Jump to content

A story about a pathetic man's downfall


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ok so i need some dumb question amnesty.  first off, i don't think they'll convict in the senate/keep him from running again.  i also think it's best for the dems to allow him to run again, as it further splinters the party.  they need a clean break to move on, and we need a messy break to fuck with them for a decade.

so that said, let's say they hold the senate trial, they convict, and they prohibit him from holding future office (running?  holding?).

in that case, let's say trump does what he always does, and says, "fuck you, i'm going to do it anyway because there's no way to stop me."  and then he announces that he's running, and starts doing rallies and fundraisers, etc.  at what point does something/someone stop him?  what are the legal means behind it?  is it a party thing?  the gop says fuck off?  what if he rolls with his new patriot party or some nonsense? 

it seems kinda like the pardon situation.  we won't know if it's real unless it's tested.

Not that dumb of a question. Practically speaking, it's a party thing. They're not going to nominate someone who can't hold the office. But if they did, and he somehow won, the courts would enjoin him from getting transition funds etc. and from taking office. 

It's real and doesn't really need to be tested. It's black letter law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Fuck it. I like Melania. Fight me.

Almost as much as coked out Junior.

She's almost as big a cunt as dotard. Giving no fucks is cool and all, but only to a certain point. Past that point, you're just a cunt. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Fuck it. I like Melania. Fight me.

Almost as much as coked out Junior.

She's a green card whore who married a declining American celebrity when she was on the downside of her model/pron career.  Fucked her families way to America.

Her best bet now is Trump dies soon and she can be a trophy bride to some Russian oligarch or a Saudi sheik.  No legit American billionaire would touch that trash.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chooky said:

EsOIICMXEAUtdsC?format=jpg&name=small

a_mKANiF6FVPG3L8K3a8-TTg5-H9Wfz8v_cKrmo5

several days ago, somebody posted a bunch of work from that bizarro artist that fetishized trump, and had a drawing or painting of him standing in front of a crowd of microphones.  and you could just tell it was fake, because he was standing straight up.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What now? The Proud Boys feel like Trump has betrayed them and stabbed them in the back? And they're abandoning him?

Even icons of the alt-right feel swindled by Trump now. Who would've ever guessed it?

‘A Total Failure’: The Proud Boys Now Mock Trump
Members of the far-right group, who were among Donald Trump’s staunchest fans, are calling him “weak” as more of them were charged for storming the U.S. Capitol.

After the presidential election last year, the Proud Boys, a far-right group, declared its undying loyalty to President Trump.

In a Nov. 8 post in a private channel of the messaging app Telegram, the group urged its followers to attend protests against an election that it said had been fraudulently stolen from Mr. Trump. “Hail Emperor Trump,” the Proud Boys wrote.

But by this week, the group’s attitude toward Mr. Trump had changed. “Trump will go down as a total failure,” the Proud Boys said in the same Telegram channel on Monday.

As Mr. Trump departed the White House on Wednesday, the Proud Boys, once among his staunchest supporters, have also started leaving his side. In dozens of conversations on social media sites like Gab and Telegram, members of the group have begun calling Mr. Trump a “shill” and “extraordinarily weak,” according to messages reviewed by The New York Times. They have also urged supporters to stop attending rallies and protests held for Mr. Trump or the Republican Party.

The comments are a startling turn for the Proud Boys, which for years had backed Mr. Trump and promoted political violence. Led by Enrique Tarrio, many of its thousands of members were such die-hard fans of Mr. Trump that they offered to serve as his private militia and celebrated after he told them in a presidential debate last year to “stand back and stand by.” On Jan. 6, some Proud Boys members stormed the U.S. Capitol.

But since then, discontent with Mr. Trump, who later condemned the violence, has boiled over. On social media, Proud Boys participants have complained about his willingness to leave office and said his disavowal of the Capitol rampage was an act of betrayal. And Mr. Trump, cut off on Facebook and Twitter, has been unable to talk directly to them to soothe their concerns or issue new rallying cries.

The Proud Boys’ anger toward Mr. Trump has heightened after he did nothing to help those in the group who face legal action for the Capitol violence. On Wednesday, a Proud Boy leader, Joseph Biggs, 37, was arrested in Florida and charged with unlawful entry and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding in the riot. At least four other members of the group also face charges stemming from the attack.

“When Trump told them that if he left office, America would fall into an abyss, they believed him,” Arieh Kovler, a political consultant and independent researcher in Israel who studies the far right, said of the Proud Boys. “Now that he has left office, they believe he has both surrendered and failed to do his patriotic duty.”

Spoiler

 

The shift raises questions about the strength of the support for Mr. Trump and suggests that pockets of his fan base are fracturing. Many of Mr. Trump’s fans still falsely believe he was deprived of office, but other far-right groups such as the Oath Keepers, America First and the Three Percenters have also started criticizing him in private Telegram channels, according to a review of messages.

