Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | |
| S&P futures | 4,133 | -9.00 |
| Oil (WTI) | 92.42 | 1.73 |
| 10 year government bond yield | 2.79% | |
| 30 year fixed rate mortgage | 5.44% |
Stocks are lower this morning as we await tomorrow’s Consumer Price Index reading. Bonds and MBS are flat.
Some good news for the Fed: inflationary expectations fell in July as declining gas prices improved sentiment. Longer-term expectations fell from 6.8% to 6.2%. The 3 year expected inflation index fell from 3.6% to 3.2%.
Some bad news for the Fed: productivity declined 4.6% in the second quarter. Output fell 2.1% and hours worked increased 2.6%. Unit labor costs rose a whopping 10.8%, which was driven by a 5.7% increase in compensation and a 4.6% decline in productivity. This is the largest increase in unit labor costs in 40 years.
Rising productivity is a major factor in controlling inflation. Productivity was lousy in the 1970s, and usually corresponds with a recession. You can see in the chart below, we are at exceptionally low levels.
Small Business Optimism rose in July according to the NFIB. This is the sixth consecutive month below the historical average of the index. 37% of respondents said that inflation was their biggest concern, which was the highest since 1979. That said, it looks like pricing pressures are beginning to ease a touch, although we are still quite elevated.
The yield curve continues to invert, with the spread between the 10 year and the 2 year now 47 basis points. This is another recessionary signal. The market is waiting for some indication that inflation is moderating which will mean the Fed can pivot from hawkishness to neutrality.
The decrease in the 10 year is perplexing given inflationary expectations. I mean, why would you want to tie up your money for 10 years at 2.8% when inflation is running in the high single digits? That said, I suspect that sovereign debt is being supported by Chinese investors who are worried about the bursting of their real estate bubble. It isn’t just Treasuries that are seeing lower rates – German Bunds and Japanese government bonds are as well.
As the Chinese real estate bubble bursts, the government is going to protect homeowners first and investors second. For example remember troubled developer Evergrande? Its bonds are trading at 7 cents to the dollar. As China’s real estate bubble bursts, domestic demand is going to plummet, which means the trade deficit with China is about to blow out. And if the Chinese aren’t going to be buying US goods and services in exchange for their goods and services, they will be buying Treasuries instead.
Mortgage credit availability fell to the lowest level in 9 years, according to the MBA. “Credit availability fell last month to the lowest level since May 2013, as lenders streamlined their loan offerings in this declining volume environment,” said Joel Kan, MBA Associate Vice President of Economic and Industry Forecasting. “The 9 percent decline in the July index was the largest monthly decrease since April 2020. Lenders have responded accordingly to the decrease in demand for refinance and purchase loans by reducing loan offerings, including for ARMs, cash-out refinances and investment properties.”
Filed under: Economy |
All Things in Moderation 
Good read on the search:
LikeLike
The thing is, we know that every precept that Popehat lists the FBI has admitted to violating with the Russia Hoax being used as a pretext to spy on Trump, so why should the Federal government receive the benefit of the doubt?
LikeLike
He assumes the Administration and the legal system is acting in good faith. I do not.
LikeLike
Serious question, given all that we know regarding FBI behavior, by what rationale does one give them the benefit of the doubt?
LikeLike
partisanship.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how you can in good faith give the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
of course not. this is all bullshit from start to finish.
LikeLike
Give the FBI the benefit of the doubt?
One should not. If you do then you’re on the side of the corrupt machine.
That’s my feeling in it anyway.
LikeLike
This I found interesting:
LikeLike
5 This warrant — the decision to do it, if not the entire thing itself — was absolutely approved at the very highest level of the justice department, possibly read by Garland himself.
And this gives comfort…why exactly?
I keep coming back to this: based on the stuff they HAVEN’T gone after, either this is the greatest overplayed hand ever or there is something very dramatic we don’t know about.
This is precisely what was said about the Russia Collusion hoax investigation…they would never do this if there wasn’t something to it! Now, of course, we know that, yes indeed they would do this, even knowing there is nothing to it.
These institutions…the FBI, the DOJ, even the courts…have exactly zero credibility with me right now. And I’m not the only one.
