User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-08-04 at 4:30 PM UTC
-
2021-08-04 at 6:23 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-08-05 at 4:20 AM UTCMake the
Asshole
Go
Away
The Hill
Majority of Americans in new poll say it would be bad for the country if Trump ran in 2024
Mychael Schnell
A majority of Americans in a new poll think it would be bad for the country if former President Trump runs for office in 2024.
The survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, found that 60 percent of respondents said it would be bad for the country if Trump were to launch a bid for president in 2024.
Thirty-two percent of respondents, however, said another Trump campaign would be good for the country.
For months the former president has been teasing an announcement on whether he will throw his hat in the ring for a third attempt at the presidency.
Trump last month said he has made up his mind on whether he will run for the White House again in 2024. That decision, however, remains unknown.
Forty-nine percent of respondents polled said they think Trump will ultimately run for president in 2024, with 39 percent saying he will not. Twelve percent said they did not have an opinion.
When asked how likely they would be to vote for a candidate endorsed by Trump, 19 percent of respondents said they would be more likely to support the contender and 41 percent said they would be less likely. Thirty-seven percent of those polled said the former president's endorsement would not make a difference in their vote.
When examined by party, 54 percent of Republicans surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate backed by Trump, with only 6 percent saying they would be less likely. Thirty-four percent of Republicans said a Trump endorsement would not make a difference.
The statistics from Quinnipiac come as the former president has been extremely selective with his endorsements, which are often treated as a coveted prize within the GOP.
The effectiveness of the support, however, is still up for debate.
Trump's favored candidate in the Texas special runoff election last week, Susan Wright, lost to Jake Ellzey.
In a statement on Wednesday, the former president said Wright lost because Democrats voted for Ellzey.
"My endorsed candidate won in the Primary, but the other outstanding candidate won the General Election because virtually 100% of Democrats, approximately 17% of the total vote, supported the candidate I did not endorse," Trump said in a statement.
The former president, however, gained clout on Tuesday, when the candidate he endorsed, Mike Carey, won a special House election in Ohio in a crowded primary field of GOP contenders.
Trump's team in June was reportedly warning Republican candidates running for various offices not to fake endorsements from the former president before he makes an official statement, after a number of contenders were creating the appearance that they were backed by Trump.
The poll surveyed 1,290 U.S. adults nationwide between July 27 and Aug. 2. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. -
2021-08-05 at 9:10 AM UTC
How could Biden do this?200,296 Americans have died from COVID-19 since President Joe Biden took office.
https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/biden-covid-death-tracker/
Bastard!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-08-05 at 12:14 PM UTC
LMFAO Cheer up Stumpy! -
2021-08-05 at 1:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump
How could Biden do this?
https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/biden-covid-death-tracker/
Bastard!
Biden is putting kids in cages and killing people with Covid.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-08-05 at 1:40 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-08-05 at 2:07 PM UTCThe Hill
Five big questions as Jan. 6 panel preps subpoenas
Rebecca Beitsch and Scott Wong
Leaders of the special committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack say they can't let the August recess halt their work and that they're preparing to send a flurry of subpoenas to start gathering evidence.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and staunch Trump defender Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are among those who may be called to testify, in addition to requests for reams of documents and communications.
Here are five big questions facing the special committee as they head into their second month.
Will the panel hit roadblocks for subpoenaed documents?
Members of the committee have made clear that the first stage of their investigation will focus on gathering evidence.
"We have already had discussions about the need to subpoena documents and the sense of urgency we have. Normally we would request voluntary compliance. We may move quickly to subpoenas when it comes to documents so that we ensure that they're preserved and that there's no delay," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters last week.
Experts say this is an important first step for building a case before bringing in any high-profile witnesses like lawmakers or former White House officials.
"You need to inform yourself about as much of the circumstances of the event as you can before you confront witnesses with questions. Because then if they are somehow being evasive, or misleading, or just misleading through omission, you can confront them with documents and say, 'But what about this call record right here?' or 'What about this email right here?'" said Barbara McQuade, who served as a U.S. attorney in the Obama administration.
The move to first subpoena - rather than requesting voluntary compliance - is a sign the committee doesn't expect cooperation and that it feels it can count on the Justice Department for enforcement.
It also puts people on notice and would allow for charges of obstruction of justice if any entities engage in document destruction of phone records, emails or other communications.
After the first Trump impeachment effort, Democrats have learned to "not waste any time going through this dance of accommodation when it's not going to happen," McQuade said.