Last week, Nicholas Fuentes, the leader of America First, wrote in his Telegram channel that Mr. Trump’s response to the Capitol rampage was “very weak and flaccid” and added, “Not the same guy that ran in 2015.”

On Wednesday, the Proud Boys Telegram group welcomed President Biden to office. “At least the incoming administration is honest about their intentions,” the group wrote.

Mr. Kovler said the activity showed that groups that had coalesced around Mr. Trump were now trying to figure out their future direction. By losing his ability to post on Twitter and Facebook, Mr. Trump had also become less useful to the far-right groups, who counted on him to raise their profile on a national stage, Mr. Kovler said.

Mr. Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

The Proud Boys were founded in 2016 as a club for men by Gavin McInnes, who also was a founder of the online publication Vice. Describing themselves as “Western chauvinists,” the group attracted people who appeared eager to engage in violence and who frequently espoused anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic views. The group had supported Mr. Trump since he assumed office.

The change toward Mr. Trump happened slowly. After November’s election, the group’s private Telegram channels, Gab pages and posts on the alternative social networking site Parler were filled with calls to keep the faith with the president. Many Proud Boys, echoing Mr. Trump’s falsehoods, said the election had been rigged, according to a review of messages.

The Proud Boys urged their members to attend “Stop the Steal” rallies. One Nov. 23 message on a Proud Boys Telegram page read, “No Trump, no peace.” The message linked to information about a rally in front of the governor’s home in Georgia.

As Mr. Trump’s legal team battled the election result with lawsuits, the Proud Boys closely followed the court cases and appeals in different states, posting frequent links in their Telegram channels to news reports.

But when Mr. Trump’s legal efforts failed, the Proud Boys called for him on social media to use his presidential powers to stay in office. Some urged him to declare martial law or take control by force. In the last two weeks of December, they pushed Mr. Trump in their protests and on social media to “Cross the Rubicon.”

“They wanted to arm themselves and start a second civil war and take down the government on Trump’s behalf,” said Marc-André Argentino, a researcher who studies the far right and a Ph.D. candidate at Concordia University. “But ultimately, he couldn’t be the authoritarian they wanted him to be.”

Then came the week of the Capitol storming. On Jan. 4, Mr. Tarrio was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of burning a Black Lives Matter banner torn from a Black church in Washington. He was thrown out of the city by a judge the next day.

But nearly 100 other Proud Boys, who had been encouraged by leaders like Mr. Biggs, remained in Washington. According to court papers, Mr. Biggs told members to eschew their typical black-and-yellow polo shirts and instead go “incognito” and move about the city in “smaller teams.”

On the day of the riot, Mr. Biggs was captured in a video marching with a large group of Proud Boys toward the Capitol, chanting slogans like, “Whose streets? Our streets.”

Though prosecutors said Mr. Biggs was not among the first to break into the Capitol, they said he admitted to entering the building for a brief time. They also said he appeared to wear a walkie-talkie-style device on his chest, suggesting he was communicating with others during the incursion.

In an interview with The Times hours after the attack, Mr. Biggs said he and other Proud Boys arrived at the Capitol complex around 1 p.m. when the crowd in front of them surged and the mood grew violent. “It literally happened in seconds,” he said.

Prosecutors have also charged Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boy from Rochester and a former Marine; Nicholas Ochs, founder of the Proud Boys’ Hawaii chapter; and Nicholas DeCarlo, who runs a news outfit called Murder the Media, which is associated with the group.

After the violence, the Proud Boys expected Mr. Trump — who had earlier told his supporters to “fight much harder” against “bad people” — to champion the mob, according to their social media messages. Instead, Mr. Trump began distancing himself from his remarks and released a video on Jan. 8 denouncing the violence.

The disappointment was immediately palpable. One Proud Boys Telegram channel posted: “It really is important for us all to see how much Trump betrayed his supporters this week. We are nationalists 1st and always. Trump was just a man and as it turns out an extraordinarily weak one at the end.”

Some Proud Boys became furious that Mr. Trump, who was impeached for inciting the insurrection, did not appear interested in issuing presidential pardons for their members who were arrested. In a Telegram post on Friday, they accused Mr. Trump of “instigating” the events at the Capitol, adding that he then “washed his hands of it.”

“They thought they had his support and that, ultimately, Trump would come through for them, including with a pardon if they should need it,” said Jared Holt, a visiting research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab. “Now they realize they went too far in the riots.”

Some Proud Boys now say in online posts that the group should “go dark” and retreat from political life by cutting its affiliation to any political party. They are encouraging one another to focus their energies on secessionist movements and local protests.

