dem Congress before the grass grew over FDR's grave. They knew how close FDR came to being an eternal tyrant.
Honestly I expect them to either assassinate Trump if he wins, suspend elections before he wins, or otherwise rig the election so he can't win. Because everyone pretty much knows the result of this upcoming election. The odds of Trump losing it in a legitimate manner are virtually nonexistent
It's to the point even mainstream polls are putting him 10-20 points ahead of Biden. I think they're panicking so much because they can't cheat hard enough to cover that gap this time.
I don't think they'll assassinate as Trump isn't dumb and apparently orders several types of food choosing one at random regularly to avoid poisoning so unless they really want to try gunman but then they have issues with the secret service, it's risks an internal deep state conflict doing that let alone the reaction of the MAGA faithful.
They MIGHT be trying for a war as an excuse to suspend but the Supreme Court would shut that down as if there were elections during the Civil War and WW2 what's their excuse to start now? I'm more dreading they might cause a WW3 in a 'if I can't control the world then fuck you all!' move like the entitled psychopaths they are.
At this point what isn't double digits ahead of Biden?
inb4 child's age joke.
as far as the trump assassnation they got options, one of which is kamakazi drone with a small explosive attached sic 10 of em on trump at once and his security team wont be able to shoot em all down. annother option is disposable pawn either suicide bomber ot as you said gunman and if hamass is still around im sure one of em would take the opertunity even if they knew it was bait. theres also the increasing computerization of cars and we know the feds love to build backdoors into things to make their job easy all they would have to do is cause a car accident either with trumps car or a nearby one.
I've always found the allocution part of plea deals to be the most insidious. A plea deal is a tactical decision, the government is worried it may lose, so it offers reduced charges or sentencing in exchange for a guaranteed win. The defendant is also afraid they may lose, so they are willing to take a guaranteed lower sentence than risk the potential higher penalty of losing at trial. The terms are based on each side's estimation of its chance of victory. At no point is the person's actual guilt or innocence a factor in either side's decision-making, and everyone knows this.
Yet, after the deal is hammered out, you have to admit in court to doing everything that you pled guilty to. You have to unequivocally state that you committed the crime, describe your guilt in detail, and state that you are in no way admitting to crimes you didn't commit to get a lighter sentence (which is what everyone in the room knows you are actually doing).
And just to make sure you stay on script, the deal isn't official unless it's accepted by the judge after he hears you grovel in front of everyone. He doesn't feel you are sincere enough the whole thing is canceled and you have to go to trial. It almost seems like some sort of ritual out of 1984 or a Kafka novel, calculated to extract the maximum humiliation from the defendant.
If I could change just one thing about the US legal system, it would be to outlaw plea bargains. If you think you have the evidence to convict someone of a crime, then you charge them and go all the way. Otherwise you shut the fuck up and let them go.
Grand juries are proof that the Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.
Grand juries are actually meant to protect the defendant.
It's a requirement that the prosecution present its case pretty much without challenge to see if they have the evidence to prove everything they allege. The idea being that if you can't convince a jury without the defense poking holes in your case, it's not strong enough to go to trial.
That's the theory. What I have seen in practice is that because the defense has a very limited ability to object, the prosecution will present misleading or easily refuted evidence to the jury in order to secure the indictment. Such evidence can be easily rebutted at trial, but the process is the punishment, and they are effectively circumventing a check and balance to keep the prosecution active.
Other legal systems have a similar screening tool. I believe in Spain they have to present their case to a judge who decides whether or not it has enough merit to move to trial.
What's the crime? I assume it's all "conspiracy to commit X and Y crime" type stuff?
But what did she actually do that can be considered a crime? (meaning in the pretend world where our laws are enforced objectively)
Funny how government agents and judges conspiring to punish opposition leaders is perfectly legal.
It's "conspiracy to say the election was rigged".
Conspiracy to thought crime.
How recently was she Trump's attorney? Can anyone tl;dr this person?
Obama had put in place an illegal executive order before leaving to give a grace period keeping his goons there. It was both bait and a stall tactic. That combined with the Russia bullshit masking an illegal spying campaign sanctioned by the FISA courts, Congress would have risked steamrolling him out of office within the first few months.
Though I honestly would have preferred that had happened because mass civil disobedience and Civil War 2.0 probably would have kicked off, and the ship may have been righted by now
Nigger he tried that with DACA. Supreme Court said no. Do you have the memory of a goldfish? Or are you just retarded?
I remember that. And it makes no sense. I should read the decision to see how they contorted the ruling to say that an executive order can't be undone by another executive order.
I'm sure it was watertight and full of elaborate pilpul, but Trump should have just said no to the courts. Unfortunately this is one of his weak spots. He personally doesn't understand the law, and was surrounded by bad or malicious advisors. (Bannon was the last good one IMO) The uniparty had an army of attorneys working against him to make sure he was ineffectual.
That said as other comments point out ignoring the courts would have been more ammo for the impeachment.
Bannon is a modern-day Founding Father.
From Virginia, military leader, learned.
Once he got kicked out of the inner circle, Trump started failing as President.
I understand that Trump had the ability to cancel it and that maybe Congress wouldn't have the balls to counteract, but the media was already painting him as a dictator and a good portion of the country believed in those lies before he even stepped foot in office, just for simply stating the reality of illegal immigration.
It was apparent within the first year that Trump was more concerned about image (which is something many populists suffer from), and as much as we like to joke about "4D chess" after the fact, there was no foresight on where he could go (which is a consequence of being an outsider who is more of diplomat instead of a warrior). Practically every Republican was walking away and clearly wanted him to disappear, or they buckled. Sessions immediately bowed out when the heat was on.
With all that happened, he SHOULD have gone forward with firing everybody, even though I have no idea how badly the Deep State would rail against those who aren't Beltway pigs. Who knows what lengths leftist mobs, the media and intelligence agencies would have gone to smear him, but it could have been a spectacle.
You can thank Russiagate for preventing this, or if you want to go one step further, Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment.
I'm sure that at some early point Trump realized he needed to fire the entire bureaucracy, but also realized that Republicans would help Dems impeach him Caesar-style if he ever moved to do so. As DistilledLife says, that might have been a good thing, but we also might have American troops dying overseas if not for Trump's term as well.
I somewhat agree with this. However, he couldn't have pardoned Jenna Ellis or anyone else who hadn't even been charged when he left office.
You think he understood the depth of hatred for him when he took office? This man is oblivious to most criticism, even. Surely he would not assume from day one that the entire bureaucracy was going to conspire to get him out of office and keep him out.