The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Kirk Gallaway]

Clarence Thomas' wife told Mark Meadows that 'the Biden crime family' and 'ballot fraud co-conspirators' would be 'living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition,' texts show

 

That woman is obviously out of her mind. But they all are. Internet porn came a little too late for Clarence Thomas. Otherwise we might have been able to nab him 30 years ago!      heh heh

Of course the real issue is that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself and was the only justice to rule against release of Trump's records. There seems to be a built in phony excuse in the system that everything is so unprecedented, that there will never be enough evidence to dislodge any member of these exclusive clubs, and high ranking criminals won't be prosecuted.

******

 The bottom line with Putin is still that he wants the same things. He hasn't really backed down about that. He wants Crime a recognized and now wants Donbass  and wants Zelensky to agree not to join Nato. I don't see how this going to change anything. 

There's seems to be a rejuggling of forces, but they're still fighting and moving west to Lviv.

.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Joe Bauer]

55 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

That woman is obviously out of her mind. But they all are.

Of course the real issue is that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself and was the only justice to rule against release of Trump's records. There seems to be a built in phony excuse in the system that everything is so unprecedented, that there will never be enough evidence to dislodge any member of these exclusive clubs, and high ranking criminals won't be prosecuted.

The only time our highest level political figures were actually held accountable for criminal actions was Watergate.

Where 25 of Nixon's staff and their underlings were actually tried, convicted and put in prison. Country Club facilities...but technically still institutions of confinement punishment. Of course Nixon walked due to his buddy Ford giving him a "get out of jail free pass" card.

There were so many major criminal doings by Nixon's posse uncovered during Watergate even the Republicans could not defend him in that corruption debacle.

And ... we have all read accounts where the "Plumbers" Watergate break in and their other revealed political sabotage shenanigans such as breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist office and feeding false Ted Kennedy damaging info on Chappaquiddick were "just the tip of the iceberg" regards the true depth of their criminal enterprise doings under their complicate God Father Nixon's rein.

The law breaking under Nixon was simply unfettered out-of-control.

Other than that Nixon criminal gang roundup, countless government officials on the highest levels since then have gotten away with endless subversions of our laws.

It's like the standard for seriously confronting and criminally charging anyone on that level is "if it isn't as bad as Nixon's Watergate crimes" ... let it go.

Clarence Thomas should resign. His one dissenting vote against releasing Trump's White House communication records was so illogically biased and blatantly self-serving and protecting of his wife's interests ... it's a no brainer.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

And her husband is the "only" SCOTUS member to vote against the release of Trump's White House Communication records to the January 6th committee ... which included his wife's 26 frantic ( you've got to do something to override Pence and rescind the election!) messages to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows?

Uhhh ... talk about bias and placing his wife's interests above the rest of us ... much?

John Fugelsang suggested yesterday that, "Release the Kraken," may also be Ginni Thomas's code words for asking Clarence to fulfill his bi-annual husbandly duties... 🤣

Edited March 26, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

There are other instances that came to the fore where Thomas should have recused himself but the Scotus declined to take the case, with one case where Thomas and Alito issued a brief statement actually suggesting the majority acted too soon in shutting the case down. So Thomas was not even shying away from a decision where he should have recused himself.

****

 

From this NY Times article: "Justice Thomas Ruled on Election Cases. Should His Wife’s Texts Have Stopped Him?" https://nyti.ms/36o1cJX :

But Justice Thomas did participate in a ruling in January on an emergency application from Mr. Trump asking the court to block release of White House records concerning the attack on the Capitol. The court rejected the request, in a sharp rebuke to the former president.

Only Justice Thomas noted a dissent, giving no reasons.

He also participated in the court’s consideration of whether to hear a related appeal, one in which Mr. Meadows filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that “the outcome of this case will bear directly” on his own efforts to shield records from the House committee investigating the attacks beyond those he had provided.

The Supreme Court last month refused to hear the case, without noted dissent. There was no indication that Justice Thomas had recused himself.

In December 2020, around the time of the text messages, Justice Thomas participated in a ruling on an audacious lawsuit by Texas asking the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states. The court rejected the request, with Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. issuing a brief statement suggesting the majority had acted too soon in shutting the case down.

