Jeanine’s Memes
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
51 responses to “Jeanine’s Memes”
-
-
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s staff prodded colleges and libraries to buy her books
Sotomayor’s staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009.
In her case, the documents reveal repeated examples of taxpayer-funded court staff performing tasks for the justice’s book ventures, which workers in other branches of government are barred from doing.
“This is one of the most basic tenets of ethics laws that protects taxpayer dollars from misuse,” said Kedric Payne, a former deputy chief counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics and current general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government watchdog group in Washington.
-
-
Sad but true. But the remedy for senile dementia is not pathological narcissism.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The youngest of that bunch has been dead for almost half a century. Neither Russia or China resembles that today. You’re beating a dead horse. Nice work 🙂
-
Without that youngster, China wouldn’t have “wet markets” haha.
-
Without that youngster, China wouldn’t have “wet markets” haha.
-
-
When is everyone going to die?
-
-
-
From the Missouri Independent:
Trump borrows from the language of Hitler for anti-immigration speech in New Hampshire
As leaders in Washington negotiate a bipartisan immigration deal, former President Donald Trump used inflammatory language to demonize immigrants during a Saturday campaign speech in New Hampshire that echoed Adolf Hitler.
Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president in next year’s election, said that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” He pledged to toughen immigration laws, including by reinstating a travel ban from “terror-plagued countries” and requiring “strong ideological screening” for immigrants in the country without authorization.
“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” he told his supporters in Durham, New Hampshire, referring to immigrants.
“That’s what they’ve done. They’ve poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world. Nobody’s even looking at it.”
Hitler used similar language about Jews “poison[ing] the blood of others,” in “Mein Kampf,” his 1925 manifesto.
Trump also praised authoritarian leaders in other countries, including North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whom he called “very nice” and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whom he called “highly respected.”
-
I don’t like Trump worth a damn, but please give the nonsense a break. That kind of rhetoric helps move us towards irreconcilable differences and an actual insurrection.
-
We had an actual insurrection. Another insurrection? Okay. But we had an insurrection.
-
We had an insurrection in 1776, and then again in 1861. That’s two, but that’s all.
Neither Trump nor anyone else has been either charged with or convicted of insurrection for 1/6 (US code Title 18 section 2383).
1/6 was a demonstration that degenerated into a riot because the authorities were not prepared to deal with it. If it had been an insurrection the participants would have been carrying their rifles and shooting the Capitol police. It is not hard to tell the difference.
We will likely find, if we ever get an honest accounting, that the loudest agitators for violence were Fed paid plants, just like they were during the anti Vietnam war protests. Some things don’t change much.
-
Was anyone charged and/or convicted in 1776 or 1861? Then what makes them insurrections?
Trump’s plan was to interfere with government decisions and operation. That’s insurrection. We have sworn testimony his goal was to seize power by not relinquishing it.
-
Trump did not do more than Dems have done in previous elections. I don’t like it on either side, but contesting elections is not insurrection.
We’ve had no due process, no charges, no trial with a jury, no calling witnesses, no confronting accusers. Neither you nor I, nor the Secretary of State in Maine, nor an administrative judge in Colorado gets to unilaterally decide that someone has committed insurrection.
What little 14th Amendment case law there is holds that a finding of insurrection must be pursuant to an act of Congress. That’s why I cited the section of Federal law dealing with insurrection. US criminal code is an act of Congress.
I despise Trump, but he gets due process just like you or me.
-
There was the Revolutionary meme “We must all hang together or surely we will all hang separately.” Those guys were pretty sure they were insurrectionists, and they knew that’s what the Brits considered them.
That Declaration of Independence thingy was something of an announcement of insurrection. Bills of succession passed by the Confederate states framed the issue in 1861. That’s what makes them insurrections.
Trump did not do more than Dems have done in previous elections. I don’t like it on either side, but contesting elections is not insurrection.
We’ve had no due process, no indictments for insurrection, no trial with a jury, no calling witnesses, no confronting accusers. Neither you nor I, nor the Secretary of State in Maine, nor an administrative judge in Colorado gets to unilaterally decide that someone has committed insurrection.
I dislike Trump, but he gets due process just like you or me. Betchya a buck that’s about what the Supreme Court will find.
-
Trump attempted to create fraudulent electors. Dems haven’t tried that. The recorded call to Michigan even has him and the RNC woman assuring legal representation.
-
You have the right to your opinion, but you don’t get to unilaterally make findings of fraud or any other violation of the law.
Think due process and the presumption of innocence. They benefit all of us. Even Trump and Biden get them too.
-
Insurrection and Trump’s involvement has been a stated fact by a court of law. Courts determine facts all of the time. They very often declare people factually dead, for example. Even if the SCOTUS overturns the Colorado ruling on the disqualification by 14th, they cannot overrule the facts determined in the suit.
-
Declaring an individual guilty of a crime is not one of the “stated facts” a court is authorized to declare – at least not without due process and a criminal trial resulting in conviction.
-
They didn’t declare him guilty of a ‘crime’. It was a fact found in a civil suit.