LikeLike
Exactly and I’m struggling to see how a reasonable person could give them the benefit of the doubt. Those that do, I want to understand.
LikeLike
This truly is banana Republic bs.
LikeLike
If this is true, and the entire basis for the investigation, then it’s going to be a shit show.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/05/documents-mar-a-lago-marked-classified-were-already-declassified-kash-patel-says/
LikeLike
then they’ll just plant evidence. It doesn’t matter. 50% of the country will believe this is legit and 50% will believe it is bullshit.
LikeLike
“Plant evidence”?
That sounds like worse. They’ll just assure the public there was all sorts of evidence. Why do you have to fake something when you can just announce whatever you want to be true as fact?
LikeLike
True, that will be the better route. Leak to the media that the FBI has the goods, and the media will uncritically accept it as fact.
LikeLike
Comey said re HRC, that her mishandling of classified documents was not prosecutable because, among other things, there was no intent.
LikeLike
shorter comey iokiyad
LikeLike
Then there’s this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html
LikeLike
Saint Obama can do no wrong.
LikeLike
“That’s different”
LikeLike
Mea Culpa here. I thought that if one were convicted of a felony one could not hold Federal elected office and I am wrong on that. I don’t know why I thought that but I’ve been spouting that Trump will be convicted of a felony (he will be, make no mistake) and therefore ineligible to hold office. Obviously I am wrong and I don’t even know where I came to believe that other than my shitty public education.
I’m embarrassed about this and I thank everybody here for not pointing it out to humiliate me. Feel free though in the future to humiliate me when I’m wrong though!
I am sorry.
George
LikeLike
I actually thought the same due to a bunch of commentary on the Internet, but even Politifact admits it.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/mar/07/ask-politifact-can-donald-trump-run-president-if-i/
The only people who are going to be more surprised about this than you will be progressives on Twitter when he still runs.
LikeLike
Well, thank you for that. And yes, the lefties are going to implode on that one. The reason I started wondering was from a Kos thread where a commenter brought up that despite certain statutes that if one is convicted of violating one loses the ability to hold Federal office, wouldn’t stand Constitutional muster since it lists the qualifications for POTUS and conviction of a felony isn’t one of them. In fact the only thing mentioned is the 14th Amendment forbidding holding Federal office if one engages in rebellion.
LikeLike
The other theory is that an actual felony conviction would sway enough Republican Senators to actually convict him at a presumed third impeachment trial:
https://compactmag.com/article/they-can-t-let-him-back-in
LikeLike
I have a hard time believing that a closely divided Senate will garner enough R Senators to vote to convict a newly elected Trump, that would ensure the loss of their seat.
LikeLike
No, he would be convicted before the election and impeached as a former president, to preclude his running again.
LikeLike
I don’t put anything past McConnell, up to and including whipping a vote to convict but they would all know they’d lose their reelections if they did. While they all might want to rid themselves of this meddlesome Trump they’re all politicians ultimately.
LikeLike
jnc:
he would be convicted before the election and impeached as a former president, to preclude his running again.
I am skeptical that a private citizen can be legally/constitutionally “impeached”. The purpose of an impeachment process is as a legal means of removing a public official from office. Trump is not a public official, so I do not see how he can be subject to an impeachment process.
It is certainly the case that, under the Constitution, a prohibition on holding public office is a consequence of having been impeached and convicted. But that does not mean that the desire for such a prohibition is or can be the purpose of an impeachment. Indeed, it seems to me both conceptually and legally incoherent to claim to be “impeaching” someone who does not hold a public office.
LikeLike
The Constitution itself does not define “impeachment”, but it pretty clearly only contemplates the impeachment of public officials, not private citizens. It says:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States
Note that it says “and”, not “or”. Since, at this point, it is literally impossible for Trump to be removed from office, then I do not see how a Constitutional judgment could be rendered against him.
LikeLike
Yeah, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they tried. And his second impeachment trial was held after he had already left office.
