I do feel / "get" that as t is less and less relevant and no longer the forefront of media, the brainwashing aspect of the most vulnerable will ease and they will come out of the delusion unsure what happened. Dazed.
Agreed. To brainwash people en masse, you need a good brainwasher, i.e., , some sort of charismatic figurehead. (Tho personally I do not understand why anyone would find the current washer of brains charismatic, a lot of people do.) I believe that most of the followers of the insanity are not "hardcore", but merely deluded, and without the figurehead will come out of their trance.
@tesseract A Constitutional amendment wouldn't be necessary as Secret Service protection isn't part of the Big C. It could be changed, yes, but since it's required by the 2013 law signed by President Obama, that law would need to be repealed or changed through the normal legislative process, and such a change would not affect only him, but all future Presidents. If they were to try to change it just for him, they could very easily run into the Constitutional provision prohibiting bills of attainder (legislated punishments targeted at a specific person or group).
Another perhaps less considered reason to keep it is for national security reasons. If a former president were to be kidnapped after leaving office, the kidnappers might theoretically have access to everything that former president knew about the US government, and a former president would obviously have a lot to offer in terms of intelligence. The Secret Service detail is not only to protect the former President, but to protect the country in the future.
@tgraf66 that’s a good point about SS protecting the country. Hopefully they aren’t under the thrall of him. I read about one that left to work for him.
I keep checking myself, do I want pain to rain down? I keep turning it over to equal justice and the best interest of our future.
After viewing Parler before they shut it down just to see what we are dealing with(some details about it in the Mitch thread), I've come to realize that it isn't Trump.leading the charge anymore. Its Q. Im assuming Q is a Russian intelligence derivative, but that is what has brainwashed the masses. They are using Trump as the focal point and holy savior, demonizing anything that doesn't fully support him as heretic and satanic. It is to the point that q members are now proclaiming to analyze the frequency of tweets from various random politicians as a coded message in itself. The scary part of all of this is that it will love on much longer than Trumpism. The model Q built is one that can proclaim knowledge of future happenings, yet when debunked and found untrue, they can get their members to believe it was done to throw off the Satanists and that the real message was in the fact that they just sent a message, or hidden in the timestamp of a tweet of some random person. By building it this way, there is absolutely no way to debunk it with any logic because anyone using logic or facts missed the message in their eyes.
On the question of Pence's motives on the 25th Amendment, I'd like to suggest the possibility that Pence recognizes that the 25th Amendment is not meant for this situation and by declining to pursue it, he really wants to encourage Congress to go forward with impeachment. Behind the scenes, he may be influencing other top Republicans to vote for impeachment, hence McConnell's stance as it emerged today.
Using the 25th Amendment as the retribution for Trump's seditious wickedness is like putting on a band-aid to address a broken leg. In fact, it would not be retribution at all, because this interpretation of the 25th Amendment would essentially claim (and lawyers please correct me as needed ? ) that Trump did all this due to insanity. On the contrary, however, he is in fact perfectly capable of fulfilling the role of President if he so wished. So any use of the 25th Amendment here would be questionable and rest assured that Trump's loyal fascist followers would question it vigorously and this would make Pence even more of a target. With regards to carrying out a just retribution for the extent of Trump's wickedness, such a questionable response would not achieve that goal. In addition, the 25th Amendment is done by Pence as just a few individuals in the cabinet, quite privately. In contrast, impeachment is done in a public manner by all of Congress, presided over by both the VP and the chief justice of the supreme court. Thus, impeachment is far more appropriate and preferable as the course of action.
Long story short, I don't think Pence (or McConnell) is playing both sides. I think that both feel deeply betrayed by Trump and want to make sure that justice is carried out with regards to the insurrection. Also, they are seeing in horror what is happening to their party, and they are course correcting.
Thank you for your meditations! I was shocked someone like her (Qanon) could even win a seat in Colorado! She's already getting herself into hot water - refusing to give up her Glock gun when entering the House chambers and there have already been calls for her to resign given her tweets during the insurrection, where she tweeted out Pelosi's location to the domestic terrorists!