But the move also comes with some protection for Biden administration officials, who earlier this year told other House committees investigating Jan. 6 that they would need to seek former President Trump's records from the National Archives.
"If there was a subpoena, I think it's much easier for the executive branch to comply and say, 'Look, we didn't give this stuff voluntarily. We had a subpoena, a legal obligation to produce it. And so we did.' So I think there may be some political cover that is achieved through a subpoena," McQuade said.
Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, said in addition to documents the committee should consider trying to obtain outtakes from the video Trump released late on Jan. 6 when he encouraged supporters to "go home" and said, "We love you. You're very special."
The video reportedly required three takes after Trump repeatedly went off script.
"I think it could be valuable. I don't want to overstate its significance, but it's contemporaneous documentation that may provide a strong indication of what his mindset was at the time," Goodman said.
"It sounds as though it's his political aides who tried to rein in what he said in the other two takes."
Should lawmakers like McCarthy and Jordan be called to testify?
McCarthy and Jordan, two of Trump's top allies on Capitol Hill, both have confirmed they held separate phone calls with the former president on Jan. 6.
Investigators are particularly interested in those conversations as they try to figure out what actions Trump took after he delivered a speech outside the White House urging thousands of his supporters to march to the Capitol and "fight like hell" to stop Congress's certification of President Biden's election victory.
But subpoenaing lawmakers can be a complex issue.
The Jan. 6 panel may be hesitant to try to call lawmakers like Jordan to testify for many of the same reasons that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refused to place the Ohio Republican and partisan brawler on the committee.
Some witnesses could "create a potential political circus," Goodman said. "And the committee has so far stepped off on a path that's very somber and solemn and serious in its fact-finding mission, and I worry that some of the witnesses would use the occasion to play to a very different audience and unsettle what truth the committee is trying to investigate."
It's unclear what Jordan's call or calls with Trump that day were about. Jordan has said he doesn't recall what they discussed or what time he spoke to Trump. But he was an influential figure in the GOP effort to overturn the presidential election.
The content of McCarthy's call has been more widely reported, with Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) saying the GOP leader told her about his frantic call with Trump that day begging him to call off his supporters.
"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to Herrera Beutler, after McCarthy assured him it was Trump supporters attacking the Capitol.
Phone records or even other lawmakers may be able to corroborate an account already shared with the media if McCarthy doesn't want to testify.
"I think the strange quality is that they may not need his testimony just like they may not need Trump's testimony to know what he was doing inside the White House," Goodman said.
Still, one of the two GOP members on the committee, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, said he would back an effort to seek testimony from McCarthy.
"I would support subpoenas to anybody that can shed light on that. If that's the leader, that's the leader," Kinzinger recently said on ABC's "This Week."
"I want to know what the president was doing every moment of that day."
Could any Democratic witnesses offer testimony?
Two House Democrats have said publicly they warned police about a possible violent attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters one week before the deadly riot. House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Rep. Frederica Wilson (Fla.) held separate phone calls with top Capitol Police brass, urging them to take measures to harden security at the Capitol.
Wilson told a police captain on Dec. 30 that Trump supporters could try to "kill half of Congress" and then-Vice President Pence to halt the certification, while Waters spoke to then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund for more than an hour on Dec. 31.
"I talked about, No. 1, you can't let them up on the plaza. He said, 'Don't worry, we'll have that barricaded.' I said ... the grassy area might be a problem too ... He said, 'No, we'll have police around, and we won't let that happen,'" Waters recalled in an interview with The Hill.
"I asked him to close off the top of the hill. He didn't agree to that. He said the people, you know, have a right to be on the sidewalks and in the street," she added. "He was so assured that he had it under control."
Waters also said she asked Sund if he would put more police officers on top of buildings, remembering that both President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated by shooters in buildings.
Sund replied that the demonstrators would not be able to climb buildings.
On Jan. 6, as Waters saw images of dozens of rioters scaling the scaffolding around the Capitol, she said she called Sund and proceeded to berate him.
"I called him and I told him how disappointed I was in him. 'So what the hell are you doing?'" Waters said. "And he said, 'We're doing the best we can.'"
The Jan. 6 phone call between Waters and Sund had not been made public before.
Will they go after former Trump officials?
Trump and his legal team would likely turn to the courts to try to stop the committee from subpoenaing any of his former officials.
But a variety of former officials, including those who once worked at the Justice Department, could provide key details for a committee that may delve beyond the security failures leading up to the attack and wade more broadly into Trump's efforts to challenge the election.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the select committee, wouldn't discuss the names of any Trump officials who might be subpoenaed.
