But impeachment is a political process/tool and would probably do more harm than good.
Since the entire purpose of the current trial seem to be to prevent President Trump from running for office again (and to figuratively pin a scarlet letter "I" on him) would it be legal to impeach somebody who was already out of office before the first vote? I know it's not going to happen, but if it came out that, hypothetically, Al Gore encouraged Portland protesters or some other evil deed, could he legally be impeached. tried, and barred from office?
In my opinion, no, he could not legally be impeached. In the opinion of the current democrat-controlled congress? Seems like they can impeach anyone for anything.
Since the Chief Justice of the SC is not presiding over the impeachment, they aren't following the constitutional process anyway. Might as well just change it to majority vote.
Not to mention that the current "unbiased judge" has already been well-documented as saying that Trump is guilty.Crowder was saying he was also going to be a witness against him and would be voting on the impeachment. So he is witness, jurist, and judge all in one.
These questions and the non-incumbency theory behind them fundamentally misconstrue the constitutional remedy of impeachment, which is not limited to removal from power but includes disqualification from future office. Moreover, their premise is wrong: The proceeding against Clinton would not be a presidential impeachment; it would be an impeachment based on her abuses of power as secretary of state, which would have the constitutional effect of disqualifying her for the presidency.McCarthy comes to a different conclusion than I would have, but he's a pretty smart guy and I generally trust his legal judgement.
The Constitution does not limit impeachment to incumbent officials. Article I endows the House of Representatives with the “sole Power of Impeachment” — i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (emphasis added).
Babylon Bee: Pelosi Preemptively Announces Articles Of Impeachment Against Candace Owens
This seems relevant: McCarthy comes to a different conclusion than I would have, but he's a pretty smart guy and I generally trust his legal judgement.
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.
Article 1, section 3:
...
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
...
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
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.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 1, section 3:
bolding mine.
Add to that the Chief Justice is not presiding over it should automatically be unconstitutional.
There have been lengthy theses written on the comma use in the Constitution, (the second ammendment springs to mind) and I'm not educated enough on the english of the day to refute Hawkmoon's post, but I will point out that the legal usage of English in the 20th century doesn't always bear a lot of resemblance to the English the Founders used.
..... Given this, it's legally logical that a person could be impeached for acts committed in office after leaving that office. .........
IANAL, but it seems that following the law, neither Trump nor Gore could be impeached. Following the theory that the dems are pushing, every singleprevious presidentwrongthinking American is guilty of an impeachable offense.
Given the punishment is removal from office how is it logical to impeach a person no longer in office. You cannot, at this point, prohibit him from holding office again (the "and" instead of the "or") since he can't be impeached in the first place.
If a legitimate crime was commited by President Trump, he is vulnerable to the legal consequences that anyone charged with a crime should face. This would be true under the present circumstances, or if Trump had been legitimately impeached and removed from office.
In statutory interpretation, the use of the term "and" here implies removal from office, prohibition from future office holding, or both. If it said "or" it would be one or the other, period. And, to be clear, I'm a criminal/family law/probate lawyer, not a Constitutional specialist, and I have no experience with impeachment.
Ok, but I still do not think, at this point, he could be impeached. He's no longer in office. If you can't remove him from office through impeachment I don't think you can prohibit him from office, either. If he was still in office, you could do one or both. That's just my lay opinion. IANAL.
But I do have the dvd box set of PERRY MASON.[/i] [tinfoil]
But I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
Okay, Tommy. I get your argument now. Kind of like in Ohio a juvenile court loses jurisdiction when a kid turns 21, you're saying Congress loses jurisdiction the day Biden was inaugurated.
In statutory interpretation, the use of the term "and" here implies removal from office, prohibition from future office holding, or both. If it said "or" it would be one or the other, period. And, to be clear, I'm a criminal/family law/probate lawyer, not a Constitutional specialist, and I have no experience with impeachment.
Trump acquitted
Well, time for impeachment #3 then.
I saw a Georgia DA is looking to press criminal charges against him. I would expect a lot more of that down the road since they didn't win again.
