Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 361: The Art of the Heal

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1352783634520973314?s=21

WASHINGTON The Justice Departments top leaders listened in stunned silence this month: One of their peers, they were told, had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the departments power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results.

The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trumps continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the presidents entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark.

The department officials, convened on a conference call, then asked each other: What will you do if Mr. Rosen is dismissed?

The answer was unanimous. They would resign.

Their informal pact ultimately helped persuade Mr. Trump to keep Mr. Rosen in place, calculating that a furor over mass resignations at the top of the Justice Department would eclipse any attention on his baseless accusations of voter fraud. Mr. Trumps decision came only after Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark made their competing cases to him in a bizarre White House meeting that two officials compared with an episode of Mr. Trumps reality show The Apprentice, albeit one that could prompt a constitutional crisis.

The previously unknown chapter was the culmination of the presidents long-running effort to batter the Justice Department into advancing his personal agenda. He also pressed Mr. Rosen to appoint special counsels, including one who would look into Dominion Voting Systems, a maker of election equipment that Mr. Trumps allies had falsely said was working with Venezuela to flip votes from Mr. Trump to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

---

seems pretty straightforward enough.
mitch wants to settle power in the senate first. impeachment can go second. any money can go third.

whereas realistically it should go 2k checks first, then the other 3 are more debatable.

---

Yeah, I was literally just about to post that NYT story.

There was also this from WaPo:

https://twitter.com/Lollardfish/status/1352771134291374082

One of the leaders from the insurrection (leader of the Oath Keepers, specifically) was getting updates on the locations of Congresspeople from "unspecified senders" on Facebook and even directions.

The Washington Post reports...

Some messages, according to the FBI included, "Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down," and "Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps." Another message read: "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas," the FBI added.

...so who sent the messages?

---

xp1337 posted...

"All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,"

Got chills reading that.

---

Was the $15 minimum wage thing discussion here? what are your opinions on it?

---

All these companies taking in massive profits are going to go bankrupt because all these consumers that are now making way more money are suddenly not going to want to spend money on anything.

---

I'm genuinely unsure how much the impeachment trail even matters, if it does at all. Lowest priority on the board.

He's going to get like, 5 R votes, and the far right is going to act like they did with the House, like it was entirely a Dem push and there was no R support at all.

---

Forgot to post this shit

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1352830802879524864?s=21

---

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/peter-robb-alice-stock-nlrb-fired.html

I will say it warms my heart to hear anti-union thugs complain "You can't fire me without just cause!"

---

Dancedreamer posted...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/peter-robb-alice-stock-nlrb-fired.html

I will say it warms my heart to hear anti-union thugs complain "You can't fire me without just cause!"

The pure passive aggressive vitriol the author has here is fantastic.

"No matter."

---

https://twitter.com/tayposting/status/1352799017277788160?s=21

---

https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1353025198971301889?s=21

His constituents in...Arizona?
---

I honestly don't believe any besides a few truly wanted to overturn the results and knew it was horseshit. They were doing what they were doing because of what their voter base would have turned on them over.

I believe we even have someone saying there was some republicans crying because they felt they had to vote the way they did because they were scared of their voter base.

Like, I don't believe Cruz believed that would work despite how terrible of a person he is. He expected it not to work but ride that angle for his election bid in 2024 of taking it back for America after they were cheated. Politicians do a lot of bullshit because of what they feel they need to do to stay elected. Which, in a way, makes sense... their positions does exist to give a voice to the people they represent. But, I mean, at some point you should be able to tell your people you represent they are being dumb too.

---

Traditionally, political bs has not included playing chicken with open attempts at sedition.
---

There is a WSJ article on Amazon that they are refusing mail in balloting for union votes like was in place for the election in Alabama. That they need in person voting to ensure a timely, convenient, and to ensure vote fidelity.

I would link it but every time I try it just reverts to the main site because it's paywalled.

---

kevwaffles posted...

