ChiGoose

Well, this isn't good... On the independent state legislature theory: Somehow, I'm not optimistic that SCOTUS will end up ruling in a way that's good for democracy...

I'm so tired of the gerontocracy.

I am incredibly skeptical of a blue wave: GOP won the redistricting fight, Dems couldn't even fight to a draw Midterms of a first term presidency Inflation & gas prices Right now, we're going to see things really turn around for the Dems as the bottom drops out for the GOP on suburban women voters, but it's not even July yet. When Roe is five months in the rearview mirror and it still costs $90 to fill their gas tank, I'd expect we'd see things return to the expected GOP wins in the Fall. It might not be as big as it would have been without Roe but I just can't see a Dem win in the midterms, not to mention an actual blue wave.

What's weird about this is that the rule at the heart of this case wasn't even in effect. It had been revoked during the Trump administration. This probably should have been mooted out. But SCOTUS gonna SCOTUS.

Yes, I think we can all agree that Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman are idiots. Glad we found this common ground.

Maybe you should look into how prosecutions work… Also, there is currently a grand jury in Georgia looking at this.

Well there’s a grand jury in Georgia looking at it now. But I imagine that professionals would want to make sure they could absolutely prove their case before they make a Durham of themselves…

Here ya go Trump quote from around 51:45: Around 1:01:17: Here's the text of 52 U.S.C. 20511: So we have Trump on the record saying he won by 400,000 votes but asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to just add about 11,000 votes because that's what he needs to win. If Trump truly believed that he won by 400,000 votes, that is a crime.

Right back at ya. Would be really embarrassing for you if there were tapes of Trump committing a crime. Oh wait...

The Ray Epps stuff is dumb as ***** because even if it was true, Trump would still have committed crimes. It's just a distraction from people drinking from the right wing conspiracy fire hose.

In @716er's defense, @DRsGhost is probably the single dumbest person on this board and has not only never added anything of value, but actively works to make the board as bad as possible. If the purpose of this board was to facilitate good discussion and discourage trolling, they would be banned.

I don't think that @DRsGhost could pass the Turing Test.

This is some real tinfoil hat *****. I have a golf course in Scotland I'm selling if you're interested...

I think that there is good room for common ground of a majority of Americans. Prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions: Comprehensive sex ed Easy access to free contraceptives Make it easier to choose life: Re-enact the child tax credit from last year Universal free pre-natal and post-natal healthcare Parental leave Free or affordable childcare Free or affordable meals for kids If we focused on why we have abortions, we could make progress towards both reducing the number of abortions and starting a pro-natalist movement in the US. We could remove the messiness of doctors needing lawyers to tell them what they can and can't do to help their patients while making it far likely that someone would seek an abortion for non-medical needs. But if we leave it to the states, then women in some states are going to have to make some very difficult choices about their lives and their legal liability.

Ah, gotcha. We should believe members of the committee when they say things we agree with, but they are a farce when they say something we disagree with? As I've stated, I am skeptical that the DoJ would or could secure a guilty verdict of Trump on incitement. But they have shown plenty of evidence that he committed other crimes.

For the record, I think an incitement charge against Trump has a big hill to climb. But to claim that simply saying "peacefully" negates any other context or history around his other words and actions is laughable. That would be a loophole so big as to allow criminals to run wild. "I want you to go deliver a message to that other gang, but do it peacefully..." Ultimately, in the real world (not the fabulous world of criminal conspiracies being impossible to prosecute that you seem to think we live in), this would be up to a jury to decide. As I said, I am not confident they would decide it against Trump, but to dismiss it out of hand is ridiculous.

Personally, I don't think it should be up to politicians as to whether people live or die. But that's just me.

If you were correct, it would be impossible to prosecute mob bosses. "He said to take care of them! That doesn't mean that he wanted them dead!" Words certainly matter, but actions matter more. If I held a rally down the street from Tom Brady's house and spoke about how upset I was about Tom Brady, and told security that they should allow people to my rally with weapons, and told the audience that they needed to fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country any more, and then told everyone to march to Tom Brady's house, but threw in the word "peacefully" at the end, then I'm all good, right?

They've been trying to get him for a bit, but I'm surprised it took this long for them to subpoena him.

This is exactly what has happened in other countries and led to the death of the mothers.

GTFO with actual logic. You know it has no place here on PPP.

This is my major concern about Roe no longer being the law of the land. There is absolutely nothing preventing states from passing incredibly stupid laws or laws that are so vague that doctors do not know how to act. Mississippi drafted a law that said that removing ectopic pregnancies count as abortions and are there for illegal before they ended up removing that provision: Source: Under the regime of Roe and Casey, that law would have been tossed out had it been approved. Now that we are in a post-Roe world, the only thing stopping these sorts of laws is our voters and politicians. Which does not give me a ton of confidence...

Actually, she heard the magnometer comment herself. So that is not hearsay. She stated under oath that multiple people told her that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. The next step would be to get that testimony from those people, like Mark Meadows. Unfortunately, Meadows won't testify because he is worried about perjuring himself.

Her testimony shows: Trump did not care if there were weapons in the crowd Trump wanted to be with the people marching on the Capitol You're right that neither of those things are a crime. You couldn't indict anyone on that. But you build a case through multiple witnesses and testimony. We had multiple people testifying in a previous hearing that Trump wanted to overturn the election and commit crimes. Hutchinson's testimony might be able to support other evidence and testimony, but I still think incitement is a steep hill for a prosecutor to climb. Everyone is playing the jump to conclusions game, here. Trump wanted the metal detectors at the ellipse removed and he wanted to be with the crowd marching on the Capitol. Those are important details. They are not nothing. But they're also not everything.

The Biden administration spent weeks publicizing intel about Russian movements and warning Ukraine about an imminent invasion even though Ukraine disagreed with the US position. That's a green light?