“At the beginning of the trial, Senator Rand Paul forced a vote to dismiss the impeachment charge on the basis that it was unconstitutional to try a former president, arguing that impeachment only applies to current federal officers and that the punishment of removal from office was moot under the circumstances. Supporters of proceeding with the trial argued that the Constitution also permits disqualification from holding future office, which the House had requested in its article of impeachment. The motion was defeated in a 55–45 vote, with all Democrats, both independents, and five Republicans (Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania) voting against the motion.[”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump
LikeLike
jnc:
Yeah, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they tried.
Agreed. And the timeline it would take to litigate the question would prevent a conclusion prior to the election, which would throw the entire election process into a crisis.
It’s almost as if the Dems and NeverTrumpers are deliberately trying to instigate a Constitutional crisis.
LikeLike
Starting to see the picture now.
LikeLike
I’m slow, but I usually get there.
LikeLike
I just assumed you were right. Last time i trust you!
LikeLike
Me too!
LikeLike
I trusted you to know, George!
I just assumed you were correct. Well you learn something new every day.
LikeLike
My shame knows no limits.
LikeLike
And the other shoe drops:
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-court-rules-that-congress-can-obtain-trumps-tax-returns-2022-8
LikeLike
Curious what SCOTUS will rule. Congress gets a lot of deference I know, but how does one individual who’s occupation, real estate developer and politician, inform legislative debate?
LikeLike
Did not expect this:
LikeLike
That is surprising.
LikeLike
on a lighter note,
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/joe-biden-forgets-handshake-from-5-seconds-ago/
LikeLike
Lol
After coughing into his hand during his entire speech, Biden proceeds to shake hands with everyone in the crowd. https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1557021411943874561/video/1
LikeLike
Biden is a one-man superspreader event.
LikeLike
Lol!
Please folks stop calling it a “raid.”
LikeLike
Why? Does she think Trump is innocent? She doesn’t believe Trump deserves to be raided? She’s sounding a little MAGA-ish there.
LikeLike
democrats are starting to worry about that whole totalitarian look.
LikeLike
In all honesty I don’t think they’re worried at all about their totalitarian look, I think they’re loving it and leaning into it.
LikeLike
It does seem that way. It’s kind of a “totalitarianism in the name of equity and social justice is no evil” kind of thing.
I’ve found myself think about that CS Lewis quote a lot in the Trump/post-Trump era.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C. S. Lewis
LikeLike
HL Mencken had a pretty pithy paraphrase of that.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/196781
LikeLike
I think those are marching orders to Blue Checkmark Twitter and not to the democrats.
LikeLike
Some of them are. Older ones, those not so deep within the bubble they don’t know that there is anything other than the bubble. I’m not sure there is a millennial Democrat anywhere that has anything but admiration for the new Wilsonian fascism.
LikeLike
Taibbi on the Trump search
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-third-world?utm_source=email
George, note the Tweet he cites where people are specifically pushing the line that conviction for a records offense disqualifies him from the presidency.
LikeLike
I already linked, but apparently put it on yesterday’s thread.
LikeLike
Credit for a Tonton Macoute reference. Don’t see that nearly enough.
LikeLike
Hayward can be wordy (like Ayn Rand flogging a point for 120 pages a la The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged) but in this thread he’s spot on about government and it’s inevitable march to corruption.
LikeLike
I hope someone is keeping track of events like this. The targeting of political opponents is becoming impossible to reasonably deny.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-fbi-confiscates-cell-phone-of-republican-congressman
LikeLike
Just saw that. YOLO I guess.
LikeLike
I always assumed it was a muzzie, people kill within their group as a rule.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fculture%2Fculture-news%2Falbuquerque-muslim-killing-arrest-1394813%2F
LikeLike
Interesting,
Conflicted DOJ officials briefed on the Mar-a-Lago raid:
NICHOLAS McQUAID: worked with Hunter Biden’s and Michael Sussmann’s criminal attorneys
LISA MONACO: Obama aide implicated in Russiagate
MAGGIE GOODLANDER: wife of top Biden aide Jake Sullivan, implicated in Russiagate
https://twitter.com/PaulSperry30/status/1556852253251747846
LikeLike
I’m not sure how much “briefed” matters if they didn’t have any decision making authority over it.
Edit: Looks like his account was suspended. Of course.
LikeLike
Lol!
