Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:07 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:06 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:39 am

Little Raven wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:58 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:57 pm
Authorities seized 1,000 rounds of rifle ammunition, 2,000 rounds of shotgun ammo, 75 “military-style” combat knives, two hatchets and two swords from the home

Yes, but were they curved swords?

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:31 am I read somewhere else that it's helpful to think of these two new QAnon reps as what they actually are: actors.

They weren't elected to actually create policy (although their votes will push bad policy along) or do anything to legitimately help their constituents. Their primary function is to act as wind-up "OUTRAGE!" machines. Wind them up and point them at the nearest camera to say the lines and create soundbites of whatever batshit GOP talking point is top of mind that day.

I expect that they will continue to gain an outsized portion of the media spotlight (they're both exceedingly good at being attention whores) while the rest of the GOP will mostly just try to ignore them rather than actively speaking out against them. I doubt they necessarily gain any traction, but we'll always hear exactly what their monumentally stupid take is on any given topic for the next few years.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:39 am

Little Raven wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:58 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:57 pmWell, except for the ones who have been actively conspiring to commit acts of insurrection but didn't make it to DC on the 6th.

I suspect that's a pretty small number.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the Feds aren't coming for them.

'Dead men can’t pass shit laws': Queens Proud Boy busted with ammo stockpile

A far-right extremist arrested for stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo inside his Middle Village home encouraged the murder of U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock and liberal politicians throughout “target-rich” New York, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 1:55 pmWhen you go through 200+ rounds on any given range day and can save over 50% buying in bulk, 2000 rounds isn't a stockpile, it's smart shopping.

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:55 pm If the media could just relent from waiting with baited breath for the next outrageous thing done by Greene or Boebert, and if they could stop hanging on every word that comes out of their stupid mouths, we'd be so much better off.

Yes, it was important to cover the fact that the GOP now has two certified members of the lunatic fringe representing it in Congress. Yes some investigation was merited into how and why their constituents voted for these two loons. But now? What's the point. We all know they're there. We all know they are crazy. Is it really news that two crazy people are acting like crazy people? Stop reporting on all the crazy and starve them of oxygen, or at least minimize their exposure and harm.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:05 pm The real question, to me, is whether the FBI rolled up to his door because they were tipped off about his tiny-but-illegal cache of ammunition, or did they find the ammunition after rolling up to his door because he was on Parler talking sedition and murder? I'm inclined to believe the latter, but it doesn't seem to be spelled out in the reporting I've seen so far.

McConnell also acknowledged that the House has impeached Trump and that the Senate is waiting for the lower chamber to transmit the article so that a trial can begin.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:26 am And it would put basturds like Cruz and Hawley between a rock and a hard place trying to capture the deplorables.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:11 am I would donate money for that.

Unless it's another grift.

Yeah, it's another grift. Never mind.

TheMix wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:01 pm Hopefully we (America) will never forget.

TheMix wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:01 pm Hopefully we (America) will never forget.

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.

The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away previous lower court opinions that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses take money from foreign and domestic governments.

The order was issued without comment or dissent.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will preside over former President Donald Trump's trial in the Senate, a Senate source tells NPR. Leahy, 80, is the president pro tempore of the Senate, a constitutional role given to the longest-serving lawmaker in the majority party. The president pro tempore is third in the line of presidential succession, after the vice president and House speaker.

"I have presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate," Leahy told reporters. "I don't think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours."

Leahy added: "I'm not presenting the evidence. I am making sure that procedures are followed. I don't think there's any senator who over the 40-plus years I've been here that would say that I am anything but impartial in voting on procedure."

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:34 pm Apparently running out the clock was a viable strategy:

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.

The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away previous lower court opinions that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses take money from foreign and domestic governments.

The order was issued without comment or dissent.

Walter Shaub resigned as director of the United States Office of Government Ethics after clashing with the then-president. A longtime critic of the twice-impeached Trump—who still faces a trial in the U.S. Senate for inciting a deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol—Shaub blasted the court's decision.

"That's insane. They're not moot," said Shaub. "He still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money."

"If ever there were cases that fit the mootness exception these are they. The fact they arrived at the SCOTUS at the end of Trump's term demonstrate precisely why these actions can easily 'evade review.' As for 'capable of repetition,' Trump has stated his plan to run in [four years]," tweeted Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Ifill added that "had they held the cases to see if Trump is barred from holding office after Senate conviction, I could better understand. But even then, we need to know the contours of the emoluments clause for any president."

"The actual holding here isn't that the emolument cases are moot. It's that the president is above the law, because any attempt to bind the president through the courts will easily exceed the duration of the president's term in office, so don't bother," declared Will Stancil, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota Law School Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:43 pm It's hard to understand how Trump still having the money from his businesses isn't by itself a complete defense to mootness. Totally baffling.

And that's to say nothing of Trump stonewalling subpoena enforcement during his presidency.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:46 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:43 pm It's hard to understand how Trump still having the money from his businesses isn't by itself a complete defense to mootness. Totally baffling.

And that's to say nothing of Trump stonewalling subpoena enforcement during his presidency.

The more upbeat are saying they'll just throw this into the corruption cases against Trump. Let's hope so. But I still think there won't be any.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:51 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:46 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:43 pm It's hard to understand how Trump still having the money from his businesses isn't by itself a complete defense to mootness. Totally baffling.

And that's to say nothing of Trump stonewalling subpoena enforcement during his presidency.

The more upbeat are saying they'll just throw this into the corruption cases against Trump. Let's hope so. But I still think there won't be any.

There will 100% be corruption cases. The real question is how high up they'll go.