Yes, Pelosi is talking impeachment again. It was a fiasco the first time, and it'll probably be worse if they try it again. Such an impeachment would be essentially meaningless unless a Senate trial were held--meaning, no penalties could be levied against Trump without the trial. Interestingly, however, according to Mitch McConnell, it would be pretty much impossible to conduct such a trial before January 20. Assuming they actually did go through with it, what would be the penalty against Trump? They wouldn't be able to remove him from office, but they could ban him from running for president again.
Let's think about this for a moment. Even without another fake impeachment, what has happened already--the hoax election, the abdication of the SCOTUS, etc.--guarantees that the next four years will be all about Donald Trump 24/7/365 (366 in the leap year). A second fake impeachment would--if that were possible--intensify the focus on what the Imperial City on the Potomac and its Deep State guardians did to Trump for four long years. I'm here to tell you that, from an entirely dispassionate political point of view, but based on events of these past years--that cannot possibly be a good thing for Dems. The current polling numbers tell the story. Nor would another fake impeachment be a good thing for most of the craven GOPers who initially thought it was smart to openly jump on the run-him-outta-here-on-a-rail bandwagon, and are now already nervously looking for a way to get off.
But here's the other stupid aspect of this. While it will be hard for GOPers to look graceful while jumping off that bandwagon, it remains possible that they might still be able to win some sort of partial redemption in the eyes of the voters if they make the attempt. Why Pelosi and Schumer think it's a smart idea to give GOPers that opportunity is anyone's guess. If I were giving advice I'd say it'd be better to leave the GOPers floundering in the wings somewhere rather than provide them with the public stage of another show trial in which to seek forgiveness and redemption.
Maybe the Dems figure that their current control of the MSM and social media will allow them to switch the narrative and get people to pay attention what's-his-name--when that never worked during the hoax election. I remain skeptical in the extreme.
With all that said, Daniel Gelernter explains very nicely what could be coming down the pike toward the political establishment:
Why Is the GOP Glad Trump Lost?
Establishment Republicans will learn the hard way how very much they have lost in helping Joe Biden win the way he did.
Here's a small excerpt from the longer article:
... when they blame President Trump for the Capitol protest, they are doubly foolish and doubly deceived. First, they implicitly deny that these protestors had any reason to be upset. Even the CHAZ protestors who demolished central Seattle were granted the presumption that they might have had reasons, however misguided.
But the Capitol Hill protestors had already been told, repeatedly, by the news media, social media, and their political leaders, to shut up and go home. And yet they didn’t—so it must be Trump’s fault.
The idea that a large part of America genuinely could be infuriated by the behavior of our elected officials has not dawned on them. When they get yelled at on planes, they think, “Why don’t my constituents believe me? Why don’t they trust me? It’s Trump’s fault!”
Today, these politicians are breathing a sigh of relief—their second mistake: “My constituents trusted me before Trump came,” they think. “Now that he’s on the way out the door, they will trust me again!” They believe that Trump not being president means that they can go back to vacuuming up money and power just as before. They think Trump is finished.
In reality, they are finished.
Career GOP politicians will spend the next several years watching “their” party rapidly remade in what they mistakenly believe to be Trump’s image. But it is actually the image of a large part of America that feels totally ignored.
The principals [sic] that Trump represents do not start and end with Trump.
Gelernter goes on to argue that Trumpism is here to stay. It was always here, but Trump gave it a voice--which is why Trump will remain at the center of the national debate. It's also why attempting to silence Trump and all references to Trump will only infuriate normal Americans further.
"It's a system where for 40 years there haven't been genuine elections but simply a comedy, a farce. Thus a system which has no legislative organs. It's a system without an independent press; a system without an independent judiciary; where the people have no influence either on external or internal policy; where any thought which is different from what the state thinks is crushed."ReplyDelete
At least half of Americans today would probably think, above quote refers to US today.
It belongs to Solzhenitsyn of course, referring to USSR.
I predict the Democrats will impeach and the Republicans will convict. The reason is to keep Trump from running again. Yes, the GOP will pay a huge price for this, but they seem determined to do it. If they, the GOP, do it, they will get wiped out in 2022 and 2024- literally wiped from the political map.ReplyDelete
McConnell will just slow walk everything. Impeachment will end upp being another democRAT failure.Delete
So will the charges be presented as a misdemeanor? There certainly is no high crime here. Elected Democrats have called for violent demonstrations this past summer so does that open them to same charge(s)? Trump didn't even call for violence. I realize that impeachment is a political event as opposed to a criminal process but it truly will be the end of our republic if something this trivial led to a conviction. Then the Republicans in the Senate would surely own it. Talk about a coup!ReplyDelete
I am already at the point to never vote for any Republican ever again, although I could be swayed if they embrace MAGA. I doubt the party will, though.ReplyDelete
By supporting impeachment and then convicting Trump, I will absolutely never vote for them again and will lobby all I know to not vote for them either.