LikeLike
It’s so depressing to read all the comments here. Hopefully for you guys, Trump is exonerated of every criminal thing he’s ever done and will be free to run again and ruin our country for good.
I just don’t believe that Merrick Garland and the FBI director (a leader appointed by Trump) would have issued this search warrant without probable cause of a crime. Pretty sure Garland is SUPER aware of the optics. None of us is above the law though.
LikeLike
I’m sure Garland is aware of the optics and that’s why he authorized the raid. They know what they’re doing and how it looks and they want us to know they know.
What crimes has Trump committed?
LikeLike
McWing:
What crimes has Trump committed?
I asked that same thing earlier. No response.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what I say here regarding Trump’s crimes. You can either believe he committed them or not, and trust the sources or not. Whatever source I quote or link will not be accepted here because none of you believe anything about the truth of it as I see it. We are on the brink of a grifter/narcissist/sociopath running for office again and I think most of you think it’s either a joke or a solution. I can’t debate that.
LikeLike
But all politicians are grifter, narcissists and sociopaths. Name one that isn’t!
And let’s debate two alleged crimes? We know we’re all arguing in good faith here so there should be no problem if we fail to convince each other.
LikeLike
lms:
You can either believe he committed them or not…
I don’t even know what crimes I am supposed to believe he committed.
And let’s be honest…neither do you. You don’t name these alleged crimes because you have literally no idea. You’ve probably heard and read vague insinuations, and you want him to be guilty of crimes in order to justify your hatred of him and your desire to see him destroyed. But as to specific facts or legal theories or even allegations, you haven’t a clue, do you?
You’ve apparently been a big follower of the Jan 6 committee. Do you even know what crime it is that they are trying so hard to establish?
LikeLike
You don’t think Biden is a grifter/narcissist/sociopath? I mean Trump was and is definitely those things but Biden ticks all those boxes, too. So does Kamala Harris, for that matter. It’s the common state of anyone who gets to the point where they become a politician.
LikeLike
McWing, Garland is the last person to want this to look political. He’s a very conservative/hesitant AG IMO. I honestly believe if he could avoid any of this he would. I know none of you believe that Trump committed any crimes so I’m not going to debate that, but the list is long. If you guys think he’s honest and forthright and presidential material I can’t convince you otherwise.
There is no deep state of democrats………….we have opinions and solutions, which we don’t have to agree on…………….LOL, that’s democracy. Republicans have grievances and lots of election lies and some interesting candidates. I guess Americans will decide.
You guys are undebatable though…………and it depresses me.
LikeLike
I don’t understand the undebateable line, we’re all itching to debate.
Offer up just two of this long list of crimes and let’s debate it? We may end up failing to convince each other but why should that depress either one of us?
LikeLike
lms:
I know none of you believe that Trump committed any crimes so I’m not going to debate that, but the list is long.
And yet you can’t name a single one. You “feel” it is so, and so it must be so, right?
LikeLike
I’m sure Trump has committed crimes (don’t know which ones, probably related to making deals with mob when in construction; lots of questionable tax stuff and financial stuff). Just as I’m pretty sure Biden has committed a number of federal crimes.
I’m not sure what they are going after at the moment is real and supposedly it’s about his retaining classified documents, which is nuts. Unless there goal is to charge him with something they know won’t stick. But want to look like they are doing something.
Anyway, I would not we don’t all think the same things. But I definitely thin Trump committed crimes and also think Biden has committed crimes and also that Obama probably isn’t crime-free and Dubya definitely was a criminal and Dick Cheney, too, and Clinton was awash in criminal activity and Bush senior … well, I mean, come on. Dude ran the CIA.
LikeLike
That is my concern. Also worried that post-Trump everybody wants to prove they are the REAL masters of 4D chess.
LikeLike
lms:
I just don’t believe that Merrick Garland and the FBI director (a leader appointed by Trump) would have issued this search warrant without probable cause of a crime.
And I am sure you just didn’t believe that James Comey and Robert Mueller would have authorized a 3 year investigation into hoax charges about collusion with Russia.
When this country comes to ruin, it is going to be because of people you voted into office, not because of Trump.
LikeLike
yep, the reaction to trump is worse than trump ever was.