"Now that the process of access and individuals is easier, that is important politically, and I appreciate the DOJ position on it," Thompson told reporters, "and it makes the work of the committee that much easier."
Experts warned that the committee would need to tread carefully in some cases - particularly with Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Though he has been a key figure in Trump's efforts to overturn the election, pursuing an interview could complicate an existing Justice Department investigation involving his dealings in Ukraine that could allow him to plead the Fifth to any questions.
But other figures like former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows could help paint a fuller picture of Trump's actions throughout the day, while former Justice Department officials could offer new details on apparent efforts to involve the agency in overturning the election.
McQuade said abuse of office should be just as important to the committee as any other lines of inquiry.
"I think more than just why were we unprepared that day when people stormed the Capitol, I think understanding how democracy is being undermined is an important part of the task as well," she said.
Will there be an August hearing?
Members of the Jan. 6 committee are still weighing whether to hold a public hearing sometime during the six-week summer recess, an idea that's been floated by Thompson.
There's a desire to keep up the momentum following the panel's first televised hearing last week featuring gripping testimony from four Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers who described the emotional and physical toll they've continued to suffer from defending the Capitol that day.
Among the ideas being discussed for the next hearing are examining the security breakdown at the Capitol leading up to and on Jan. 6, coordination and planning for the attack by right-wing paramilitary and white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys and coordination and planning for the "Stop the Steal" effort by Trump and his White House allies.
But at the same time, committee sources said they don't want a hearing just for the sake of holding one. There's also concern among panel members that they might not have enough time to secure documents and witnesses before the August recess is over.
The long summer recess, some panel members believe, could be better spent hiring staff; obtaining and reviewing phone records, text messages and other records; and interviewing witnesses behind closed doors - testimony that could make the panel's televised hearings in the fall more effective and compelling.
"It's still a possibility," Thompson said, "but there's so much information that has to be collected that it's almost impossible to collect the information, do the hearings and have the quality of the hearing I think this committee deserves." -
2021-08-05 at 2:07 PM UTCI think we need to get an official statement from st|1 about his buddy Biden caging kids and murdering people with Covid.
-
2021-08-05 at 2:16 PM UTCBusiness Insider
A top official almost resigned because of Trump's 'direct instructions' to weaponize the DOJ for 'improper ends': report
ssheth@businessinsider.com (Sonam Sheth)
A top official was prepared to resign over Trump's "direct instructions" to use the DOJ to overturn the election results, per CNN.
The official drafted a resignation letter in case Trump fired then-acting AG Jeff Rosen, but Rosen survived Trump's wrath.
The DOJ turned the letter over to the House Oversight Committee as it investigates the Capitol riot.
A top official at the Justice Department was prepared to resign in January because of then-President Donald Trump's "direct instructions" to use the department to push bogus claims of election fraud, CNN reported.
The official, Patrick Hovakamian, was the chief of staff to then-Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen. Hovakamian drafted his resignation letter on January 3 amid anticipation that Trump was going to fire Rosen and replace him with a loyalist, Jeffrey Clark. At the time, Clark was the acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ's civil division, and he supported Trump's efforts to intervene in Georgia's election certification process.
"This evening, after Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen over the course of last week repeatedly refused the President's direct instructions to utilize the Department of Justice's law enforcement powers for improper ends, the President removed Jeff from the Department," Hovakamian wrote in the draft letter, according to CNN.
CNN reported that Hovakamian's letter was addressed to top DOJ officials but was never sent because Trump didn't fire Rosen. The department turned the letter over to the House Oversight Committee as part of the panel's investigation into the events that preceded the deadly January 6 Capitol insurrection. The committee also interviewed Hovakamian, and CNN reported that he was one of half a dozen officials who were prepared to resign if Trump had fired Rosen.
Rosen ultimately survived Trump's wrath and stayed on until President Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20. But even he expressed deep concern with Trump's efforts to weaponize the DOJ to overturn the election results.
In a December 27 phone call to Rosen and his deputy, Richard Donoghue, Trump urged them to "just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me," according to a contemporaneous memo Donoghue wrote summarizing the conversation that was turned over to the House committee.
Rosen and Donoghue pushed back and told Trump that "much of the info you're getting is false" and that his fraud allegations "don't pan out." Donoghue wrote that this came after the DOJ conducted "dozens of investigations" and "hundreds of interviews" related to the allegations and found no evidence of widespread election malfeasance.
