All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Panfoot]

I notice the posters who usually tell me that Trump is untouchable have been awfully quiet.

It certainly feels like he's closer than ever before to actually facing consequences, but I think it's only because the Republicans may finally be done with him, not because of how incredibly guilty he is.

[thwhtGuardian]

I notice the posters who usually tell me that Trump is untouchable have been awfully quiet.

Eh, I won't believe he'll actually face any real consequences until after it happens.

[CaptainEurope]

The Mayor of NYC agrees with me, btw.

“To falsely report a crime is a crime. If that video wasn’t there, then this person would have been charged with punching the former mayor," NYC Mayor Eric Adams said. “When you look at the video, the guy basically walked by and patted him on the back."

[Kirby101]

I notice the posters who usually tell me that Trump is untouchable have been awfully quiet.

This is me not holding my breath. When I hear Garland say he is a person of interest, I'll reconsider. I still don't see them going after him. As guilty as he is.

I had hopes for NYC, but they dropped the case, and I don't see the NY State case doing anything but a big fine on the Trump Org, which he won't pay.

[Kirby101]

I thought this article about the Free Thought movement in Russia today is eye opening about how some in Russia see Putin.

How to Be a Skeptic in Russia

It is hard to talk about any support for science and critical thinking when the power in the country belongs to crazy, inhuman conspiracy theorists. There are such people in every country, but almost nowhere else do they have such power—or, as in the case of Donald Trump, the system of checks and balances prevents them from doing anything too stupid. In Russia, Putin has no deterrents. He is just a senile old man who doesn’t know how to use the internet, who knows nothing about the modern world—but who has access to nuclear arms. And then there’s his obedient police and the strongest propaganda.

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1541868415681544195

NEW: By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court halts a lower court order that had struck down Louisiana's racial gerrymander. All three liberals dissent.

A federal judge found that Louisiana's new congressional map diluted the votes of racial minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and the 5th Circuit declined to halt that ruling. Now the Supreme Court has stepped in to put the ruling on hold.

Although nearly a third of Louisiana's population is Black, Republicans' new congressional map gives Black voters control over just one of six congressional districts.

The Supreme Court has now effectively ensured that this map will remain in place for the 2022 elections.

The new map, which the Supreme Court just reinstated, packs Black voters into a single district, diluting their political power in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But the far-right justices have effectively repealed that provision already.

Here's a link to the order; the liberal justices noted their dissents but did not write. https://supremecourt.gov/orders/cour...22zr1_9ol1.pdf

The majority also granted cert and will hold the case until it formally eviscerates the Voting Rights Act's ban on racial gerrymandering next term.

Remember: The Supreme Court is not just *allowing* states to pass racial gerrymanders; it's also *prohibiting* states from increasing representation for racial minorities. It claims that increasing Black voting power violates the equal protection clause.

Here is the upshot of the Supreme Court's shadow docket decisions on the Voting Rights Act: The far-right majority has effectively struck down the ban on racial gerrymandering without full briefing or oral arguments, on the basis of a future ruling that it has not yet issued.

[Kirby101]

Mets, does this qualify taking away people's Rights and undoing Congressional legislation? Or will you continue to defend this fascist Court? Asking for a friend.

[Kevinroc]

Trump Knew Supporters Had Weapons On Jan. 6 But Didn't Care, Top Aide Testifies
Former President Donald Trump said he didn't "f-ing care" that supporters had weapons before the Capitol riot.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b0adb8aa4d48e8

Former President Donald Trump knew his supporters were armed with weapons the day of the Jan 6, 2021, Capitol attack, but insisted they be allowed to watch him speak before the riot.

“I heard the president say something to the effect of, ‘I don’t f-ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f-ing mags [metal detectors] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here,’” said Cassidy Hutchinson, who was an aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

“He was furious because he wanted the arena we had at the ellipse to be maxed out to capacity,” Hutchinson said of Trump’s demeanor.

Following Trump’s rally, hundreds of his supporters stormed the Capitol. Five people died and more than 140 officers were injured.

“The president said something to the effect of, ‘I’m the f-ing president, take me up to the Capitol now.’ To which [Secret Service agent Bobby Engel] responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing,’” Hutchinson testified, recounting a story another Trump aide had told her.

An “irate” Trump then attempted to grab the steering wheel and reached towards Engel’s neck, Hutchinson said.

“Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel and when Mr. [Anthony] Ornato had recounted the story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles,” she said.

[Robotman]

I notice the posters who usually tell me that Trump is untouchable have been awfully quiet.