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
Seven Republicans vote to convict Donald Trump: Burr, Collins, Cassidy, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that Congress can bar people who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. from holding office. It was originally meant to prevent former Confederates from serving in the government after the Civil War.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," the amendment says.
I am deeply disappointed that seven turncoat, RINO "Republicans" voted to impeach. It was bad enough that six of them voted that the impeachment trial was even legal.
If there was ever a time to start a true third party in this country, it's now. The Republican party as it now stands is effectively finished, so there's no better time for an alternative.
Yea .... try that, and the demon-rats will rule forever.
“Can we build the Keystone Pipeline if we add Hunter Biden to the board?”
“To Manager Swalwell: Tell us about Fang Fang.”
“Have any of the House Managers had sexual relations with a Chinese communist spy? Please explain.”
“If we put him in a burlap sack & throw him in the river, and he does not float, must we convict?”
(https://i.imgur.com/vRnEGK5.jpg)
bob
Well, time for impeachment #3 then.
I saw a Georgia DA is looking to press criminal charges against him. I would expect a lot more of that down the road since they didn't win again.
I am deeply disappointed that seven turncoat, RINO "Republicans" voted to impeach. It was bad enough that six of them voted that the impeachment trial was even legal
(https://i.imgur.com/vRnEGK5.jpg)
bob
Well, time for impeachment #3 then.
I saw a Georgia DA is looking to press criminal charges against him. I would expect a lot more of that down the road since they didn't win again.
Is Pelosi the first Speaker to go 0-2?
With the Republican party as useless and spineless as they are today, the Democrats will rule forever anyway. That's why I think now is the time for a third party to form.
I'm afraid spitting the votes was the plan all along.
While I agree with your assessment of the ...... um ... "repukeagain" party >:D the solution is to FIX the party, not create a new one which splits the vote.
It can't be saved.
Schumer is making noises about using the 14th Amendment to try and prevent Trump from holding office again.
They really are that terrified of him.
Wouldn't that be Schumer at 0-2, Pelosi got her part done, Schumer couldn't close the deal!
bob
Problem is, just as with the Tea Party, any alternative to the Republican Party will get co-opted by the same elites and nothing really will change, except that the vote on the right will be split for a while. I wish I could offer a real, viable solution but short of massive bloodshed I don’t see one. The vested interests are too, well, vested.
Man, one of Trump's attorneys really hands the media their ass in this interview. Well done.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2021/02/14/hello-9-1-1-wed-like-to-report-a-murder-trump-attorney-michael-van-der-veen-just-decimates-the-media-during-cbs-interview-watch/
Man, one of Trump's attorneys really hands the media their ass in this interview. Well done.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2021/02/14/hello-9-1-1-wed-like-to-report-a-murder-trump-attorney-michael-van-der-veen-just-decimates-the-media-during-cbs-interview-watch/
Man, one of Trump's attorneys really hands the media their ass in this interview. Well done.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2021/02/14/hello-9-1-1-wed-like-to-report-a-murder-trump-attorney-michael-van-der-veen-just-decimates-the-media-during-cbs-interview-watch/
He still pushes the nonsense about the problem being extremism on both sides, and we need to meet in the middle. I am really tired of hearing that.
The dialecticCthulhu only swims left ...
Decades of meeting in the middle gets you ---> where we are now
The dialecticCthulhu only swims left ...
Decades of meeting in the middle gets you ---> where we are now
Say, shouldn't the FBI be using cell phone data, bank records, etc. to chase all these people making death threats down and bring them to justice? I thought that's the new modus operandi since 06JAN?
Also, Cocaine Mitch can drop dead. He's back to being an establishment shill.
"Ignore what he says, pay attention to what he does and the results he gets" - I heard that all the time about Trump.
If you apply that standard to Mitch then he's still looking pretty darn good.
"Ignore what he says, pay attention to what he does and the results he gets" - I heard that all the time about Trump.
If you apply that standard to Mitch then he's still looking pretty darn good.