Was O.J. found guilty of the crime of murdering Ron Goldman? Nope. He was found liable in a wrongful death suit. The fact established was O.J. killed Ron Goldman.
If there were a requirement that a candidate for president must be 35, born in the US territory, not commit insurrection, and have not killed anyone, then O.J. would be disqualified.
-
Arguable, at best.
There is Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, though, which states:
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This should have been a major hurdle for the Colorado Supreme Court, since it mean that the states have not had the necessary enforcement powers delegated to them by congress to opine on the 14th Amendment.
-
This is the kind of thing, if at all, SCOTUS will argue. They will not mention participation in insurrection at all.
A lot of very savvy Constitutional lawyer types are musing on just how badly the justices will twist themselves in knots.
-
They do not need to twist themselves into any kind of knot to invoke Section 5 of the 14th Amendment if they decide to overturn the Colorado supreme court.
I think the best way to assure Mr. Trump’s (and the rest of the 01/06 crowd’s) ineligibility for office would have been to adopt the federal law proposed by congressman Steve Cohen in 2021.
-
What law did Colorado enact?
That would be best, but this Congress?
-
I don’t know what laws Colorado has or has not enacted, but from the standpoint of the strict wording of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (and the 10th Amendment), Colorado is not empowered to enact any laws regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Only congress has such power.
-
They didn’t enact a law. A party brought a civil suit to apply the Constitution concerning Trump’s standing to run for office. The State is responsible for conducting the election in accordance with federal laws. The court found by the preponderance of evidence Trump engaged in insurrection, and by the 14th was disqualified.
It was appealed and the SCOCO upheld the disqualification. On to SCOTUS. BTW, one thing SCOTUS cannot do is reverse the facts found. Only the lower court can do that.
No one brought suit claiming Obama AND McCain were disqualified for not having been born in the US. They could have.
-
-
-
-
-
Not to mention, everyone forgets the Amnesty Act of 1872 that rendered section 3 moot. That is likely lost of those on this board as they are still wishing to hang Confederates for their crimes 158 after the fact.
-
Not to mention, everyone forgets the Amnesty Act of 1872 that rendered section 3 moot. That is likely lost of those on this board as they are still wishing to hang Confederates for their crimes 158 after the fact.
-
That would have been more appropriately not wanting to provoke Israel in the left frame. In the right frame what the Dems will accomplish is electing Trump for a second term. Two clean wiffs in one cartoon, so glad you posted it.:)
We had an insurrection, Lefty…we saw it with our own eyes that police and civilians were attacked and killed by Trump’s supporters who were attacking the U.S. Capitol to stop the election process. This article is simply the news reporting what Trump continues to say. One can justify calling Trump a traitor by the definition in the Constitution…you know that document that conservatives claim they support. Day in and day out, liberals and Democrats are called communists in this forum without a shred of justification. It’s as if some of the Republicans don’t know the definition of communism. A key component of communism is that In a Communist system, individual people do not own land, factories, or machinery. Instead, the government or the whole community owns these things. That is not and has not been the policy of the Democratic party. In fact, our capitalist system has thrived under Democratic leadership. Thanks for the discussion.
-
One can justify calling Trump a traitor by the definition in the Constitution.
There is no definition of “traitor” in the United States Constitution.
There is a definition of treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Mr. Trump has not been, and will not be, charged with treason, much less convicted of it. That is because his behavior, reprehensible though it may be, does not fit the definition of treason contained within the Constitution.
-
“We had an insurrection, Lefty…we saw it with our own eyes that police and civilians were attacked and killed by Trump’s supporters who were attacking the U.S. Capitol to stop the election process.”
Clearly, you’ve not watched the unedited camera footage.
“One can justify calling Trump a traitor by the definition in the Constitution..”
Clearly, you’ve also not read the Constitution or USC 18, which require that pesky element of being at a declared War for someone to be charged with Treason. Hence why it’s not been used since WWII.
“That is not and has not been the policy of the Democratic party.”
That is exactly the policies that are being pushed, that the State is the answer to everything and if someone is making money, they should be punished for it and Government should take ownership.
“In fact, our capitalist system has thrived under Democratic leadership.”
We operate in a crony capitalism state, hence Solyndra, Insurance Market Places and a host of other entities that without the Fed would not exist, or would’ve never existed to defraud the American people of their tax dollars.
-
Clearly, you have not read the Constitution definition:
“Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Trump called for an insurrection against the U.S. government to stop the valid election process…thus calling for attacking the government, which is calling for war against the elected representatives, Capitol police, and staff. Racist militias were clearly called to the Capitol with weapons (which were found) and violence ensued. His words from the podium gave “Aid and Comfort” to those gathered to stop the election process and attack the U.S. government, including Vice President Pence. Trump’s own recorded words incriminate him, as does the testimony of the militia members and others convicted of violence in the attack on the Capitol. Trump has been defined as driving this insurrection by several U.S. State governments and may be left off some ballots based on his violent rhetoric…we will see.
The fact that some component of the Republican party continues to deny that Trump lost in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is a major weakness for that party moving forward as evidenced in Virginia’s last state election.