Traditionally, political bs has not included playing chicken with open attempts at sedition.

Traditionally, politics has always seemed to play chicken with whatever could get the results they want in the end. Just recently Democrats and CNN pushed for Trump to be the 2016 nominee not because he would be the best alternative if the Democrat lost, but because they felt if he was the candidate Hillary couldn't lose.

Look how that turned out. Politics has always been a game.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Politicians do a lot of bullshit because of what they feel they need to do to stay elected. Which, in a way, makes sense... their positions does exist to give a voice to the people they represent. But, I mean, at some point you should be able to tell your people you represent they are being dumb too.

The issue is that people had those positions in the first place because politicians they trusted told them to have those positions!

---

Peace___Frog posted...

The issue is that people had those positions in the first place because politicians they trusted told them to have those positions!

I think you could argue it is because Q told them to have it.

---

When an anonymous source makes well-known outrageous claims beneficial to you and you do nothing to disabuse those notions to the bitter end, the difference between that and saying it yourself is inconsequential.
---

kevwaffles posted...

When an anonymous source makes well-known outrageous claims beneficial to you and you do nothing to disabuse those notions to the bitter end, the difference between that and saying it yourself is inconsequential.

Perhaps the difference is inconsequential, but I do think the flow chart goes.

Q - Q Anon believers - Large portion of Trump Base who want to hear what they want to hear - Trump - Even larger portion of Republican base

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/doj-capitol-rioters-charges-debate/2021/01/23/3b0cf112-5d97-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.html

This continues to be the fucking problem. Charge them all. When you let BLM rioters go, and these rioters go... this continues to happen.

---

nah, that seems like the right answer. surprisingly good article detailing the reality and nuances of the case. charge 'em for what you got and in a lot of cases, you don't got much of anything. they aren't the ones to worry about so just focus on the ones who matter.

---

I can't read that, but if by "rioters" they're including everyone that showed up, that's fine. Anyone who didn't attempt to enter the Capitol didn't break any laws afaik.
---

kevwaffles posted...

I can't read that, but if by "rioters" they're including everyone that showed up, that's fine. Anyone who didn't attempt to enter the Capitol didn't break any laws afaik.

"Due to the wide variety of behavior, some federal officials have argued internally that those people who are known only to have committed unlawful entry and were not engaged in violent, threatening or destructive behavior should not be charged, according to people familiar with the discussions."

Nope... they are only talking about people who entered.

Basically it says about 700-900 people entered the Capitol that day. And, that some were just peacefully walking through as part of following a crowd, and they are debating that they shouldn't be charged. That doing so would tie up the court systems too much with too many cases.

---

here ya go, archive of it.
https://archive.is/L3Gyg

and nope, they're basically split between charge 'em all vs. charge only the ones who did something more than just trespass. to toot my own horn, basically my position~

two choice paragraphs of that specifically:

Due to the wide variety of behavior, some federal officials have argued internally that those people who are known only to have committed unlawful entry and were not engaged in violent, threatening or destructive behavior should not be charged, according to people familiar with the discussions.

(...)
But even as Justice Department officials look to bring those types of cases, they privately acknowledge those more determined and dangerous individuals may have operated within a broader sea of people who rushed through the doors but didnt do much else, and prosecutors will ultimately have to decide if all of those lesser offenders should be charged.

article gets into the specifics a lot more and the reality of it all, from clogging up the court to defenses that can be mounted and result in likely losses for the state, to pleas that can be made, etc. it's much longer than those two and breaks things down well. focus right now is getting the people who actually matter, then the people who actually did something, and then... you're left with the debate of the randos, which this article's about.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That doing so would tie up the court systems too much with too many cases.

We know how to break the system now
---

Anybody that actually went in needs to be charged. I didnt realize that was a controversial thought.

---

Everybody who walked through those doors is a terrorist.