He still pushes the nonsense about the problem being extremism on both sides, and we need to meet in the middle. I am really tired of hearing that.
As it escalates, and the nominal left get more extreme, it causes corresponding extremism to the right...
No, it really doesn't. Not "corresponding extremism." There may be some extremism, but to equate the two is as absurd as it is mendacious.
Extremism on the left is promoted, and then demanded, by people with immense influence. Those who don't go along are often shunned, deplatformed, ruined by lawfare - perhaps even physically assaulted. Some get all four of those. The extremists themselves are often bankrolled and feted by the elite.
Extremism on the right is first blown out of proportion, then used as a cudgel against everyone not in lockstep with the left, and against their policy goals. Not to mention that talk of "right-wing extremism" usually refers to things that really don't qualify as extremism at all.
So, again, I'm tired of people throwing the right under the bus every time they decry left-wing extremainstreamism. We are not the problem.
Agreed. The only proof we need is to look at the lamestream media coverage of nightly riots in Seattle and Portland, in which people were assaulted, buildings were vandalized and torched, police stations ransacked and destroyed -- and the media reported those activities as "peaceful (or mostly peaceful) protests." Meanwhile, if ten patriots gather on a street corner to wave an American flag it gets reported as full-scale riot.
No, it really doesn't. Not "corresponding extremism." There may be some extremism, but to equate the two is as absurd as it is mendacious.All true, but in zahc's defense I would say that the widespread acceptance and celebration of leftist extremism pushes people on the right to be more tolerant of misbehavior and extremism on their own side. Witness my own reaction to the Jan. 6 capital riot. What those people did was wrong, stupid, and counterproductive. It was the kind of behavior I detest, and should be quick to condemn. But after nearly a year of almost constant leftist riots, violence, and murder protected, supported, and praised by Democrats and their media arm, it was really hard to get worked up about it.
Extremism on the left is promoted, and then demanded, by people with immense influence. Those who don't go along are often shunned, deplatformed, ruined by lawfare - perhaps even physically assaulted. Some get all four of those. The extremists themselves are often bankrolled and feted by the elite.
Extremism on the right is first blown out of proportion, then used as a cudgel against everyone not in lockstep with the left, and against their policy goals. Not to mention that talk of "right-wing extremism" usually refers to things that really don't qualify as extremism at all.
So, again, I'm tired of people throwing the right under the bus every time they decry left-wing extremainstreamism. We are not the problem.
Witness my own reaction to the Jan. 6 capital riot. What those people did was wrong, stupid, and counterproductive. It was the kind of behavior I detest, and should be quick to condemn. But after nearly a year of almost constant leftist riots, violence, and murder protected, supported, and praised by Democrats and their media arm, it was really hard to get worked up about it.
All true, but in zahc's defense I would say that the widespread acceptance and celebration of leftist extremism pushes people on the right to be more tolerant of misbehavior and extremism on their own side. Witness my own reaction to the Jan. 6 capital riot. What those people did was wrong, stupid, and counterproductive. It was the kind of behavior I detest, and should be quick to condemn. But after nearly a year of almost constant leftist riots, violence, and murder protected, supported, and praised by Democrats and their media arm, it was really hard to get worked up about it.
The constant unchallenged lies on the national stage, the unhinged hypocrisy of the left, and the whiplash between the peaceful lockdown protests being condemned as terrorism, to BLM/ANTIFA riots and arson being praised as the pinnacle of free speech and fighting oppression, to the Capital riot being "no, no, this time we're really serious that it's terrorism" has made it way harder for me to properly respond to things that I intellectually know I should oppose. It has forced me into a tribalist perspective that I don't like, and is likely to cause me to reflexively defend or maybe just ignore bad behavior on my side.
All true, but in zahc's defense I would say that the widespread acceptance and celebration of leftist extremism pushes people on the right to be more tolerant of misbehavior and extremism on their own side. Witness my own reaction to the Jan. 6 capital riot. What those people did was wrong, stupid, and counterproductive. It was the kind of behavior I detest, and should be quick to condemn. But after nearly a year of almost constant leftist riots, violence, and murder protected, supported, and praised by Democrats and their media arm, it was really hard to get worked up about it.