Matt, can you answer a few questions? Do you believe the election was stolen? Do you support the violent overthrow of the U.S. government? Are you willing to take up arms against the government if an election does not go your way?
Thanks for the discussion.
-
” shall consist only in levying War against them”
Read & understand more, comment less. For treason to be changed, we must be in a declared War.
“Matt, can you answer a few questions? Do you believe the election was stolen? Do you support the violent overthrow of the U.S. government? Are you willing to take up arms against the government if an election does not go your way?”
None of that is relevant to this discussion and your lack of legal knowledge. Those are nothing more than red herrings.
You throw around terms like racist and Nazi to dehumanize anyone who dares not agree with you. It’s called hyperbole.
-
We disagree Matt. It does not state in the Constitution that it need be a “declared War”.
As for Nazis and racists, do you realize that Nazis and racists actually marched on UVA, and Trump defended the White-Nationalist Protesters saying, there were ‘Some Very Fine People on Both Sides’. Again, like the attack on the Capitol, this protest resulted in violence, injuries, and a killing. Do you knew any fine Nazis or racists, Matt? I disagree with you, Matt, but I have no reason to call you a Nazi or racist. Your statement about how I use those terms is simply wrong. It’s not about you or me, Matt. It’s about whether you defend Trump’s words and actions. Two State Supreme Courts have legal opinions that Trump’s words and actions meet the standard for treason and thus he should be banned from their ballots. Do you agree with Trump’s calling for an attack on the Capitol for stop the U.S. government?
-
“We disagree Matt. It does not state in the Constitution that it need be a “declared War”.”
Yes, yes it does in the very text you cite. Elsewise it would be considered sedition.
“Do you knew [sic] any fine Nazis or racists, Matt? I disagree with you, Matt, but I have no reason to call you a Nazi or racist. Your statement about how I use those terms is simply wrong.”
Again, more nonsense that is irrelevant. Umm no you’re just calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you a Nazi without understanding that term or what it meant to be one. Thereby, minimizing what people endured at their hands during WWII.
” Two State Supreme Courts have legal opinions that Trump’s words and actions meet the standard for treason and thus he should be banned from their ballots.”
You might want to again read, it wasn’t two State Supreme Courts, which by the way cannot invoke the 14th Amendment (that’s Congress) and also ignore the Amnesty Act of 1872 or as it has been pointed out Section V of that very Amendment.
There is no amount of facts that you could be shown that will dissuade you form spouting hyperbole.
-
Ok – maybe I missed it. Please show me in the following direct quoted text from the U.S. Constitution on treason, where it states the word “declared” or states “declared war”:
“Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
To levy war means to enlist or impose war, which is exactly what Trump is charged with doing in his instructions to his angry followers to charge the Capitol.
-
“Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
You this is such because they Capitalized War, there is also 247 years of case law to back that statement up, but what do I know.
“To levy war means to enlist or impose war, which is exactly what Trump is charged with doing in his instructions to his angry followers to charge the Capitol.”
No, not even in the slightest. You can tell this, because we know what he’s been charged with and that is not it.
As I said before, no amount of fact based evidence will sway your opinion, you’re an entrenched partisan.
-
Joe said, “We saw it with our own eyes that police and civilians were attacked and killed by Trump’s supporters.”
Quiz: How many people died during the “insurrection” and how many were killed by Trump supporters?
Let me make your job easy. From Factcheck.org: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/
Maybe you’d prefer the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html
What happened Jan. 6 was wrong, wrong, wrong, and Trump’s involvement disqualifies him in my mind from serving again as president. But let’s get the facts straight about what actually happened.
Follow-up quiz: How many police were injured in the “mostly peaceful” protests in Portland, Ore., in 2020? Here’s the New York Times to help you: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/us/portland-protests-fact-check.html
Finally, given what we now know from recently released videos about how most people entered the U.S. Capitol building Jan. 6, and using the same standards applied to the Portland riots, can we say that Jan. 6 was a “mostly peaceful” insurrection?
One can justify calling Trump a traitor by the definition in the Constitution.
There is no definition of “traitor” in the United States Constitution.
There is a definition of “treason”:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Mr. Trump has not been, and will not be, charged with treason, much less convicted of it. That is because his behavior, reprehensible as it was, does not fit the definition of treason contained within the Constitution.
-
But the old man was not a traitor, racist or a Nazi…which is the problem with the supposed leader of the Republican party at this time. The Republican part has no clear policy other than to be against whatever the Dems have as policy. The Repubs lost on womens’ rights in VA and now just scream about the border. To fix the border, the parties will have to come together to pass a comprehensive immigration program, which seems impossible for the current fascist in charge of the Repub party right now since he is attacking immigrants like a Nazi and still claiming he won the election while it’s clear to all that he got his butt kicked. Put him up again and he will get it kicked even worse (if the traitor is even allowed to run).
Say what?! UTC+14?! If ever I thought our time zones in the US were messed up, and that the DST/EST was real hot mess, this is beyond the pale.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/International_Date_Line.png
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.