“To all demoralized Trump supporters: There is hope,” read one message in a Proud Boys Telegram channel on Wednesday. “There is an alternative. Abandon the GOP and the Dems.”

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not that dumb of a question. Practically speaking, it's a party thing. They're not going to nominate someone who can't hold the office. But if they did, and he somehow won, the courts would enjoin him from getting transition funds etc. and from taking office. 

It's real and doesn't really need to be tested. It's black letter law. 

There’s been at least one op Ed that argues only a sitting President can be tried by the senate. I know a couple of lower level executive branch members were tried and convicted after leaving their positions but apparently an argument can be made this does not apply to the presidency. Probably one of those things that would get settled only if he gets convicted and then mounts a legitimate campaign (legitimate meaning wins the Republican nomination or is able to get on the ballot in enough states to hamstring the Republican nominee in the general)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

You know, most people, after losing the Presidency, would go to their home, maybe see some family and supporters.  Kick off the shoes, maybe have 2 scoops.

And then there is Trump.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/exiled-trump-already-fixated-on-whos-blocking-a-comeback?ref=home?ref=home

All he had to do was chill in Mar-a-Lago for a month or so, let the impeachment stuff blow over.  Get Melania dancing around in her housemaid outfit.

But no, immediately he had to start talking about running in 2024, which means Turtle is making phone calls to make sure that the impeachment will succeed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

What now? The Proud Boys feel like Trump has betrayed them and stabbed them in the back? And they're abandoning him?

Even icons of the alt-right feel swindled by Trump now. Who would've ever guessed it?

‘A Total Failure’: The Proud Boys Now Mock Trump
Members of the far-right group, who were among Donald Trump’s staunchest fans, are calling him “weak” as more of them were charged for storming the U.S. Capitol.

After the presidential election last year, the Proud Boys, a far-right group, declared its undying loyalty to President Trump.

In a Nov. 8 post in a private channel of the messaging app Telegram, the group urged its followers to attend protests against an election that it said had been fraudulently stolen from Mr. Trump. “Hail Emperor Trump,” the Proud Boys wrote.

But by this week, the group’s attitude toward Mr. Trump had changed. “Trump will go down as a total failure,” the Proud Boys said in the same Telegram channel on Monday.

As Mr. Trump departed the White House on Wednesday, the Proud Boys, once among his staunchest supporters, have also started leaving his side. In dozens of conversations on social media sites like Gab and Telegram, members of the group have begun calling Mr. Trump a “shill” and “extraordinarily weak,” according to messages reviewed by The New York Times. They have also urged supporters to stop attending rallies and protests held for Mr. Trump or the Republican Party.

The comments are a startling turn for the Proud Boys, which for years had backed Mr. Trump and promoted political violence. Led by Enrique Tarrio, many of its thousands of members were such die-hard fans of Mr. Trump that they offered to serve as his private militia and celebrated after he told them in a presidential debate last year to “stand back and stand by.” On Jan. 6, some Proud Boys members stormed the U.S. Capitol.

But since then, discontent with Mr. Trump, who later condemned the violence, has boiled over. On social media, Proud Boys participants have complained about his willingness to leave office and said his disavowal of the Capitol rampage was an act of betrayal. And Mr. Trump, cut off on Facebook and Twitter, has been unable to talk directly to them to soothe their concerns or issue new rallying cries.

The Proud Boys’ anger toward Mr. Trump has heightened after he did nothing to help those in the group who face legal action for the Capitol violence. On Wednesday, a Proud Boy leader, Joseph Biggs, 37, was arrested in Florida and charged with unlawful entry and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding in the riot. At least four other members of the group also face charges stemming from the attack.

“When Trump told them that if he left office, America would fall into an abyss, they believed him,” Arieh Kovler, a political consultant and independent researcher in Israel who studies the far right, said of the Proud Boys. “Now that he has left office, they believe he has both surrendered and failed to do his patriotic duty.”

  Hide contents

 

The shift raises questions about the strength of the support for Mr. Trump and suggests that pockets of his fan base are fracturing. Many of Mr. Trump’s fans still falsely believe he was deprived of office, but other far-right groups such as the Oath Keepers, America First and the Three Percenters have also started criticizing him in private Telegram channels, according to a review of messages.

Last week, Nicholas Fuentes, the leader of America First, wrote in his Telegram channel that Mr. Trump’s response to the Capitol rampage was “very weak and flaccid” and added, “Not the same guy that ran in 2015.”

On Wednesday, the Proud Boys Telegram group welcomed President Biden to office. “At least the incoming administration is honest about their intentions,” the group wrote.

Mr. Kovler said the activity showed that groups that had coalesced around Mr. Trump were now trying to figure out their future direction. By losing his ability to post on Twitter and Facebook, Mr. Trump had also become less useful to the far-right groups, who counted on him to raise their profile on a national stage, Mr. Kovler said.