Logically you are right...ReplyDelete
>I remain skeptical in the extreme.
Politically and Emotionally, I see Pelosi doing Impeachment 2.0
Pelosi hates Trump, SJW wants his scalp, Pelosi wants revenge, and the only one that got hurt last time politically was Pierre Delecto, aka Mitt Romney. The impeachment was a non issue last election.
"The impeachment was a non issue last election."ReplyDelete
I disagree. I think it was a major factor in Trump receiving more votes by far than any other presidential candidate in history.
You mean real votes of course.Delete
At this point every citizen, assuming they do not intend to openly revolt (and I do not think we have the stomach for it) must, in good conscience, be preparing for a deeply bitter and nasty "resistance". And no, that will not include friggin emails and phone calls to your "elected officials."ReplyDelete
They need to be there, literally, by the tens of thousands, infilitrating the rafters, standing in the way of everything, surrounding congresspeople's offices and homes and restaurants with their bullhorns, blocking traffic, taking beatings, shutting down commerce, refusing their entry into any private establishment, shouting at them in church, and otherwise making every aspect of their "progress" as miserable as it can possibly be without actual bloodshed.
Anything short of a dramatic throttling of the entire American system will simply be steamrolled, and probably very quickly. We had better learn that really fast, and learn to ignore the media brothels bleating.
Any congressperson who even utters a sentence in support of impeachment, should immediately be drummed out of the party apparatus. Further, they are going to need to take the bitter pills and refuse to accept the media narrative of 1/6. It was one of the proudest moments for Americans wishing to show the government who is actually in charge. If you want to run your mouth about it being "seditious" - you are out of every aspect of whats left of the "conservative economy" and party forever. No second chances. you're out.
Its going to happen really fast, guys. Be prepared with your response, because the pushback to force us onto our heels will be brutal. And soon.
@Yancey WardJanuary 9, 2021 at 2:20 PMReplyDelete
"I predict the Democrats will impeach and the Republicans will convict."
Jonathan Turley addresses today the question whether Trump has committed an impeachable offense. See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/turley-swift-new-impeachment-would-damage-the-constitution/ar-BB1cBGed
Of course, Turley's opinion didn't move Pelosi last time and its unlikely it would today.
In any event, its highly unlikely, probably impossible, that the Senate could try and convict Trump before he leaves office. Here's Mitch McConnell's perspective on timing: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-letter-senate-impeachment-summary?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20foxnews%2Fpolitics%20%28Internal%20-%20Politics%20-%20Text%29. Apparently the Senate can't take up new business until January 19 without unanimous approval.
Which then raises the question whether the Senate can try Trump after he leaves office. Which Schumer may be inclined to do.
This article addresses some of the issues which would arise if the Senate proceeds after Trump leaves office: https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/could-trump-be-impeached-after-he-leaves-office-would-conviction-prevent-him-from-holding-office-in-the-future/. You'll see opinions going both ways.
I'm simply pasting this latter link, not vouching for its contents or conclusions.
"Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “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.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.
The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote. This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote, the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote."
Since impeachment is meant for persons holding offices of the United States, I fail to see how it can be logically applied to someone who is no longer an "officer" and who can no longer be removed from office. The LII reference above (not quoted) notes that the English process was much broader in scope and did apply to persons not in office.
Short answer is "No." But we'll see.
After he leaves office, the Senate will find him guilty and he'll be impeached.Delete
There will be Court action.
By and by, SCOTUS will rule, 376-5, that Trump actually WAS in office therefore impeachment was licit.
They need to put a stake in his heart - remember this is the same party that gladly put Marion Barry back into office, so they know what can happen when you run a 'popular character'. Pretty sure Trump can't run for POTUS again if he is convicted.Delete
Hasting was impeached as a judge and is now a representative. So much for keeping him from holding office.Delete
Agree on that was part of the reason for why Trump got so many votes.ReplyDelete
Disagree on the perception of the Democrats, the media, and other SJW. They think the defund the police rhetoric with the blm / Antifa riots hurt them. They memory holed the impeachment, Ukraine coup, Hunter Biden, and Russiagate. They are living in an echo chamber. And now the Democrats in congressional are even more to the left. So they are doubling down on the Orangeman Bad Rhetoric.
>I disagree. I think it was a major factor in Trump receiving
> more votes by far than any other presidential candidate
I don’t think Trump would mind being impeached, it would make him a martyr and doom even more eGOP.