The constant unchallenged lies on the national stage, the unhinged hypocrisy of the left, and the whiplash between the peaceful lockdown protests being condemned as terrorism, to BLM/ANTIFA riots and arson being praised as the pinnacle of free speech and fighting oppression, to the Capital riot being "no, no, this time we're really serious that it's terrorism" has made it way harder for me to properly respond to things that I intellectually know I should oppose. It has forced me into a tribalist perspective that I don't like, and is likely to cause me to reflexively defend or maybe just ignore bad behavior on my side.
That's not the point. None of what you mentioned changes the difference in kind and in quality between the extremist views and actions that now control the Democratic Party, vs the extremism on the fringes of the pro-American movement.
That's moral relativism for you.
How do you mean?
That's not the point. None of what you mentioned changes the difference in kind and in quality between the extremist views and actions that now control the Democratic Party, vs the extremism on the fringes of the pro-American movement.I didn’t claim it did. Thought I made it pretty clear the current disparity between the left and the right on the rioting/violence spectrum. And I hope the American right never lets themselves be goaded into the violent conflict that the Left thinks they want. Upon reflection (and after the guilty pleasure of watching politicians get a minor taste of what they have sponsored for the past year) the capitol riot made me worry that the Right is getting that much closer to turning the corner and getting into the political violence game we have condemned the Left for playing so long.
You may not see yourself as part of a tribe.Of course I am part of a tribe, but I also want my tribe to be better than the other tribe. If they aren’t, then why would I choose them? Ideally that means holding my own tribe accountable when they screw up. My point was that to the extent I let myself ignore the wrongs from my own tribe because of the obvious shortcomings of the other tribe, I am debasing the very value that makes my side better.
The rest of the tribes do.
I didn’t claim it did. Thought I made it pretty clear the current disparity between the left and the right on the rioting/violence spectrum. And I hope the American right never lets themselves be goaded into the violent conflict that the Left thinks they want. Upon reflection (and after the guilty pleasure of watching politicians get a minor taste of what they have sponsored for the past year) the capitol riot made me worry that the Right is getting that much closer to turning the corner and getting into the political violence game we have condemned the Left for playing so long.
Of course I am part of a tribe, but I also want my tribe to be better than the other tribe. If they aren’t, then why would I choose them? Ideally that means holding my own tribe accountable when they screw up. My point was that to the extent I let myself ignore the wrongs from my own tribe because of the obvious shortcomings of the other tribe, I am debasing the very value that makes my side better.
Your reticence to engage in political violence, even in your own defense no less, is why you will lose to the progressives.Self defense is not political violence.
Self defense is not political violence.
Retributive political violence is not self defense.
Or if you prefer a pragmatic argument, do you feel that the Battle of the Capitol was a defeat for the progressives? For that matter, can you name one act of political violence from the American right in living memory that was a net win for the movement?
Furthermore you are using progressive propaganda terms like Battle for the Capitol. There was no battle. The cops opened the doors from the inside and let people in. Your use of the lie diminishes your position.The use of that term was fully intentional. The (small scale) violence accomplished nothing and was an absolute propaganda coup for the left.
To answer your question I don't believe we've actually seen any right wing political violence. We've seen plenty of left wing violence being masqueraded as right wing, and of course the blatant left wing violence.Had the left done what happened on Jan 6 I would have called it political violence, so I'll call it the same thing for the right.
The use of that term was fully intentional. The (small scale) violence accomplished nothing and was an absolute propaganda coup for the left.
Yes, the cops let some people in. Other cops were dragged out and beaten with sticks.
Had the left done what happened on Jan 6 I would have called it political violence, so I'll call it the same thing for the right.
