I wouldn’t mind it if there was also an admission that the Trump administration’s express policy of going soft on white supremicists, and purposeful ignoring of the threat of domestic terrorism was, like, maybe a mistake? How can this be ignored when Trump administration’s official policy led us to this place?
This is something that needs to be discussed in print and on the airwaves as well.
I won’t ever see it. Comcast carries no Wisconsin news channels here at the western border. All I get is Twin Cities.
I’ll let you know if it surfaces there. Tammy Baldwin has been trying to for two years to push Comcast to give us something, but to no avail.
Big point: Pence has nothing to do with this. He isn’t the boss. He could’ve been if he’d enacted the 25th amendment and removed Trump, but he didn’t and he hasn’t. So this guy can’t vow anything - he has no authority.
Wow there’s a lot to unravel here. (1) Why is Pence in charge? He’s not the president. (2) Better Pence than Trump, but see (1). (3) Pence is also in charge of the COVID taskforce, so… welp. (4) it gives me some reassurance that he plans to be in attendance, but see (3).
We have someone really good in mind whom we believe could win. The current Representative for my county is hopeless. We’ve run top candidates against him to no avail. Hoping redistricting will get us out of his CD, possibly into hers.
Glad to hear it.
Boebert managed to get elected but, last I looked, it’s not an impossible district for a Democrat.
Good luck!
Goldfish have a memory 1,000x longer than 'murrican voters.
I’m fine with not paying the ransom.
Me too. unfortunately, he has paid it.
He could have removed Trump. But now Trump is free to try again to seize power, and to pardon all the insurrectionists to act as an emboldened murderous army going forward.
And that’s news now. A safe inauguration. Jesus Christ!
Exactly. The correct response would be “Who put you in charge? You could have, but you didn’t. Until you do, you are usurping the presidency. Do we need to disqualify you from future office too?”
It tells me Trump is lucid enough to know no one likes him, respects him, or has any loyalty to him. It means he’s fit to stand for trial.
I haven’t a Clue™.
Do you need me to throw you a rope? Where are you, in the hallway or the conservatory?
Not so fast there, son. Why’d it take you so long?
I do not trust him.
Nah. Misinterpretation.
IANAL, but this seems pretty clear (and actual lawyers agree):;
Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 1:
The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment .
Clinton pardoned something like 34 people between his impeachment and trial.
What it means is he can’t pardon someone who is under impeachment. So it DOES mean he can’t pardon himself for the crime he is being impeached for.
He can pardon all those that participated in the insurrection however, they are not being impeached. They are being charged, or may be charged, with Federal crimes. For which he can pardon them.
Seems a common interpretation of where we stand, but I’m seeing a lot of references to folks paying for pardons. If it can be shown that some of that money reached Donnie, would seem to be we should start exploring whether this selling of something of value is a form of theft from the government. If you can’t sell the White House furniture, why can you sell a pardon?
Pardons for cash is a serious federal offense. But good luck proving it. Plenty of plausible deniability.
What’s probably happening is third parties are selling access to pardons for cash. Then Trump skims his “take”.