TexasDude - then who do you vote for if not the Republicans, Democrats? What we do and I am working to do if primary every RINO with a MAGA candidate and there will be many of them. Then I will work hard in the general for the MAGA candidate.ReplyDelete
Politics are fluid. I remember all the triumphant articles in 2008 that socialism was ascendant. Then two years later the wipeout. If we hadn't such a wimp Rules of Queensbury candidate in Rommey Obama would have lost in 2012.
Lisa Murkowski is looking to switch parties because she know that she will loose her primary in 2022. There will be others. Good I say because it makes clear what side each elected official is truly on.
I am reminded of the original Star Wars scene where Darth Vader and Obi Wan are dueling and Obi Wan says "Strike me down and I will only become stronger." Impeach Trump and that will be true. Even people who don't like Trump will see the unfairness in it.
Jindal called the Republican party the "Stupid" party. Maybe it is the Washington establishment that is the stupid party if they do impeach Trump. Also Trump will not be constrained by official office duties. He can say and do what he wants.
The meme and merch is already out there:Delete
I think this one is worthy of your homescreen:Delete
Ok. I’ll stop.
My statements above are even more firm because the police let them in ....ReplyDelete
And, see peacenik Caitlin Johnstone, atDelete
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/msm-already-using-capitol-hill-riot? , on
> I am also being generous, when I say the rioters "forced their way" in; DC **chose not to increase its police presence** in preparation for the protests, despite knowing that they were planned, and there's *footage*, of what appears to be cops actively letting them through a police barricade.
There was some fighting between police and protesters.... <
(The words between asteriks have links to relevant Tweets.)
Off topic but in the same universe. Around Christmas I read that Adam Schiff was taken off a plane in L.A. by FBI and local police. Anybody ever hear what became of that?ReplyDelete
I'll answer myself. Should have done a little more research as this seems to be an unfounded rumor. Sorry for interrupting. Carry on.Delete
Apparently unfounded rumor. Sorry for interrupting. Carry onDelete
I welcome Pelosi's impeachment. Along with the media trashing of the Jan 6th gathering,and the stasi crackdown on social media...the pot is boiling on the kettle already...ReplyDelete
I'm voting for a revolution... Everything else is just chatter and distraction to keep people jumping through hoops and chasing their tails.ReplyDelete
It's works, I'll say that!
I feel the best strategy for Trump is to lay low. By doing this we will hear the voices, the chatter, the messaging we want and need to hear. By this I mean, we'll find out where these GOP e politicians stand and what they stand for. I want to see and hear who's caving to the liberals, what are they caving on and why? With Trump fairly quiet, rational minds will better understand what the Cruz and Hawley's represent and where the Romney and Cocaine Mitch's appeasement falls.ReplyDelete
Further, it should give rise to those who are truly in line to represent the GOP in 2024. I for one and hopeful Nikki Hailey climbs on board the political fight before then.
Apple just removed Parlour from their App Store, following googles lead.ReplyDelete
Amazon gave till Sunday to move hosting for parlour.
Trumps has also been banned from sending emails, through providers withdrawing services.
Amazing how tech are trying to silence Trump while he is still POTUS.
One theory is they are afraid of what he will declassify.
Perhaps Trump should move to Gab, they already went through big tech deplatforming them.
He's already there:Delete
Trumps usual strategy is rope a dope. He allows his opponents to discredit themselves when they take extreme positions and over react.ReplyDelete
Trump is still POTUS and knows how to play the media game.
I don’t think he will:
>I feel the best strategy for Trump is to lay low.
I have no idea what he will do during the remain time of his term of office, but I’m sure it will be a huge finale. He understands pacing and building excitement.
The quieter he is, the more they must feel fear. At least they knew what he was thinking when he was on social media (I hate that term), what his plans were. Now they have removed the only way they had to predict his moves, to know what he was thinking and where he was going with it.Delete
This isn't an offense against Trump. It's an offense against any American who did vote for Trump or could be persusaded in the future to vote for Trump.ReplyDelete
It is Pelosi saying "no, you do not have the right to decide who your presidential candidates are. I will do that."
It's very simple folks......3rd Party. Get ready to jump aboard. It's coming.ReplyDelete
Gab seems better
Why on earth are they rushing to impeach? Trump is down 40-0 with 30 secs left on the clock. It doesn't make sense, unless they are trying to prevent him from doing.. something. Declassification? Does Trump have a Trump card?ReplyDelete
Evidently you haven't heard that "it ain't over 'til it's over." I still skew pessimistic, but all the leftist hair-on-fire histrionics and heavy handed tactics strangely have rekindled a trace of optimism. Something seems afoot when they are unwilling to just shut the heck up and take the W. They say they WON! Biden's low-info voters should be able to look forward to four years of destroying the right and erasing Trump's legacy. Why screw with that? Because they are sore winners? I suppose it's possible that they just can't help themselves, but that makes no sense to me from a pragmatic standpoint. At the very least why wouldn't they wait until after Jan 20th?Delete
Something has stirred them up to the point where they're making what appear to be unforced errors. So, what if appearances are deceiving? For the first time since Nov 3rd I'm starting to wonder if perhaps it is my pessimism that is unwarranted?