Mr. Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

The Proud Boys were founded in 2016 as a club for men by Gavin McInnes, who also was a founder of the online publication Vice. Describing themselves as “Western chauvinists,” the group attracted people who appeared eager to engage in violence and who frequently espoused anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic views. The group had supported Mr. Trump since he assumed office.

The change toward Mr. Trump happened slowly. After November’s election, the group’s private Telegram channels, Gab pages and posts on the alternative social networking site Parler were filled with calls to keep the faith with the president. Many Proud Boys, echoing Mr. Trump’s falsehoods, said the election had been rigged, according to a review of messages.

The Proud Boys urged their members to attend “Stop the Steal” rallies. One Nov. 23 message on a Proud Boys Telegram page read, “No Trump, no peace.” The message linked to information about a rally in front of the governor’s home in Georgia.

As Mr. Trump’s legal team battled the election result with lawsuits, the Proud Boys closely followed the court cases and appeals in different states, posting frequent links in their Telegram channels to news reports.

But when Mr. Trump’s legal efforts failed, the Proud Boys called for him on social media to use his presidential powers to stay in office. Some urged him to declare martial law or take control by force. In the last two weeks of December, they pushed Mr. Trump in their protests and on social media to “Cross the Rubicon.”

“They wanted to arm themselves and start a second civil war and take down the government on Trump’s behalf,” said Marc-André Argentino, a researcher who studies the far right and a Ph.D. candidate at Concordia University. “But ultimately, he couldn’t be the authoritarian they wanted him to be.”

Then came the week of the Capitol storming. On Jan. 4, Mr. Tarrio was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of burning a Black Lives Matter banner torn from a Black church in Washington. He was thrown out of the city by a judge the next day.

But nearly 100 other Proud Boys, who had been encouraged by leaders like Mr. Biggs, remained in Washington. According to court papers, Mr. Biggs told members to eschew their typical black-and-yellow polo shirts and instead go “incognito” and move about the city in “smaller teams.”

On the day of the riot, Mr. Biggs was captured in a video marching with a large group of Proud Boys toward the Capitol, chanting slogans like, “Whose streets? Our streets.”

Though prosecutors said Mr. Biggs was not among the first to break into the Capitol, they said he admitted to entering the building for a brief time. They also said he appeared to wear a walkie-talkie-style device on his chest, suggesting he was communicating with others during the incursion.

In an interview with The Times hours after the attack, Mr. Biggs said he and other Proud Boys arrived at the Capitol complex around 1 p.m. when the crowd in front of them surged and the mood grew violent. “It literally happened in seconds,” he said.

Prosecutors have also charged Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boy from Rochester and a former Marine; Nicholas Ochs, founder of the Proud Boys’ Hawaii chapter; and Nicholas DeCarlo, who runs a news outfit called Murder the Media, which is associated with the group.

After the violence, the Proud Boys expected Mr. Trump — who had earlier told his supporters to “fight much harder” against “bad people” — to champion the mob, according to their social media messages. Instead, Mr. Trump began distancing himself from his remarks and released a video on Jan. 8 denouncing the violence.

The disappointment was immediately palpable. One Proud Boys Telegram channel posted: “It really is important for us all to see how much Trump betrayed his supporters this week. We are nationalists 1st and always. Trump was just a man and as it turns out an extraordinarily weak one at the end.”

Some Proud Boys became furious that Mr. Trump, who was impeached for inciting the insurrection, did not appear interested in issuing presidential pardons for their members who were arrested. In a Telegram post on Friday, they accused Mr. Trump of “instigating” the events at the Capitol, adding that he then “washed his hands of it.”

“They thought they had his support and that, ultimately, Trump would come through for them, including with a pardon if they should need it,” said Jared Holt, a visiting research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab. “Now they realize they went too far in the riots.”

Some Proud Boys now say in online posts that the group should “go dark” and retreat from political life by cutting its affiliation to any political party. They are encouraging one another to focus their energies on secessionist movements and local protests.

“To all demoralized Trump supporters: There is hope,” read one message in a Proud Boys Telegram channel on Wednesday. “There is an alternative. Abandon the GOP and the Dems.”

 

 

Makes me curious as to how this will shake out with Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Flynn. The PB were providing 'security' for Roger and in turn, he gave them more notoriety. He also gave them cover but he was more aligned with the 'academic' crowd--the Young Republicans and America First groups that have been attempting to make aggressive inroads on campuses nationwide. Manafort is going to be somewhat preoccupied with legal stuff unless his lawyer is able to work around the attempts to bring Manafort up on fraud charges. Flynn was deep into the Q grift and now that is perhaps fizzling out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Do you mind posting this in the DT Trump's Finances (NO POLITICS!) thread? I've started one up to discuss the investigations and his future.

