- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Did someone say otherwise?
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Speaker Johnson laid out the House's border stance in his speech yesterday.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,734
- Points
- 1,040
I'll say otherwise. Bolton and Trump got along for a brief interval while their interests converged. Bolton is among the most hawkish of Republicans.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,734
- Points
- 1,040
Bear in mind the Republicans aren't one monolithic faction. There are at least three different ideas for a deal:
- The establishment (McConnell) wants an exchange that allows them to look like they got something for Ukraine aid, but the Democrats won't accept anything with actual teeth. So it has to be more rules that the administration will ignore alongside all the ones it already ignores.
- Another faction wants enforcement of existing rules now. They've seen enough "pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" deals.
- Another faction wants a simple trade of funds; the target is the money earmarked for IRS expansion. That goes away and Ukraine gets more aid.
People ought to stop playing silly propaganda games pretending that McConnell's preferred deal is the one-and-only.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
I think they should sever the aid package and Biden should grow a set and pick up his pen for the border fix. If he did, sincerely, he'd have his money for Ukraine and Israel.
However, I don't believe the democrats really want to fix the border, but would rather play politics. Biden has slammed Trump’s border initiatives to the point that he can't go back to them without losing face and admitting Trump’s actions worked.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Yet when stopped and asked about it today, she stated she hadn't seen the bill so couldn't really comment til she read it. And just because the senate came up with a package, doesn't mean it meets the Republican house expectations. Especially if McConnell is pushing it.
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 730
Well now, if you can't trust an account on X named Republicans Against Trump to get the full story before posting then who can you trust. It's not like they are designed to smear one guy, maybe.
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 730
Trump's immunity claims were rejected by a 3 judge panel. You know what happens, on and on it goes, appeals and more appeals. The original trial date set for March 4th is taken off the docket and the judge didn't have a new date.
Article Link
Article Link
This is the presidential immunity claim for the Jan 6th election interference criminal trial. The DC Court of Appeals order gives him six days to appeal to SCOTUS, otherwise the case can go back on the docket. He will of course appeal to SCOTUS (a rehearing or en band hearing at DCCA won’t pause matters), hopefully they hear and rule on the matter quickly- or alternatively they could simply decline to hear the appeal, in which case the trial can go forward.
- Reaction score
- 4,254
- Points
- 1,260
For anyone interested, DC CoA's decision attached.
Careful what you wish for when it comes to all (or at least more of) the details coming out. Still a bit more process to be seen for now.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
It might be possible, that if Trump is found not to have immunity, while he was POTUS, Biden might find himself in the same soup after he leaves office. It is probable he will likely be able to depend on the vegetable defence though.
Last edited:
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 730
The January 6th obstruction charges against defendants is currently before the Supreme Court. Maybe there will be a decision in June. If the court rules in favour of the defendants then Jack Smith will have to rejigger the charge against Trump.
Bloomberg Article
CNN Article
Bloomberg Article
CNN Article
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 730
Maybe he can get his old buddy Mitterand to take a trip from Germany to help him out.
Of course they cleaned it up in the official transcript.
WH Transcript
Article Link
He has been found not to have immunity. A court decision does not require SCOTUS assent to be real and to have effect. The only question is if SCOTUS would reverse that, but it’s inconceivable that they would overturn this particular one. No SCOTUS is going to anoint an ex president with the immunities of a king. They kinda fought a war over that.
If Biden actually commits crimes while in office and gets charged later, then criminal prosecution would be appropriate. That’s literally the point. A president - any president - should not be immune from legal accountability if they commit crimes. That’s not a partisan issue, it’s a fundamental philosophical underpinning of the American system of law and government.
- Status
Similar threads