David, they don’t want him to be able to ever run for any federal office again. As in “president”.Delete
This “impeachment” is another goofy idea promoted by the Nancy who stood and publicly tore up the Speaker’s copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech in a fit of spite. As someone said on another forum, she is a very old “mean girl”, usually found in junior highs and high schools. Her aging has gotten beyond her plastic surgeon’s help. I’m hoping that’s a good sign.
And then there’s Schumer. Of whom will he be jealous now that he’ll not have Trump as a target? Ditto Schiff and Nadler and all the other Lilliputians?
Trump will be a target until he dies. They know need to destroy him to put his voters in their place. You will be made to care but they can't do it without burying Trump first. That is why he is being erased and cancelled and all the good people who worked for him are being pursued by the media platforms. They need to kill the thoughts that there is anything wrong or questionable with the Democratic agenda .Delete
A partial list:ReplyDelete
The uni-party has spent decades deceiving us about their commitment to the Constitution while legislating the agenda of the globalist elite.
The deep state has grown so strong it can, with impunity, attempt to overthrow the elected President and his administration. They've sent some of his supporters to prison and destroyed the lives and wiped out the (usually small) fortunes of others.
They embedded President Trump's administration with their operatives, at every turn fighting against him and the many millions of citizens he represents.
They rigged an election. It was not just rigged, it was so in-you-face rigged that no one could not see it.
The judiciary abandoned its role and responsibilities, yielding to the left-wing mob by refusing to give voice to those who objected to loss of their rights, especially with respect to the “election.”
They planted their operatives in President Trump's January 6, 2021 rally; those operatives' actions gave their media arm and rabid supporters all the excuse they needed to scream “Insurrection!”
The caused the murder of an innocent Trump supporter.
Their followers fired from their jobs, or instigated the firing of, individuals whose only sin was to be at the January 6 Trump rally. Forbes has announced it will lead the charge against normal lives for any former Trump administration personnel
Twitter and Facebook banned President Trump and many other conservatives. Apple and Google are shutting down Parler.
The Harris/Biden administration plans to introduce a federal “domestic terrorism” law. This will give them the cover of law to go against everyone SPLC or any other “progressive” doesn't like; Christians and other conservatives beware.
They are determined to make life miserable for Trump and his supporters, and anyone else who does not fall into line.
They don't care what we think. They get their way, no matter what. Another impeachment? The left will love it, and that's all that matters. Conservatives hate it, turn out in droves to vote, and the left's candidate will still win. Indeed, from now on, from dog catcher on up, they will lose only when it suits them.
It's hard to see how this ends well.
"you are being demonized, and that demonization is used to justify the imposition of coercion on you.ReplyDelete
Their expectation, like that of all tyrants, is that if they exert enough force, their opponents will be crushed or cowed into abject submission. Sometimes that is correct. But often it has the exact opposite effect, and exacerbates tension and hostility to such a degree that there is a revolutionary convulsion.
In other words, we are living in pre-revolutionary times, and the reflex of the governing class to double down on coercion when challenged is greatly increasing the odds that soon the prefix “pre-” will be obsolete. So convinced of its righteousness, rectitude, and right to rule, the governing class is failing to ask why so many hate them so much–they just dismiss them as rubes and rednecks and racists and religious freaks. And by failing to ask the question, they greatly increase the odds of getting an unsolicited, and very violent, answer to the question they should ask but haven’t."
“It has been an epiphany for the world to see that there are people in our country led by this president, for the moment, who have chosen their whiteness over democracy,” Pelosi said.Delete
I'd call that demonization. I'd also call it playing with fire, and not very smart.
It's been an epiphany for the subject class to hear the ruling class speak this way about them.Delete
Not only an epiphany. An incitement.Delete
@DFinleyJanuary 10, 2021 at 8:51 AMDelete
I had not been familiar with Pirrong's blog. I think he makes a couple of very good points. Thanks for sharing.
In particular, he writes: "This is a blunder from which recovery will be nearly impossible, at least for some years–or until the governing class commits a similarly egregious blunder."