---

they need to charge everybody with the crimes they committed

this is the reason why crimes have a range of possible sentences that the juge gets to choose from, rather than a flat amount.

the people breaking, entering, simply being goofballs, and doing not much else could get lower or even minimum sentences

it's wrong to essentially decide ahead of time that the jury and judge don't get to decide these things. the law should apply to everyone.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That doing so would tie up the court systems too much with too many cases.

i mean they list a few reasons. clogging up is one of them and a very real one: 430 cases in 2019, <300 cases in 2020, 700-900 from not even a month would utterly swamp it, especially with covid restrictions. it's not possible to do that and changing jurisdictions would be yet another case. as a general rule prosecutors will try to get plea deals anyway, especially if it's just a lesser crime. with something like this? 100% the goal since you don't care about the random dude who walked in and walked out, you care about the guy who was actually violent/trying to be violent. they're already at 135, it'll for sure go up, but it's not gonna be all of 'em and that's just not practical. if anything happens to the randos, it's basic pleas that are slaps on the wrist. that fixes the logistical issue of time, money, and focus on the investigations.

the other general grouping of reasons was basically defenses. insanity, it's what trump said so it's fine, awareness of what they're doing is a crime, if anybody actually tried to stop someone who just walked in, walked out or if it was just an open door. the basic defenses you'd expect here but pretty effective still, especially with the lack of a criminal record since all you'd basically have is unlawful entry and... that's it.

---

Wanglicious posted...

100% the goal since you don't care about the random dude who walked in and walked out, you care about the guy who was actually violent/trying to be violent.

Corrik cares! Its AGAINST THE LAW!
---

I mean, aiding and abetting treason and sedition isn't much better than just treason and sedition!

---

Jakyl25 posted...

We know how to break the system now

to corrik's point, that's legit part of the reason why antifa/blm arrests have been a revolving door. in those cases even violent offenders get let out quick, if you keep getting some 20-40 people a night for a couple days you're gonna run out of room and your system will be clogged up completely. instead it gets jotted down on the record and out the door, charges for another day if at all. hell, this broken system is part of bail reform arguments too, which is a different way to try to solve this.

---

https://twitter.com/theedgephx/status/1353067415819612165?s=21

Anyone know what this brouhaha was about?

Also its totally Republican behavior
---

quick check on the az gop twitter account...

they were determining chair and had multiple rounds. don't know the process but i'm assuming it's until someone gets 51% due to plurality not being enough.

election integrity and stop the steal are mentioned as basic things too so there's probably something related to that.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/theedgephx/status/1353067415819612165?s=21

Anyone know what this brouhaha was about?

Also its totally Republican behavior

This is the censure meeting.

From the sounds of things the people being escorted out were on stage still insisting that Trump won.

It is odd to me that they would be so insistent on getting them out of there when the meeting is about censuring people who said Trump didn't win in the first place, but my guess would be they are trying to divorce themselves from the screaming crazies and instead try to keep the talks of the election being rigged...professional???

---

This can't ACTUALLY be right, can it?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-pardons-give-prosecutors-room-for-more-charges-2021-1

---

No, that can very much be a thing.
---

https://twitter.com/nc5philwilliams/status/1352783708202401797?s=21

Seriously?

---

I mean, thats totally reasonable.

I hope your astonishment comes from the fact that other people DONT get treated like that
---

Bail reform policies ask for that treatment.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I mean, thats totally reasonable.

I hope your astonishment comes from the fact that other people DONT get treated like that

100% yes on both counts imo.

I agree that in general people are held too often pre-trial (either by remand or unreasonable bail), but a guy bringing zip ties to the Capitol strikes me as an actual danger to the community

Unrelatedly:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1353151813134938113

---

Trump botching pardons would be incredible

---

https://twitter.com/cindymccain/status/1353170124203675648?s=19

---

Jesus christ these Jr GOP members are so fucking stupid.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1353144128188542977?s=19

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Jesus christ these Jr GOP members are so fucking stupid.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1353144128188542977?s=19

When did they start letting high school seniors into Congress?

---

Seize the means of production, comrades

---