LikeLike
I’m sorry you feel that way Scott. I believe in our democracy and the rule of law and a commitment to the people here who vote, live, work, take care of their kids, and hope for a brighter future. I’m not sure what or who Trump believes in, other than himself and his persecution complex. And this is coming from a guy with a silver spoon upbringing and a doctor who apparently loves to look at his body because it’s so spectacular……………LOL There are very few worst human beings on the planet right now than Donald Trump.
I’m working hard to support candidates who believe in the election process, accept the results, are willing to debate the vices and virtue of proposed legislation and don’t lie all the time. They may or may not be democrats.
LikeLike
That should be worse not worst. I can’t seem to edit here………….probably lost my privileges…………..LOL
LikeLike
lms:
I believe in our democracy and the rule of law…
I’m sure you genuinely think that. But I don’t think you understand what the rule of law actually means. If you did, you wouldn’t be supporting the current Jan 6 show trial. I also think, however you feel about our democracy and the rule of law, you believe even more in your policy preferences, and you prioritize those preferences over both.
LikeLike
If this turns out to be a fishing expedition conducted with the thin excuse of “mishandling of documents” … I don’t know how anyone can find these agencies credible in any way.
LikeLike
Clay Travis was speculating that the left will throw Hunter Biden into the volcano to make it look good.
LikeLike
I heard that as well but I think he (Biden) will pardon his son and they’ll convict Trump. J mentioned earlier that one goal maybe to provide cover for R Senators to join in an impeachment conviction of Trump and I’m warming to that idea.
LikeLike
How are they going to go after Hunter without implicating Biden? I don’t see how that works. Other than everyone in the press agreeing to lie in the same direction.
LikeLike
KW:
I don’t know how anyone can find these agencies credible in any way.
lms does.
LikeLike
I know people do I just personally don’t know how! Agreeing with me on surface issues would not be sufficient. I would not accept “Chuck Schumer is spending us into hyperinflation … so we’re going to raid his house and publish his tax returns and release a dossier full of bullshit about how he’s been colluding with China and then impeach him over that!”
I’d be with him on the hyperinflation but not on the using the power of the state to punish Schumer for being a narcissistic sociopathic grifter with no understanding of how economics works. Or even if he did it on purpose.
LikeLike
If I don’t believe in the DOJ, who should I believe in?
This probably won’t make sense to any of you but I learned a lot of lessons from my father. He was very conservative but he also had an open mind. We used to walk our dog every night after dinner and we talked and talked. One thing I learned from him was just because other people do it and get away with it, doesn’t mean it’s right. There’s a difference between right and wrong and wrong is always wrong.
You guys trusted the DOJ under W Barr but you don’t trust them now…………….why? Do you think you’re opinion might be political?
LikeLike
I don’t think you should trust the DOJ and my radicalization occurred first with Randy Weaver (I know, I know, ATF) and was cemented with the Branch Davidian raid. Everything else is just me rooting a tit-for-tat Will to Power.
I don’t think there should be a Federal role for law enforcement anyway but that’s an argument for another day.
Ultimately, ask yourself what, in your opinion is the most corrupt (or least trustworthy) Federal Department or agency. Got it? Ok, that agency/department is staffed with the exact same type of people that staff the agency that you trust the most.
LikeLike
Federal law enforcement should be Military Police for the military. Game wardens for public lands. And the Capitol Police.
Which goes to the problem with any federal law enforcement. Congress wanting to turn the Capitol Police into another FBI—or some kind of federal police force focused on those who are critical of the government.
If we didn’t have the FBI and such now, the Department of Fish and Wildlife would have offices in every state and taking out religious cults based on rumors of fishing without a license.
LikeLike
And do not get me started on the utter lack of regulation of bass fishing tournaments.
LikeLike
Believe in yourself. Then people you know who have demonstrated themselves worth of your trust and respect.
Everything and anyone else … at least be skeptical. Working in a large bureaucracy (at the local level) … I don’t think any large government bureaucracy should be trusted. Very much.
They are complicated. Messy. Lots of people have bad ideas they think are good ideas. Things get lost. Institutional knowledge is lost or retires and isn’t replaced. Groups of people get together and, though well-meaning, talk themselves into bad ideas.