But Trump refused to back down, saying, "You guys may not be following the internet the way I do."
Days later, Rosen and Donoghue again expressed shock and concern at Trump and his aides' efforts to nullify the election results.
In a January 1 email, Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows asked Rosen to get Clark to investigate "signature match anomalies" in Fulton County, Georgia.
"Can you get Jeff Clark to engage on this issue immediately to determine if there is any truth to this allegation," Meadows wrote.
Rosen forwarded that email to Donoghue and wrote, "Can you believe this? I am not going to respond to message below."
In another email that day, Meadows asked Rosen to look into a conspiracy theory that the US embassy in Rome somehow switched votes from Trump to Biden during the election.
Rosen forwarded Meadows' email to Donoghue, to which Donoghue replied, "Pure insanity."
Rosen responded to Donoghue saying, "Yes." The acting AG found Meadows' request so concerning that he contemporaneously documented the conversation.
Trump, for his part, continues to claim that he was the rightful winner of the 2020 election and that the race was "rigged" and stolen from him.
In fact, nonpartisan election and cybersecurity experts have said that the past election was the safest and most secure in US history. But that hasn't stopped Republican state legislatures across the country from passing a slew of laws that would not only make it more difficult for voters to cast ballots, but also make it easier for partisan forces to control and potentially overturn states' election results. -
2021-08-05 at 2:21 PM UTCMaking
All the rats
Go
And scurry
CBS News
GOP congressman asks court for immunity from January 6 suit
Melissa Quinn
Washington — Republican Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama is asking a federal court to grant him immunity from a lawsuit alleging he incited the violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
Brooks argued in a filing with the U.S. district court in the District of Columbia he was acting within the scope of his employment as a member of the House when he delivered a speech at a rally outside the White House on January 6.
After his speech and remarks from former President Donald Trump, scores of the former president's supporters descended upon the Capitol and breached the building in an attempt to stop Congress from reaffirming President Biden's win. Five people died and hundreds of people, including law enforcement protecting the building and lawmakers inside, were injured.
The Alabama Republican told the court that as a member of Congress, he is subject to the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from being sued for engaging in their official duties.
Brooks said his speech was "clearly in the context of House floor votes" during the counting of states' Electoral College votes and in part aimed to protect his relationship with the White House to "preserve and promote space and defense jobs" in his congressional district. Brooks said a White House employee asked him to speak at the rally, and he spoke to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows once about the event.
"Cooperating, or not cooperating, with the White House affects a congressman's effectiveness," he argued. "Certainly rejecting the request of the White House to give a speech at the Ellipse could hurt a congressman's effectiveness."
Congressman Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, sued Brooks, Mr. Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and lawyer Rudy Giuliani for their conduct January 6 and argued they conspired to incite the violence there in violence of federal law and District of Columbia statute.
The Justice Department last month declined a request from Brooks to represent him in Swalwell's suit, saying his appearance at the rally at the Ellipse was a campaign activity and inciting an attack on the Capitol falls outside the scope of his employment.
If the Justice Department would have determined Brooks was acting within the realm of his official duties as a member of Congress, the U.S. could have been substituted as a defendant. -
2021-08-05 at 2:23 PM UTCHow about your buddy caging kids, hypocrite? Post a bunch of crap about that.
-
2021-08-05 at 3:56 PM UTC
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wants-supporters-to-carry-trump-cards-2021-8?r=US&IR=T
This thread is now the Official Trump Card thread. Posting is reserved for people who have a Trump Card.
If you want to post in this thread you must post a picture of your Trump Card first.
Sorry guys, but you'd better go and get your Trump Card if you haven't already done so. -
2021-08-05 at 4:06 PM UTCIs that the official seditionist card?
-
2021-08-05 at 4:09 PM UTC
-
2021-08-05 at 4:18 PM UTC
-
2021-08-05 at 5 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wants-supporters-to-carry-trump-cards-2021-8?r=US&IR=T
This thread is now the Official Trump Card thread. Posting is reserved for people who have a Trump Card.
If you want to post in this thread you must post a picture of your Trump Card first.
Sorry guys, but you'd better go and get your Trump Card if you haven't already done so.
That's a nice looking card, it would be good to have one of those for flaunting in Starbucks or Panera bread to trigger some libs. -
2021-08-05 at 5:25 PM UTC
-
2021-08-05 at 5:26 PM UTC
-
2021-08-05 at 5:45 PM UTC