TIA

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

ok so i need some dumb question amnesty.  first off, i don't think they'll convict in the senate/keep him from running again.  i also think it's best for the dems to allow him to run again, as it further splinters the party.  they need a clean break to move on, and we need a messy break to fuck with them for a decade.

I don't think your question is dumb, but I just want to emphasize what I've bolded.  This is what terrifies me the most, as someone dissatisfied and disillusioned by both of the major (and therefore de facto only) parties.

We've just dodged (or more truthfully, been grazed by) a major bullet.  This is not the time to press advantages, it's the time to quash existential threats to our nation and the rule of law.  This is an inflection point.  It's time for both parties to slam the door on the road to totalitarianism, because it doesn't care if it takes the left lane or the right.

D's have talked a good game that I hope they will live up to.  R's have been feckless cucks up until 1/6, which has given me some glimmer of hope.

But it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

Edited by Damor
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not that dumb of a question. Practically speaking, it's a party thing. They're not going to nominate someone who can't hold the office.

I See You Reaction GIF by swerk - Find & Share on GIPHY

I would be careful putting all of my eggs into the "The Republicans will definitely do the right thing" basket.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

There’s been at least one op Ed that argues only a sitting President can be tried by the senate. I know a couple of lower level executive branch members were tried and convicted after leaving their positions but apparently an argument can be made this does not apply to the presidency. Probably one of those things that would get settled only if he gets convicted and then mounts a legitimate campaign (legitimate meaning wins the Republican nomination or is able to get on the ballot in enough states to hamstring the Republican nominee in the general)

I'll be happy when the phrase, "it's an open legal question" leaves the popular lexicon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

There’s been at least one op Ed that argues only a sitting President can be tried by the senate. I know a couple of lower level executive branch members were tried and convicted after leaving their positions but apparently an argument can be made this does not apply to the presidency. Probably one of those things that would get settled only if he gets convicted and then mounts a legitimate campaign (legitimate meaning wins the Republican nomination or is able to get on the ballot in enough states to hamstring the Republican nominee in the general)

I didn't know people were making this argument. It makes no sense to me that the founders would give the senate the power to ban someone from holding office but intend for it to be avoidable simply by resigning prior to the vote.

It makes even less sense when you consider that the president is necessarily already removed from office (by impeachment conviction) at the time the senate votes on the ban. 

The argument would make slightly more sense to me if the impeachment by the House came after the expiration of the president's term, which obviously isn't the case here. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not that dumb of a question. Practically speaking, it's a party thing. They're not going to nominate someone who can't hold the office. But if they did, and he somehow won, the courts would enjoin him from getting transition funds etc. and from taking office. 

It's real and doesn't really need to be tested. It's black letter law. 

I find the notion of him running again and having any success laughable. Then again he did leave with a 34% approval rating - which is low - but I’m surprised it’s not in the low single digits. 

Regardless, I don’t think this fat old retard has enough stamina for this shit anymore. I don’t think he’s a threat in the least. Regardless, if I’m a Republican senator, I’m convincing. Because gandorf is right - he will always have the retard contingent to splinter the party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

I See You Reaction GIF by swerk - Find & Share on GIPHY

I would be careful putting all of my eggs into the "The Republicans will definitely do the right thing" basket.

Well, I didn't mean they wouldn't because it would be the right thing to do. I meant because it would be against their own interest. But I suppose you might be saying you can't count on them to act in their own best interest, either, which I won't argue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I find the notion of him running again and having any success laughable. Then again he did leave with a 34% approval rating - which is low - but I’m surprised it’s not in the low single digits. 

Regardless, I don’t think this fat old retard has enough stamina for this shit anymore. I don’t think he’s a threat in the least. Regardless, if I’m a Republican senator, I’m convincing. Because gandorf is right - he will always have the retard contingent to splinter the party. 

I had the same thought about stamina recently, but then I remembered he hardly did any actual work during his term and primarily golfed, watched cable news, and tweeted. 

Hopefully he'll do us all a favor and die before 2024. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I didn't know people were making this argument. It makes no sense to me that the founders would give the senate the power to ban someone from holding office but intend for it to be avoidable simply by resigning prior to the vote.

It makes even less sense when you consider that the president is necessarily already removed from office (by impeachment conviction) at the time the senate votes on the ban. 

The argument would make slightly more sense to me if the impeachment by the House came after the expiration of the president's term, which obviously isn't the case here. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I had the same thought about stamina recently, but then I remembered he hardly did any actual work during his term and primarily golfed, watched cable news, and tweeted. 

Hopefully he'll do us all a favor and die before 2024. 