So don’t trust until verified. And even then it’s conditional. 😀
LikeLike
“You guys trusted the DOJ under W Barr”
I respected Barr—what I knew of him. He was a great improvement on Sessions (who, yes, Trump screwed over but he was still a bad choice). I would feel better with Barr in charge than Garland but it is what it is.
I don’t think I had any more trust for the DOJ as an institution.
LikeLike
lms:
If I don’t believe in the DOJ, who should I believe in?
You should think about things for yourself with skepticism, not automatically believe whatever you are told by the corporate media or the government. Especially with regard to people/things that have a political dimension. But let’s be honest…your “trust” in the DOJ in this case derives mainly from your hatred of Trump. You want him to be guilty of something, so you are inclined to believe any story that claims he is guilty of something. It is classic confirmation bias. If a Trump DOJ was investigating Obama and raiding his Martha’s Vineyard mansion, I am fairly positive you wouldn’t automatically believe whatever the Trump DOJ was telling you, or more likely whatever the media was telling you that anonymous DOJ officials were secretly leaking to them.
You guys trusted the DOJ under W Barr but you don’t trust them now…………….why?
I came to trust Barr, not the DOJ. And I came to trust him because he seemed to take a fairly measured approach to highly politicized issues, and he wasn’t afraid to contradict or stand up to politicized narratives from either side, including from his boss Trump. He struck me as a stand-up guy, and his approach to Jan 6 has tended to confirm my judgment, as he has strongly condemned Trump’s words and actions but without joining the hyper-politicized “insurrection” nonsense of the Dems.
Do you think you’re opinion might be political?
It might be, but I doubt it because as a matter of politics, I too would rather not have Trump around. I think that the only chance that the Dems have of winning the presidency in 2024 is if Trump is the Republican nominee, and the very last thing I want is another nation-destroying term for a Democrat. So from a political perspective the faster Trump is out of the way, the better, I think. But I’m not willing to overlook the subversion of the rule of law, the politicization of the justice system, and the lies of the left in order to get it.
LikeLike
“But I’m not willing to overlook the subversion of the rule of law, the politicization of the justice system, and the lies of the left in order to get it.”
This is all setting terrible precedent. And I bitched about the Republicans setting bad precedent with the Clinton impeachment. I thought every president from thereon out would be impeached for squirrely real estate deals after that, and the tax payers would have to pay hundred of millions of dollars for the privilege.
I was wrong about that as it turned out. The Dems have moved to impeaching people for being politically opposed to them. Speaking of opinions that one suspects are more political than principled.
LikeLike
If I don’t believe in the DOJ, who should I believe in?
Did you think the same thing about the FBI during the civil rights era?
LikeLike
You guys seem to want to know what crimes I think Trump has committed so here they are……………these aren’t my words but I have to agree with them.
Trump is no longer president, so he doesn’t get a pass under DOJ’s outdated memo barring prosecutions of sitting presidents. The laundry list of conceivable charges is formidable: obstruction of an official proceeding, witness tampering, conspiracy to defraud the United States, inciting an insurrection, inciting an armed riot, impeding a government official (former Vice President Mike Pence), and various flavors of federal and state election fraud. Contrary to some punditry, these charges do not obviously require proof that Trump actually talked to the Jan. 6th terrorists and directed the violence.
LikeLike
obstruction of an official proceeding, witness tampering, conspiracy to defraud the United States, inciting an insurrection, inciting an armed riot, impeding a government official (former Vice President Mike Pence), and various flavors of federal and state election fraud.
We can work with these. In the coming days let’s explore each one. The first, Obstruction of an official proceeding, is going to be a tough one as Trump never made it into the Capital to disrupt anything and most certainly would need to tie him directly to anybody whom not only made it into the Capital but then did something that actually stopped the official proceeding. Further, it’s seems hard to justify charging anyone with that crime when Congressional hearings are disrupted countless times by CodePink stopping hearings. The countless delays due to CodePink disruptions during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings come to mind. Is it your opinion that they also deserve prosecution for disrupting an official proceeding? If not, why not?
