Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.
So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.
So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.
So here's the thing. American democracy is at stake. Faith in our democratic system is at stake. People attempted to interrupt the certification of the election results. If holding them to account is somehow considered "further[ing] a political party's agenda," then that just shows you how far gone the Republicans are. Jesus.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.
So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.
So here's the thing. American democracy is at stake. Faith in our democratic system is at stake. People attempted to interrupt the certification of the election results. If holding them to account is somehow considered "further[ing] a political party's agenda," then that just shows you how far gone the Republicans are. Jesus.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.
So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.
So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.
Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.
Anonymous wrote:
You mean republicans, right?
DP but yes that’s the joke.
I actually am a moderate Democrat (if you’re a Repo I’m a flaming liberal and if you’re really progressive I look like a Republican) and ordinarily I do agree that spouses should get to do the kind of work that’s meaningful to them. Ginni and Clarence have made it clear over the years that he would never recuse when he had conflicts of interest and he didn’t and it’s been clear for years that she was using his connections. He should have been off that court years ago.
Anonymous wrote:I wonder what is going on with Meadow's and his committee referral to the DOJ?
There is much we don't know yet.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!
And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!
You mean republicans, right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!
And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!
And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!
Who are these moderate democrats standing by her? Did I miss something?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!
And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!
What? I am a moderate Democrat. I am also a feminist who fully supports women being politically active outside of the views of a spouse. Women can have their own careers and interests that are completely independent from your husband’s. But 1/6 is beyond the pale. She was using her contacts, gained through her husband, to support overturning an election…. and a fair one at that!! She supported and tried to facilitate an insurrection!