Old people go downhill quickly. Especially when they’re fat, ruled by emotion and everyone hates them. Oh, and on trial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Thanks. His reasoning and argument are remarkably dumb and flimsy, especially for a former federal appellate judge with a strong rep for analysis (per wiki). 

His argument is: the constitution allows for two punishments following impeachment and conviction, and one of those isn't applicable in this situation, therefore it's unconstitutional to hold a trial here.

His unstated premise is that the constitution conditions the ban punishment on the execution of the removal from office punishment. But the constitution says no such thing. 

I'd like to see what he'd say to what I wrote above about avoiding the ban punishment by simply resigning. There's just no way that's what the founders intended. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The saddest part of the Trump presidency is that he identified a segment of American society that was really hurting and exploited them for his political and monetary gain.  They believed in and loved him, because he was the only person to appear to give a shit about them in a long time.  They loved him so much, they went so far as to risk their freedom for him in a violent insurrection.  And when it was time for him to have their back, he just abandoned them.

I don't know what to say to those people other than this:  Now you kinda, sorta know what a Syrian Kurd feels like.

I’m straight up stealing this because I know a lot of people who need to hear it.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chooky said:

71wuqUdNEjL._AC_SX466_.jpg

 

4 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Thanks. His reasoning and argument are remarkably dumb and flimsy, especially for a former federal appellate judge with a strong rep for analysis (per wiki). 

His argument is: the constitution allows for two punishments following impeachment and conviction, and one of those isn't applicable in this situation, therefore it's unconstitutional to hold a trial here.

His unstated premise is that the constitution conditions the ban punishment on the execution of the removal from office punishment. But the constitution says no such thing. 

I'd like to see what he'd say to what I wrote above about avoiding the ban punishment by simply resigning. There's just no way that's what the founders intended. 

There is precedent for the trail to come after the person has left office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

 

There is precedent for the trail to come after the person has left office.

Yeah and that op-ed author doesn't even attempt to distinguish those cases from this one. SCOTUS wouldn't be bound by the existence of those trials, but their existence is just two more points in favor of the rather obvious conclusion that the power to convict isn't limited to incumbents. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

I had the same thought about stamina recently, but then I remembered he hardly did any actual work during his term and primarily golfed, watched cable news, and tweeted. 

Hopefully he'll do us all a favor and die before 2024. 


More than 34,000 tweets over the four years he was president. That's more than 23 per day.  He was positively HugoStiglitzian. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Makes me curious as to how this will shake out with Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Flynn. The PB were providing 'security' for Roger and in turn, he gave them more notoriety. He also gave them cover but he was more aligned with the 'academic' crowd--the Young Republicans and America First groups that have been attempting to make aggressive inroads on campuses nationwide. Manafort is going to be somewhat preoccupied with legal stuff unless his lawyer is able to work around the attempts to bring Manafort up on fraud charges. Flynn was deep into the Q grift and now that is perhaps fizzling out.

 

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

ok so i need some dumb question amnesty.  first off, i don't think they'll convict in the senate/keep him from running again.  i also think it's best for the dems to allow him to run again, as it further splinters the party.  they need a clean break to move on, and we need a messy break to fuck with them for a decade.

so that said, let's say they hold the senate trial, they convict, and they prohibit him from holding future office (running?  holding?).

in that case, let's say trump does what he always does, and says, "fuck you, i'm going to do it anyway because there's no way to stop me."  and then he announces that he's running, and starts doing rallies and fundraisers, etc.  at what point does something/someone stop him?  what are the legal means behind it?  is it a party thing?  the gop says fuck off?  what if he rolls with his new patriot party or some nonsense? 

it seems kinda like the pardon situation.  we won't know if it's real unless it's tested.

 

 

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

There’s been at least one op Ed that argues only a sitting President can be tried by the senate. I know a couple of lower level executive branch members were tried and convicted after leaving their positions but apparently an argument can be made this does not apply to the presidency. Probably one of those things that would get settled only if he gets convicted and then mounts a legitimate campaign (legitimate meaning wins the Republican nomination or is able to get on the ballot in enough states to hamstring the Republican nominee in the general)

Yeah, I think it gets squashed at the state level.  A bit like Kanye did this last cycle.    Where the hell has he been anyway?   He got his buds pardons and he's left town?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Thanks. His reasoning and argument are remarkably dumb and flimsy, especially for a former federal appellate judge with a strong rep for analysis (per wiki). 

His argument is: the constitution allows for two punishments following impeachment and conviction, and one of those isn't applicable in this situation, therefore it's unconstitutional to hold a trial here.

His unstated premise is that the constitution conditions the ban punishment on the execution of the removal from office punishment. But the constitution says no such thing. 

I'd like to see what he'd say to what I wrote above about avoiding the ban punishment by simply resigning. There's just no way that's what the founders intended. 