Trump may have been innocent of 'incitement', but he surely blundered in inviting some kind of action at the Capitol. It was a step too far. He has always been bullheaded: that's one of his virtues. But here he gave the Left an enormous opportunity (however dishonestly employed) to achieve their highest goal: to bring him down.
Time will tell whether they will succeed or whether it will, in fact, backfire on them. I'm inclined to believe it ultimately backfires.
Latest polling says 45% of GOPers were OK with what happened, 43% were not. That's a LOT of people who to think taking over the capitol was OK, considering their stodgy GOPer types. My guess is that as time passes even more people will accept Don Surber's view: Hey, no big deal.Delete
Here's another angle. The Left may actually be jealous of what the cool conservative kids did. You can kinda see that reaction already. Pelosi & Co. will regret this.
43% of Repubs (or maybe 55%: 100-45 = 55) is also a lot of people (when added to probably 100% of Dems) who are not ok with it.
I'm not particularly ok with it (the criminal trespass part), although I don't think Trump remotely suggested doing anything criminal.
I just think he made an error in judgment and gave the Dems a lot of ammo to try to hurt him. And they are using it...against him and against us. He probably could have managed it better in 20-20 hindsight. However, as I said above, I think their gross overreaction will ultimately hurt the Dems.
Upon reflection, does this mean Trump blundered?
Jump ball, I guess.
See my comment below, about the blunderDelete
"about the Capitol Bldg. doors, which he should’ve expected to be rushed, by antiFas, Nazis, enraged citizens, whatever."
Demsheviks have been attempting to paint him as the instigator for their own BLM Antifa riots, because of Trump's passionate rallies. They even claimed Proud Boys were doing the damage.
Even if he did not call for the Jan 6th and start a peaceful march to protest (which he has every right to do), I think they would use those paid vandals to do the same, because it's so convenient for them.
Have you seen the video of police kindly opening the barricades and showing them the way?
I haven't been able to bring myself to watch any of the video...yet. I certainly will.
I entirely agree that they, themselves, have repeatedly manufactured the outrage against Trump ...using antifa and by countless other methods. And they were going to 'get' Trump one way or another...sooner or later.
I think that's been proven over and over...by the Russia Hoax, the Flynn Entrapment, the Mueller Investigation, the Fake Impeachment and the Election Fraud. The Capitol Assault Trap was...inevitable.
Do read Gelernter’s article. He expresses what I believe, the reasons why I have supported Trump. It’s not so much the man - although I happen to like him and have been around enough different types to not be put off by his bluntness - far preferable to the nuanced types who too often are hiding who and what they really are - but what he stands for. He has consistently stood for We the People. Thus he is not some cult of personality type (his enemies loved to tag him and us with that) but a strong leader with strong principles and goals he promised to reach and did his darnedest to do so, even when his enemies on both sides were throwing blockades in his path and poking sticks in his bicycle wheels. Indomitable is the free association word that describes Trump.ReplyDelete
Maybe he's indomitable, but it looks like he made amazing errors, or else something isn’t adding up, esp. about the Capitol Bldg. doors, which he should’ve expected to be rushed, by antiFas, Nazis, enraged citizens, whatever.Delete
Why couldn’t he have had U.S. Marshals, or privately-paid “marshals”, guarding those doors, to stop (Cap Hill cops from) allowing the “insurrectionists” to enter?
Were Cap Hill cops to interfere w/ such Marshals’ clearly acting to *keep* the peace, it would’ve been a quite bad Look for those cops.
We may never know the real story here.
I agree. The Gelertner article is very good.
@Bebe; ditto. Just had a chance to read this well written summary and my thinking (similar to yours) is aligned with Gelertner's thinking.Delete
For one thing the President can not order ANY executive officer to set foot on Capitol grounds without Congressional approval. Think Nancy would approve that? Just requesting it would have set off howls of "coup".
Sounds right, Tom; that's why I mentioned privately-paid “marshals”, who need not have been armed, to likely block the doors from all but the most determined aggressors.Delete
Mouse, “Indomitable” is based on the Latin word for”untameable”. Nothing to do with perfect, infallible…Delete
"Nothing to do with perfect, infallible..."Delete
That's why I say, we may never know the whole/ real story here.
As we confront Impeachment 2.0 I am reminded of some of the the costs (still being paid) of Impeachment 1.0. The distraction of Impeachment 1.0 left Congress totally unprepared for the arrival of the coronavirus here in the United States.ReplyDelete
Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi spent weeks prosecuting the imaginary crimes underlying Impeachment 1.0 while ignoring the real business of the country.
Now they propose to do it again. The distraction of the political theatre implicit in Impeachment 2.0 is very dangerous.