And the small scale violence WAS initiated by leftists planted in he crowd. Why are you content to paint the entire right with the slander of a false flag operation? What little violence that happened on the 6th was LEFT wing violence. It was a propaganda coup for the left because they engineered it.I'm sure some was, but I do not believe that all of violence on the 6th was left wing violence. If it was, great, and I'd love to see the evidence. It is not impossible for me to believe that people notionally on my side would be capable of making bad decisions (or good decisions I guess, if you're all for political violence), especially after seeing a year of violence promoted and protected by the left and widespread government policies that just a couple years ago would have been unthinkable.
America: in 4th generation war, mostly information based with targeted violence.Apparently I can be all the obtuse.
Left: uses targeted violence against right while pretending to be the Right to further the state of information war.
You: Shame on righties! Righties doing violence is wrong! Political violence is never self defense!
Me: Surely you can not be this obtuse. Why do you want to lose this war?
As it escalates, and the nominal left get more extreme, it causes corresponding extremism to the right which sounds good if you agree with those policies, but...fundamental differences remember...it causes blowback and retaliation if not now, next time, or later, or eventually.
I'm also reminded of the leftist apologists who "proved" that Nazi cops dressed up as ANTIFA were initiating their riots.
It is not impossible for me to believe that people notionally on my side would be capable of making bad decisions (or good decisions I guess, if you're all for political violence), especially after seeing a year of violence promoted and protected by the left and widespread government policies that just a couple years ago would have been unthinkable.
I'm sure some was, but I do not believe that all of violence on the 6th was left wing violence. If it was, great, and I'd love to see the evidence. It is not impossible for me to believe that people notionally on my side would be capable of making bad decisions (or good decisions I guess, if you're all for political violence), especially after seeing a year of violence promoted and protected by the left and widespread government policies that just a couple years ago would have been unthinkable.
Importantly, I'm not painting the entire right with anything, or even the entire right that was at the Capitol on Jan 6.
I'm also reminded of the leftist apologists who "proved" that Nazi cops dressed up as ANTIFA were initiating their riots.
Apparently I can be all the obtuse.
Look, if you are legitimately in favor of engaging in real political violence (riots, arson, assassinations, bombings, whatever) then I'd recommend not posting about it in an open forum. Unlike when BLM/ANTIFA does it, the Feds have been shown to be willing to use all available resources to track down anything with even a hint of the scent of right-wing political violence. If it's just internet bloviating, then I guess I'm too old and too much of a dad to get fired up.
If all the bad things that our side does is actually the other side being bad, then that is amazing and so convenient!
This does bring us full circle back to zahc's post...
That was a lot of words just to say that you are so afraid of the current despotismSome, for sure, but not nearly so much as I am afraid of the civil war that you and the left are trying to bring about.
that you won't even broach discussion of the realities of the situationExactly which realities do you think I'm avoiding discussion of?
and instead choose to insulate yourself in a fantasy of faux moral superiority as if it will shield you from the actual aggressions of evil people.We're both claiming moral superiority here.
It was a FAKE insurrection.There was no insurrection, nor any sort of real plan to overthrow the government. It was a political protest turned riot. When it happened I joked that it was "mostly peaceful" because that was the kind of obviously false, willful blindness we saw from the likes of CNN when it was the left rioting, but it's kind of funny to see some of us now solemnly pushing the same kind of thing.
There was no insurrection, nor any sort of real plan to overthrow the government. It was a political protest turned riot. When it happened I joked that it was "mostly peaceful" because that was the kind of obviously false, willful blindness we saw from the likes of CNN when it was the left rioting, but it's kind of funny to see some of us now solemnly pushing the same kind of thing.
What is something that is FAKE?: it's not true, real, or genuine : COUNTERFEIT, SHAM, one that is not what it purports to be : such as a worthless imitation passed off as genuine.
I'm claiming it because I see political mob violence (primarily practiced by the radical left in modern America) as a Bad Thing that is morally wrong, will not advance my beliefs, will not win supporters, will give my political opponents (who will gleefully justify the same kind of behavior from their supporters) a cudgel to beat me and my side with, and will in fact lead to more violence as the spiral continues.
Is Violence (political or otherwise) always morally wrong, regardless of the morality or ideas that violence is furthering?
Violence, and mob violence, has been a constant companion of humanity since before it was actually humanity.