Here is Prof. Vladek's response:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/trump-impeachment-senate.html

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Thanks for sharing that, hadn't seen it. He made the same points I have.

I'm a bit surprised he suggests that a conviction would divest dotard of his pension and other benefits (excluding SS protection). The way the statute is written -- it denies those entitlements to presidents removed from office via impeachment rather than presidents convicted -- it's pretty clear to me that the conviction coming after the expiration of his term wouldn't affect them. That should be amended before his conviction. 😈

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Thanks for sharing that, hadn't seen it. He made the same points I have.

I'm a bit surprised he suggests that a conviction would divest dotard of his pension and other benefits (excluding SS protection). The way the statute is written -- it denies those entitlements to presidents removed from office via impeachment rather than presidents convicted -- it's pretty clear to me that the conviction coming after the expiration of his term wouldn't affect them. That should be amended before his conviction. 😈

He raises the issue. I'm no expert but it seems to me there's a good policy reason to read the statute broadly in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:


I’m straight up stealing this because I know a lot of people who need to hear it.

By all means, go for it.  Hope it helps these people process what just happened to them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bolverk said:

What now? The Proud Boys feel like Trump has betrayed them and stabbed them in the back? And they're abandoning him?

Even icons of the alt-right feel swindled by Trump now. Who would've ever guessed it?

‘A Total Failure’: The Proud Boys Now Mock Trump
Members of the far-right group, who were among Donald Trump’s staunchest fans, are calling him “weak” as more of them were charged for storming the U.S. Capitol.

After the presidential election last year, the Proud Boys, a far-right group, declared its undying loyalty to President Trump.

In a Nov. 8 post in a private channel of the messaging app Telegram, the group urged its followers to attend protests against an election that it said had been fraudulently stolen from Mr. Trump. “Hail Emperor Trump,” the Proud Boys wrote.

But by this week, the group’s attitude toward Mr. Trump had changed. “Trump will go down as a total failure,” the Proud Boys said in the same Telegram channel on Monday.

As Mr. Trump departed the White House on Wednesday, the Proud Boys, once among his staunchest supporters, have also started leaving his side. In dozens of conversations on social media sites like Gab and Telegram, members of the group have begun calling Mr. Trump a “shill” and “extraordinarily weak,” according to messages reviewed by The New York Times. They have also urged supporters to stop attending rallies and protests held for Mr. Trump or the Republican Party.

The comments are a startling turn for the Proud Boys, which for years had backed Mr. Trump and promoted political violence. Led by Enrique Tarrio, many of its thousands of members were such die-hard fans of Mr. Trump that they offered to serve as his private militia and celebrated after he told them in a presidential debate last year to “stand back and stand by.” On Jan. 6, some Proud Boys members stormed the U.S. Capitol.

But since then, discontent with Mr. Trump, who later condemned the violence, has boiled over. On social media, Proud Boys participants have complained about his willingness to leave office and said his disavowal of the Capitol rampage was an act of betrayal. And Mr. Trump, cut off on Facebook and Twitter, has been unable to talk directly to them to soothe their concerns or issue new rallying cries.

The Proud Boys’ anger toward Mr. Trump has heightened after he did nothing to help those in the group who face legal action for the Capitol violence. On Wednesday, a Proud Boy leader, Joseph Biggs, 37, was arrested in Florida and charged with unlawful entry and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding in the riot. At least four other members of the group also face charges stemming from the attack.

“When Trump told them that if he left office, America would fall into an abyss, they believed him,” Arieh Kovler, a political consultant and independent researcher in Israel who studies the far right, said of the Proud Boys. “Now that he has left office, they believe he has both surrendered and failed to do his patriotic duty.”

  Hide contents

 

The shift raises questions about the strength of the support for Mr. Trump and suggests that pockets of his fan base are fracturing. Many of Mr. Trump’s fans still falsely believe he was deprived of office, but other far-right groups such as the Oath Keepers, America First and the Three Percenters have also started criticizing him in private Telegram channels, according to a review of messages.

Last week, Nicholas Fuentes, the leader of America First, wrote in his Telegram channel that Mr. Trump’s response to the Capitol rampage was “very weak and flaccid” and added, “Not the same guy that ran in 2015.”

On Wednesday, the Proud Boys Telegram group welcomed President Biden to office. “At least the incoming administration is honest about their intentions,” the group wrote.

Mr. Kovler said the activity showed that groups that had coalesced around Mr. Trump were now trying to figure out their future direction. By losing his ability to post on Twitter and Facebook, Mr. Trump had also become less useful to the far-right groups, who counted on him to raise their profile on a national stage, Mr. Kovler said.

Mr. Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

The Proud Boys were founded in 2016 as a club for men by Gavin McInnes, who also was a founder of the online publication Vice. Describing themselves as “Western chauvinists,” the group attracted people who appeared eager to engage in violence and who frequently espoused anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic views. The group had supported Mr. Trump since he assumed office.