For example, we have not yet seen or paid the full cost of the lockdowns and economic devastation of the pandemic. The Blue Cities are facing economic devastation as tax receipts disappear, restaurants and retail stores close, jobs are lost, rents crash, mortgages head for default, and thousands move out. Sooner than later the Blue Cities will be coming to Congress asking for billions of dollars to rescue them. These funds will ultimately come (if they do) in significant measure from solvent and productive taxpayers in Red States. What is Congress' plan to deal with this enormously divisive issue? Will the Democrat government simply use its majority power raise billions of dollars of taxes on taxpayers in the Red States?
Don't ask Nancy Pelosi how that's going to go down. She's too busy trying to impeach the last President.
Looks like you've been reading Zerohedge, too. That's going to be my next post--the possibility of serious economic hard times coming home to roost--especially in Blue areas, where the Dems' base will pay the heaviest price.Delete
The Dems have already been trying to pack their Covid assistance bills with “help” for those troubled cities who were in trouble before Covid. President Trump was strongly against this, as he was against all that money that they wanted sent to countries overseas so that their leaders could squander it…or pilfer it. Now Jilly Joe is talking trillions of dollars in some new boondoggle he promises is to come…soon...Delete
Yup. The Dem leadership and their bankers behave as if the whole country is 'post-economic' like they are. That's a term my Silicon Valley son taught me. Its where you end up after you've made so much money that you no longer care (or even know) what a house or mortgage costs or a car costs or what groceries or children's clothes cost. So you can act like a mini-Gates or Bezos and tell the Deplorables who they are and what to think and care about. You don't care if tens or hundreds of thousands of Mom & Pop businesses are destroyed in authoritarian lockdowns as long as, say, transgender athletes can compete in women's sports? Or, school teachers don't have to teach? Or, as long as you retain power to govern...to rule. Free from economic concerns, inevitably, the Elite doesn't care what 'normal' Americans think or feel as long as they hold power. Nor do they care who pays.Delete
The problem is: we are not post-economic. The harsh rules of the market place, of profit and loss and of the valuation of assets and liabilities still govern us and the Dems will find out sooner than later that they cannot wish them away.
Or govern without a legitimate mandate of the governed.
“The agents of [government] regard the wealth of their master as inexhaustible; are careless at what price they buy … at what price they sell.” — Adam Smith
The price will be paid.
My belief that such a package will be a very hard sell even for all Dems who aren't Reps from the inner cities. For Dem senators who need votes from the outside the inner cities? Very difficult.Delete
But then who will pay?
Especially since the Dems will have cancelled the 'minority' whose consent it inevitably will need to govern.
With infinite fiat printing, and UBI to hush masses, this lie can go on until the currency collapses. Before that happens, I guess we will see signs such as retiring carrier fleets, which are really what's been backing the petro-dollar since Kissinger. Once petro part goes, so does the dollar part. Maybe crypto will replace it, since data is the new oil ;)Delete
Anyway, here is an example showing how incredibly long a lie can be sustained, by masters of propaganda.
"Sometime between 750 and 760 the clerks of the papal chancery forged “proof” that Pepin had been confirming a gift of lands to the church made long ago by the emperor Constantine. For about seven hundred years, until the Italian Renaissance scholar Lorenzo Valla proved it a forgery in 1440, people believed the document on which the “donation” was based was genuine."
"behave as if the whole country is 'post-economic' like they are."Delete
If things keep going like this, what's left of the country will likely be 'post-economic', enslaved, or liquidated.
The fate of the 'minority' ("whose consent it inevitably will need to govern") couldn't be less relevant.
Any bets on where the Sil. Valley moguls will flee to, once their staying here means them being the playthings of Chinese commissars?
Merkel's Germany? Maduro's Venezuela?
"....mortgages go unpaid..."Delete
Don't forget that Amazon has already begun to eradicate shopping malls. The ones with $750 MILLION mortgage debts. Combine that with the landlord defaults coming on restaurants, bars, and large apartment buildings, and you have another "mortgage crisis".........and guess who pays for that?
The good news: the Uniparty no longer needs to convince anyone of anything. They have solved Lincoln's conundrum of who to fool and when to fool them. They will manufacture votes at will.Delete
Expect pressure for cashless society to ratchet up and calls for UBI to become deafening. Once that happens the very idea of democracy becomes moot. We won't have to concern ourselves with being serfs; our status will be more like cattle belonging to vegan environmentalist ranchers.
"With infinite fiat printing, and UBI to hush masses, this lie can go on until the currency collapses."
Yes. In the past I've pointed to the Committee to Save the World (Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Alan Greenspan) as among the biggest culprits in bringing us to this point. These Clinton-era Treasury and Fed officials not only put their stamp of approval on globalism and the legitimization of the China trade and overrode cautious regulation of financial markets (see the Brooksley Born derivatives debacle), they also ushered in the era of Fed easing and, as you point out, 'infinite fiat [money] printing'.