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/01/12/lauren-boebert-guns-congress-security-stop/
@elaineg. I heard crows are a good omen instead. Who can clarify? Weird to see them walking single file. :)
@theungamer. Who else now has a huge craving for chips and onion dip? (Actually, that would pair nicely with chilled Korbel ... ) :)
I have a question for our legal saavy individuals here. I've always felt that tbe Mueller report would have a great impact on Mango. I feel Mueller and the report were stifled by this administration.
If there end up being investigations into this administration where it is discovered that charges against Mango could be pressed-say campaign violations, or collusion with Russia- could charges actually be filed? I get that no criminal charges were made in the past, however he was tried in the house via impeachment. Would this count as double jeopardy, or would the house trial & a new criminal trial (if warranted) be more like being tried for the same thing in a civil & criminal trial?
I get that no criminal charges were made in the past, however he was tried in the house via impeachment. Would this count as double jeopardy, or would the house trial & a new criminal trial (if warranted) be more like being tried for the same thing in a civil & criminal trial?
@mas1581 and I discussed this a couple days ago on one of these threads because I had the same concern, and with that discussion and my own additional research, I found that the answer is no, it is not considered double jeopardy. An impeachment trial is a political trial, not a criminal one, and therefore the Senate has no Constitutional authority to impose any punishment beyond removal from office. However, conviction/removal does not preclude criminal charges, trial, or judgement following that removal. Here is the relevant text from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
@jewels excellent combination. We could have ridden the stress out together ... on Zoom!
@tgraf66 thsnk you. Obviously I missed that discussion. I was concerned. I always felt more would (will) come of Mueller's investigation & I hated the thought there could be no repercussions as a result. Not sure Mango will face jail time from the report, but back in 2016 I posted here about seeing Mango in prison stripes (vision made me chuckle outvloud during church service no less), and have seen his name in history books with an * beside it, while feeling Mueller would be held in high esteem for his work. Still makes me wonder if history will reflect on the 2016 results as questionable. Agree with Jimmy Carter-Russia interfered & the quantification of that will take years to calculate.
@jewels Well, I’m having bubbly tonight! We drank it after the first impeachment and it would be just wrong not to celebrate the second. Of course, now I’m wondering if I have the ingredients to make onion dip.
@jewels It was weird. They were walking in a straight line. One was all the way across, one was waiting, and one was in the middle of the road. Owls are bad too. Once we saw one setting on a house, and we thought about telling the people there, but we chickened out.
@jewels The meaning of a symbol, in this case crows, is not static or absolute. It is subjective and varies. To Elaine, crows are bad. To @walden-ponderer crows are good.
I am just getting caught up on some of the first hand accounts of what happened on Jan. 6th. This Washington Post account written Jan 9th is worthy of a Best Selling Thriller. Here is just a portion of what was written. I LOVE Lindsay Graham in this portion of the article. Stenger is the Senate Sergeant of Arms.
Amid the mayhem, a large group of senators were secretly led to a room in a Senate office building. Stenger was with them, and the furious lawmakers peppered him with questions.
“How does this happen? How does this happen?” demanded Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.)
Stenger could not muster much of an answer, practically inaudible as he dispiritedly debriefed the senators. “He was talking in circles,” Graham thought to himself.
Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., called Stenger’s attempt to field that question “absolutely pathetic” and further reduced confidence in the room. As Graham pressed for a better explanation, Stenger’s voice got weaker and smaller.
“Here’s your mission: Take back the Senate,” Graham told Stenger. “Whatever you need to do, do it. We’re not leaving this place. We’re not going to be run out by a mob.”
Finally, the Senate sergeant at arms sat down amid the others in the room, saying to no one in particular: “I wish I had just retired last week.”
The entire article is chilling and shocking.
You had a vision of Trump going dark about a year ago. I remember many thought it meant his passing but with the recent silencing of him on social media and in general, I'm wondering if that was a foresight of him figuratively going dark since he has been almost completely silenced this last week.
Stop talking about onion dip. ? I am craving it. I had minor surgery today and am lying here like a bored, slightly wounded sloth craving it. I'm not going to ask my husband to make any because I'll eat it all.