The change toward Mr. Trump happened slowly. After November’s election, the group’s private Telegram channels, Gab pages and posts on the alternative social networking site Parler were filled with calls to keep the faith with the president. Many Proud Boys, echoing Mr. Trump’s falsehoods, said the election had been rigged, according to a review of messages.

The Proud Boys urged their members to attend “Stop the Steal” rallies. One Nov. 23 message on a Proud Boys Telegram page read, “No Trump, no peace.” The message linked to information about a rally in front of the governor’s home in Georgia.

As Mr. Trump’s legal team battled the election result with lawsuits, the Proud Boys closely followed the court cases and appeals in different states, posting frequent links in their Telegram channels to news reports.

But when Mr. Trump’s legal efforts failed, the Proud Boys called for him on social media to use his presidential powers to stay in office. Some urged him to declare martial law or take control by force. In the last two weeks of December, they pushed Mr. Trump in their protests and on social media to “Cross the Rubicon.”

“They wanted to arm themselves and start a second civil war and take down the government on Trump’s behalf,” said Marc-André Argentino, a researcher who studies the far right and a Ph.D. candidate at Concordia University. “But ultimately, he couldn’t be the authoritarian they wanted him to be.”

Then came the week of the Capitol storming. On Jan. 4, Mr. Tarrio was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of burning a Black Lives Matter banner torn from a Black church in Washington. He was thrown out of the city by a judge the next day.

But nearly 100 other Proud Boys, who had been encouraged by leaders like Mr. Biggs, remained in Washington. According to court papers, Mr. Biggs told members to eschew their typical black-and-yellow polo shirts and instead go “incognito” and move about the city in “smaller teams.”

On the day of the riot, Mr. Biggs was captured in a video marching with a large group of Proud Boys toward the Capitol, chanting slogans like, “Whose streets? Our streets.”

Though prosecutors said Mr. Biggs was not among the first to break into the Capitol, they said he admitted to entering the building for a brief time. They also said he appeared to wear a walkie-talkie-style device on his chest, suggesting he was communicating with others during the incursion.

In an interview with The Times hours after the attack, Mr. Biggs said he and other Proud Boys arrived at the Capitol complex around 1 p.m. when the crowd in front of them surged and the mood grew violent. “It literally happened in seconds,” he said.

Prosecutors have also charged Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boy from Rochester and a former Marine; Nicholas Ochs, founder of the Proud Boys’ Hawaii chapter; and Nicholas DeCarlo, who runs a news outfit called Murder the Media, which is associated with the group.

After the violence, the Proud Boys expected Mr. Trump — who had earlier told his supporters to “fight much harder” against “bad people” — to champion the mob, according to their social media messages. Instead, Mr. Trump began distancing himself from his remarks and released a video on Jan. 8 denouncing the violence.

The disappointment was immediately palpable. One Proud Boys Telegram channel posted: “It really is important for us all to see how much Trump betrayed his supporters this week. We are nationalists 1st and always. Trump was just a man and as it turns out an extraordinarily weak one at the end.”

Some Proud Boys became furious that Mr. Trump, who was impeached for inciting the insurrection, did not appear interested in issuing presidential pardons for their members who were arrested. In a Telegram post on Friday, they accused Mr. Trump of “instigating” the events at the Capitol, adding that he then “washed his hands of it.”

“They thought they had his support and that, ultimately, Trump would come through for them, including with a pardon if they should need it,” said Jared Holt, a visiting research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab. “Now they realize they went too far in the riots.”

Some Proud Boys now say in online posts that the group should “go dark” and retreat from political life by cutting its affiliation to any political party. They are encouraging one another to focus their energies on secessionist movements and local protests.

“To all demoralized Trump supporters: There is hope,” read one message in a Proud Boys Telegram channel on Wednesday. “There is an alternative. Abandon the GOP and the Dems.”

 

 

This is fucking hilarious. My cockles be warm. 

Edited by Hookah Horns
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not that dumb of a question. Practically speaking, it's a party thing. They're not going to nominate someone who can't hold the office. But if they did, and he somehow won, the courts would enjoin him from getting transition funds etc. and from taking office. 

It's real and doesn't really need to be tested. It's black letter law. 

It will still be tested.  The argument that he was convicted out of office takes it out of the black letter law scenario.

The GOP will refuse to let him be a candidate and he or the GOP will sue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

She's a green card whore who married a declining American celebrity when she was on the downside of her model/pron career.  Fucked her families way to America.

Her best bet now is Trump dies soon and she can be a trophy bride to some Russian oligarch or a Saudi sheik.  No legit American billionaire would touch that trash.

This is terrible and you should feel terrible.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...