With these elements in place: globalized 'free' trade, deregulation of markets, and Fed-manipulated cheap money, together with the disruptive and 'efficiency'-generating influences of technology, they were able to (1) make themselves and their friends first wealthy, and then powerful, beyond reason or even imagination, and simultaneously (2) destroy the American working and middle classes.
Look around today. Who are the beneficiaries of the Committee to Save the World? The income and wealth disparities between the .1% and the Middle Class are the highest they have been in decades (if not the highest ever), the Blue Cities are dystopian disasters, and the poor have been reduced to serfdom as little more than ballot harvesting welfare recipients used to keep the .1% in power.
So how long will this go on? Some here believe we are in for a long haul of totalitarian rule now that the Party of the .1% has taken over. I'm not so sure. Perhaps like you, I'm not so sure the rest of the world will accept our fiat greenbacks forever and I'm also not so sure the .1% can control the Middle Classes much longer, with or without Donald Trump at the helm. I think Joe Biden is facing challenges of potentially nightmarish proportions, exacerbated by the high likelihood that he will be proven shortly to be both irredeemably corrupt and fraudulently elected.
It will not make his accelerating passage into full-blown dementia any easier.
"I'm also not so sure the .1% can control the Middle Classes much longer..."Delete
If the .1% can't control the Middle Classes, the latter can likely be liquidated, esp. if the 1% have pads lined-up in, say, Merkel's Germany or Maduro's Venezuela.
"he will be proven shortly to be both irredeemably corrupt....", only if such proof is known, beyond the number of folks who can fit into a phone booth.
Big Tech will likely be able to see to it, that such proof will stay mostly unknown.
Make that "1%" into the ".1%".Delete
I started in my thinking with the 1%, who have certainly benefitted disproportionately from the policies of the Committee to Save the World, but the more I thought about it, it is really the .1% who are the colossal winners, both relative to the Middle Class and to the 1%. (See this link for statistics: https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/).
My guess is that Dems outnumber Republicans 20/1 in the top .1%. Everything Clinton, Obama and Biden stand for disproportionately benefits the top .1%.
Just ask Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos.
I've begun to wonder whether Amazon Web Services can simply refuse to provide Parler with servers to operate its business.
I'm no antitrust lawyer (and in fact disclaim being any kind of lawyer any more).
But I am curious. My guess is that Amazon is a huge player in the web services industry. Is Amazon free to essentially 'kill' Parler by refusing to deal? Surely there are other web services providers who Parler could partner up with...
Here's what I have found.
1. Amazon wields huge power in its various business segments and it has attracted the attention of Congress which has looked at its compliance with antitrust law. In fact, Amazon has been accused of using its enormous power to bully customers and vendors in some of its segments. See:www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/amazon-bullies-partners-and-vendors-says-antitrust-subcommittee.html. Is what it appears to be doing here illegal? I don't know, but I wonder.
2.However, in general, there is a 'freedom to deal' concept built into US antitrust law. The Supreme Court has said:
"The purpose of the Sherman Act is to ... preserve the right of freedom of trade. In the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the act does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal".
This is known as the Colgate Doctrine, and it is apparently a fundamental rule of federal antitrust law. For more information in general about 'freedom to deal', see: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters/2014/05/antitrust-mailbag-refusals-deal.
3. Does it change anything if Apple and Google join up with Amazon and they all refuse to deal with Parler? Is this some kind of illegal collusion? I don't know. Given the enormous power of Apple, Google and Amazon, one wonders...and what is the relationship of Apple, Google and Amazon to Twitter? Is Twitter benefiting in some way from a takedown of Parler? How could it not? The CEO of Parler said on Bartiromo this morning that he is also encountering resistance from other web services vendors. Is the industry colluding to deprive Parler of a market? Is this illegal under the antitrust laws?
4. Lastly, I can't help but wonder what the contract between Amazon Web Services and Parler says about termination. Is Amazon permitted to terminate the agreement without (more than a day or two) notice to Parler? If so, even this old, retired lawyer would say Parler's management and lawyers let the shareholders down. The agreement should have protected Parler from a termination which could destroy its business...or Parler should have found another web services provider at inception who would offer reasonable termination provisions.
This is just a preliminary stab at looking at some of the issues which may be confronting Parler. I'm sure we will be learning much more in days to come.
If media proclaims people on Parler are fomenting treason and planning violence, won't Amazon and other hosting providers point to that and say they're just doing their civic duty by refusing service?Delete
Isn't it highly likely that the same kinds of conversations that Amazon alleges were taking place on Parler were also taking place on Facebook and Twitter?