LikeLike
Wow interesting you think of Code Pink
In May of 2017………..
On Wednesday, a jury convicted three Code Pink protesters on charges of disrupting Jeff Sessions’s attorney general confirmation hearing in January. The protesters now face up to 12 months in prison, the New York Times reports. One of the convicted protesters, 61-year-old Desiree A. Fairooz, maintains that all she did during the hearing was laugh when Senator Richard Shelby said Sessions had a “clear and well-documented” record of “treating all Americans equally under the law.”
Convicted!
LikeLike
and if Trump was there, he probably would be too. But he wasn’t.
And i would bet these Code Pink protesters weren’t thrown in administrative segregation like the 1/6 protesters were.
and “facing 12 months” doesn’t tell me much. what did they actually get?
LikeLike
Brent:
what did they actually get?
One of them had their conviction tossed and a retrial ordered. Charges were then dropped.
The other 2 got 10 days, suspended sentence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charges-dropped-against-woman-who-laughed-during-jeff-sessions-hearing-n818436
LikeLike
Lol!
LikeLike
They were convicted of parading on Capitol grounds, not of obstructing an official proceeding. They weren’t even charged with obstructing an official proceeding.
LikeLike
Scott, so they never saw the inside of a jail, let alone a prison.
Still shows the difference in how the court system treats left-wing protesters versus right wing protesters.
The two BLM lawyers who tossed a Molotov Cocktail into a squad car got, what 18 months? And they are giving 1/6 protesters 7 year terms.
Says it all.
LikeLike
lms:
OK, let’s take just one of these alleged crimes…inciting an armed riot. Can you explain what elements make up the crime, and explain what evidence you are aware of that indicates that Trump is guilty of committing it?
If you don’t like that one, then pick any of the others. I’m easy.
Edit: Nevermind. Focus on McWing’s question.
LikeLike
He urged them to march to the Capitol and protest peacefully with a wink in his voice. It was coded. The evidence is right there.
In all seriousness …
His main crime that I can think of was letting Fauci and Birx run the country for a year. That was a completely unforced error, if not indictable.
LikeLike
The funny thing about that comment:
The laundry list of conceivable charges is formidable…Contrary to some punditry, these charges do not obviously require proof…
Hell the laundry list of conceivable charges against anyone is formidable if you don’t require proof.
Ultimately this issue is the ultimate logic versus emotion argument. And logic can never defeat emotion, and vice versa.
Trump’s crime is being icky. That is what the democrats argument boils down to.
LikeLike
Well, Trump was pretty icky. They’ve got him there!
Of course most politicians are icky but let’s not get bogged down in details. Another impeachment!
LikeLike
I feel like the people making these lists aren’t gaming things out. They do not think how destructive and what a terrible precedent that actually prosecuting former president for lists of crimes dreamt up by Twitterati would be.
The long-term outcome of putting Trump in jail is almost certainly to make things worse, and certainly make our politics worse than it already is. That will mean for your side: more Trumps. More Lauren Boeberts and Marjorie Taylor Greens and Ron Desantises. And perhaps more January 6ths. For the right it’s going to likely mean more 2020 elections and more Bidens and more political prosecutions. And more agitation on the fringe right.
Whatever schadenfreude people experience with the arrest of Trump, the long term costs will not be worth it.
LikeLike
IMO, this is intended to be a brush-back pitch to Trump not to run.
That said, the left is going to have to walk a fine line to sate the bloodlust of the base while not terrifying independents.
LikeLike
I don’t know. I feel like they think by repeating “the grownups are back in charge”, the rest of the world will accept.
They also think, I think, that the rest of the world is better and smarter than America, so “the world” sees things like they do. So while it was embarrassing that Trump was president everything going on now is just fine. At least Trump isn’t president!
LikeLike
Do it and be a legend! Hell, I’ll donate to the cause!
Eric Adams says he is “deeply contemplating taking a busload of New Yorkers to Texas” to campaign against Greg Abbott in response to him busing 4,000 illegal migrants to his city. https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1557063079736840192/video/1
LikeLike
Which he had to know would be functionally campaigning FOR Abbott. Maybe that’s what he wants.
What kind of 4D chess is he playing??
LikeLike