I don’t see how today’s testimony brings Trump any closer to facing justice.

He’s stated in the past that he wanted to march to the capital with his followers and this actually proves he indeed did want to go.

We get another story of Trump bring unhinged. Something we all know that he is.

People said the words “oathkeepers” and “Proud Boys” before the insurrection. Doesn’t mean much.

We know this was a planned attack, but there’s still no concrete evidence tying this to Trump.

He’s a rotten excuse for a human being, but he’s a pretty good criminal.

[Kirby101]

I don’t see how today’s testimony brings Trump any closer to facing justice.

He’s stated in the past that he wanted to march to the capital with his followers and this actually proves he indeed did want to go.

We get another story of Trump bring unhinged. Something we all know that he is.

People said the words “oathkeepers” and “Proud Boys” before the insurrection. Doesn’t mean much.

We know this was a planned attack, but there’s still no concrete evidence tying this to Trump.

He’s a rotten excuse for a human being, but he’s a pretty good criminal.

Actually, today showed Trump planned an armed attack on the Capitol. That he knew for days that there crowd would be dangerous, and then was told the mob were armed with assault weapons and body armor, yet still sent them to the Capitol. That he was planning to go inside the Capitol with an armed mob. That is clearly criminal. It's easily indictable. But whether the DOJ acts or not...I am not optimistic.

[babyblob]

Kirby is right. It reveals a lot. We knew it was a planned attack. That is not a secret.

But what we did learn is that the President his chief of staff and several in his inner circle knew the crowd was armed to the teeth. Yet the speakers at the 6th rally riled them up fight like Hell and all of that. Trump the President. Let me say again The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES knew the crowd was armed. And his reply was "They are not here to hurt me let them in and we can march to the capital from here."

He sent an angry armed mob, a crowd he made that way with his lackies with weeks of lies and speeches on the 6th. he then attacked his own SS because he could not go and lead them himself in the grand revolution!

it proved what we all knew and then some.

[titanfan]

Actually, today showed Trump planned an armed attack on the Capitol. That he knew for days that there crowd would be dangerous, and then was told the mob were armed with assault weapons and body armor, yet still sent them to the Capitol. That he was planning to go inside the Capitol with an armed mob. That is clearly criminal. It's easily indictable. But whether the DOJ acts or not...I am not optimistic.

Yup it basically links thinks together:

- Trump knew days ahead of time that the potential for 1/6 had the potential to be violent.
- Did several things to make it worse (like try to take away the metal detectors)
- Had a plan to go to the capitol ahead of time. (Contradicting Meadows book where he said Trump didn't)

[babyblob]

One thing the hearings have shown. Even more so the last two hearings is just how deep this goes and how planned this was. From Trump wanting to replace the Ag with his won guy who would do things he wanted, wanting the Acting AG to say the election was corrupt and he and the GOP congress would do the rest to the talk with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to sending an armed mob to the Capital. This goes a Hell of a lot deeper then we are thought or even suspected.

And Flynn the formal General who had to take the 5th on if he believed in the the peaceful transfer of power damn sure needs to be looked into for his role in all of this.

And those testifying are not nobodies. We have former Acting AG and deputy Ag, we have high level government officials, we have the chief of staff for Trump's Chief of Staff!

These are people that can not just be ignored as part of the deep state, or paper pushers and coffee makers trying to make a name for themselves.

[Mister Mets]

Mets, does this qualify taking away people's Rights and undoing Congressional legislation? Or will you continue to defend this fascist Court? Asking for a friend.

What right is taken away?

How is the court fascist?

I don't like gerrymandering, but the most important question if we're coming up with some kind of alternative system of drawing district borders is what the criteria should be. When new districts are formed, what standards should we use to determine that the independent body selected for the job (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's your preferred policy) did it correctly? Right now it seems progressives calling for reforms just want to maximize the number of Democratic seats, and everything else is pretext.

[kidfresh512]

Bringing a case against trump himself would automatically make this one of if not the biggest case in the history of America. In a time where a huge chunk of the country will ignore the truth anyway. Not just ignore it but think it was all made up. GOP just like they are now would undercut, right wing media, Fox News.

So being methodical, building a rock-solid, bullet-proof team, and case goes without saying. Factor in there haven't been hostile witnesses really. That would happen in a criminal trial, and there are those who we know would lie under oath and make it he said she said.

Hell the evidence in the impeachment trials was impressive and vast, and clear as day. While those are political and not the same as a criminal case we are talking about here. The point is the extent they will go to lie and cover up.