Here's a link to Parler's complaint filed today in federal court in the State of Washington.Delete
Pretty interesting reading. Parler makes the allegations I imagined in points 3 and 4 in my comment above. Note especially that Amazon does have a service provider relationship with Twitter which certainly improves Parler's case. Parler also alleges as I surmised that the same kind of 'violent' posts for which Amazon terminated Parler were being made on Twitter...and Amazon has done nothing to Twitter. I would also note that Parler is seeking treble damages. Not that any number would make a dent in Amazon's bank account, but a trebled damage award could seriously make Parler's day.
I also note that the case has apparently been assigned to a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter over 40 years ago. Who wants to guess whether or not she is on Judicial Team Obama.
First they came ... Pastor Martin NiemöllerReplyDelete
Updated for 2021
First they came for the Tea Party defaming them and using the IRS and other Government Agencies, to make the process the punishment, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Tea Partier.
Then they used the Russian Hoax / Collusion to try to get rid of Trump and appointed a Special Counsel based on a Clinton Funded Campaign Opposition Research laundered through the Steele Dossieer that the FBI then used to go after Trump.
Then they came for the Alex Jones and Infowars and deplatformed them, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a conspiracy follower.
Then they came for those that were against Gay Marriage, such as Brendan Eich, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not contribute to political causes, and kept my vote private.
Then they came for GAB, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a member.
Then they harassed Trump Administration People in Restaurants,
Then they came for Trump, sitting President and deplatformed him off Twitter, Facebook, E-Mail Providers, and Youtube.
Then they came for Parlor, and kicked them off the App Stores and removed their hosting.
Then they came for Trump Administration People, so they could not get jobs. Lincoln Project is putting together an online black list.
It will be interesting to see how that silly Lincoln Project list works out when there are masses of Fair Employment Practices laws that don’t allow discrimination of ANY kind.Delete
I don’t think Trump blundered into this, but was set up. And big tech, media, and Democrats are using it as a Reichstag Fire.ReplyDelete
History of Capital Protests:
1954 - Puerto Rican Nationalists Shooting - participants commuted by President Carter
1971 Bombing by Weather Underground (Bill Ayers)
1983 Bombing - participant pardoned by Clinton.
2018 - Kavanaugh Hearing - Over 160 arrested
And the 300 arrested after the riots, including the burning of a limo, at Trumps inauguration. How do the "Adults in the Room" regard that?
And compare and contrast and ask:
Why aren't you seeing damage estimates from the events in DC?
could it be because they are so minuscule when compared to the wholesale destruction in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Kenosha and Minneapolis? Damage estimates from those locations ranged from tens of millions to hundreds of millions.
Why is every Repulican President Hitler? For example Mitt Romney used to be demonized, till he lost.
Of course he was set up, as should've been expected, by all players of Power Politics (101).Delete
Quite because every recent Republican President has been dissed as Hitler, stuff like this needed to be wargamed out, before urging the crowd to march to the Hill.
Dyer has a nice column out today relative to what Trump admin. has been doing, the recent "Intel" (if you call it that) summary, and activities going down in Western Sahara and an update re: "Uranium Jerk".ReplyDelete
But she doesn't give any hints as to what the operational finale will be...Delete
They took the trouble to put people in place so they can keep capturing intel, even during these last weeks.Delete
I'd be curious as to what Trump team can do with any intel they manage to capture during these last two weeks.
Use it now? Save it for future?
Also buried in the article, is a link to a conversation she describes as "a unique view of U.S. cyber operations"Delete
Food for thought.
"But she doesn't give any hints as to what the operational finale will be..."Delete
The only thing bigger than The Big Steal would be ironclad proof of a concerted international effort at controlling national events, ChiCom pandemic/BLM/Antifa/Big Steal as examples, but not limited to, by shadow players controlling DS agencies. A demonstrable attempt at destruction of a nation-state, i.e. the U.S.A., to advance global domination by a self-appointed cabal. In other words, irrefutable proof that Tribe Davos is real and hostile.
I Support The Democrats' Effort To Impeach President Trump And So Should YouReplyDelete
Clyburn reportedly “hinted” there’d be no filing of impeachment during first 100 days. I think it was supposed to be his response to the timetable McConnell put out, which said there’d be nothing going on until after January 20. Or maybe Clyburn hadn’t done an interview for a while and thought he should remind the handful who watch CNN that he was still alive. Some others, probably doing the same:ReplyDelete
Senator Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) called for Trump to resign on Sunday, and Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) has said he would “definitely consider” any articles of impeachment approved by the House. However, Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), said on Sunday that there was “no way” the Senate would impeach Trump.