Is Violence (political or otherwise) always morally wrong, regardless of the morality or ideas that violence is furthering?No.
It was a FAKE insurrection.
This can't be anything more than a statement of belief. Those Sund described as insurrectionists in his resignation letter might have been antifa, or they might have been militia members, or even KGB for all we know. Discovering what is belief and what is fact is the first step towards wisdom.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”
― John Stuart Mill,
...
I fail your ideological purity test.
...
Yes you do, because your mentality gets loaded onto train cars while undercutting any who would choose to resist.I've said there is a time for violence. Even offensive violence. I do not believe the time for violence is now, and I believe that beginning an offensive campaign today, or advocating such a thing at this stage is counterproductive in the extreme.
"Ignore what he says, pay attention to what he does and the results he gets" - I heard that all the time about Trump.
If you apply that standard to Mitch then he's still looking pretty darn good.
I've said there is a time for violence. Even offensive violence. I do not believe the time for violence is now, and I believe that beginning an offensive campaign today, or advocating such a thing at this stage is counterproductive in the extreme.
If not now, when do you think it’s appropriate?In my opinion, when the peaceful options have failed and the threat is imminent.
In my opinion, when the peaceful options have failed and the threat is imminent.
A valid case could be made that those conditions have been met in several cities in America.I agree completely, but I would classify that as self-defense against political violence, not the initiation of political violence.
{For Clarity, I'm not arguing with you. We haven't hit my personal line for "shoot people for politics" yet, but I live in a pretty safe region of the country (Safe from political extremists, anyway). I might have a different opinion if I risked mob violence by taking a wrong turn downtown.}
I agree completely, but I would classify that as self-defense against political violence, not the initiation of political violence.
Maybe that's the difference between myself and kgb. I too live in a relatively safe part of the country. Sure, last year I walked the streets of a nearby city with my young daughters and fielded questions about why every ground-floor window we saw was either broken or boarded up and there was graffiti all over the place. But that's not where I live, and I've been able to avoid such riots while they were going on.
It is possible I might feel different if I'd survived one of those riots. Or maybe if someone I loved hadn't survived.
No, not self defense. Proactively finding people that are members of groups that are destroying [local] civil society and dismantling those groups. We are discussing justified political violence here, not self defense.Ah, I see what you're saying.
No, not self defense. Proactively finding people that are members of groups that are destroying [local] civil society and dismantling those groups. We are discussing justified political violence here, not self defense.
I'm in no hurry for CWII or any other type of "hot" warfare to breakout. We are already in an unconventional war and that sucks bad enough.
I'm not sure the political left we see are anything other than ideological footsoldiers and cannon fodder to be sacrificed. They are not the power "behind the throne".
Taking out frustration on the lefts unarmed willing dupes/cannon fodder would be a strategic blunder, imho.
If it comes to shootin time I don't think there will be much doubt it is shootin time. Start shooting or be shot/disappeared removes a lot of doubts.
I agree completely, but I would classify that as self-defense against political violence, not the initiation of political violence.
Maybe that's the difference between myself and kgb. I too live in a relatively safe part of the country. Sure, last year I walked the streets of a nearby city with my young daughters and fielded questions about why every ground-floor window we saw was either broken or boarded up and there was graffiti all over the place. But that's not where I live, and I've been able to avoid such riots while they were going on.
It is possible I might feel different if I'd survived one of those riots. Or maybe if someone I loved hadn't survived.
Wouldn't that come under that bill of attainder prohibition? Or ex post facto?
And the *expletive deleted*it show continues
Democrats introduce bill prohibiting ‘twice-impeached presidents’ from being buried at Arlington National Cemetery
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2021/02/18/democrats-introduce-bill-prohibiting-twice-impeached-presidents-from-being-buried-at-arlington-national-cemetery/
If that passes, we need to impeach Clinton. (Bill)
Someone committed that they're want to set it at two instead of just one because impeached period would have included Clinton.
Basically this is the dems throwing a sandbox "We double don't like you!" tantrum