In February 2021, Justice Thomas addressed election fraud in a dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision to turn away a challenge to Pennsylvania’s voting procedures.

“We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud,” he wrote. “But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence.”

Edited March 26, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

 

 

Ukraine captures one of Russia's most advanced electronic warfare systems, which could reveal military secrets, reports say (msn.com)

[Matt Allison]

 

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

In February 2021, Justice Thomas addressed election fraud in a dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision to turn away a challenge to Pennsylvania’s voting procedures.

“We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud,” he wrote. “But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence.”

The funny things is this was looked at and shot down over 90 times but had no business with the Supremes. Thomas would have ignored the law (probably Alito too) and attempted to overturn it not because of any facts or legal arguments but because that's the kind of scumbag he is. That's why he dissented on one of the most basic tenants of election law. 

The ONLY argument that came close to having merit from the Trumpo-fascists was that the rule changes instituted by legislatures should have been nullified. But the lower courts know, as do fascists like Thomas and Trump (who try to take advantage of their supporter's ignorance), that the remedy for these cases involve ALL votes in the NEXT election, not democratic votes in carefully selected races of the past election. Candidates actually don't have standing either as the participants are ALL voters against the appropriate state authority who instituted the rule change.

Ignorant republicans are easy to convince though "cuz the constitution says..." in spite of the fact that state legislatures have deferred their authority over to evenly divided state election commissions. Other than scumbag Thomas, no judge would disenfranchise anyone who voted according to the instructions the commissions have approved, much less only democrats. 

Knowledgeable people suggesting that are fascists, the others are willfully stupid in most cases.

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Biden on Russia's Putin: `This man cannot remain in power' [Video] (aol.com)

[Matt Allison]

1 minute ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

Biden on Russia's Putin: `This man cannot remain in power' [Video] (aol.com)

He's not wrong...

[Matt Allison]

19 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Ignorant republicans are easy to convince though "cuz the constitution says..." in spite of the fact that state legislatures have deferred their authority over to evenly divided state election commissions. Other than scumbag Thomas, no judge would disenfranchise anyone who voted according to the instructions the commissions have approved, much less only democrats. 

Knowledgeable people suggesting that are fascists, the others are willfully stupid in most cases.

In just a few short years we've seen how quickly the U.S. could go t*ts up thanks to lunatic right wingers on its highest court.

Thomas should be impeached.

Roberts needs to step up and assert control of the court, as its reputation is currently in the gutter.

[Douglas Caddy]

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     You got suckered by the M$M Trumpaganda on this one.  This is, precisely, why you need to read the Mueller Report.

     The truth is that Manafort, (Stone, Trump, et.al.) stonewalled Mueller's investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign's collusion with the Kremlin (Kilimnik, Veselnitskaya, Assange) as I pointed out above.  The investigation was inconclusive.

     Secondly, Mueller found ample evidence that Trump had obstructed justice, but did not indict Trump because the DOJ did not permit him to indict a sitting President.*

*What the Mueller Report Says About Obstruction

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvbubkILk9gIVLCCtBh0FuwEdEAAYASAAEgKRJ_D_BwE

W.--

You like academic tomes. Here is a study of the Russiagate-Trump narratives. Just a different point of view. 

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/33281/1/A Catastrophic Media Failure%2C Trump and the Illusion of Truth. PrePub Graham Majin.pdf

PS. I stand by my sentiment. Whenever a conservative, a globalist, a liberal, a blue or a red, or a rightie or leftie conducts a study (or commences committee hearings), they write the abstract and conclusion first. 

This fellow above is a smart guy, and performed a nice study, and found the media just repeated Russiagate falsehoods over and over again until they became truths.

“It was Napoleon, I believe, who said that there is only one figure in rhetoric of serious importance, namely, repetition. The thing affirmed comes by repetition to fix itself in the mind in such a way that it is accepted in the end as a demonstrated truth.” Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd. 1896, 2001.

Despite all the academic trappings and nomenclature, I suspect the author is also a right-winger. That's the sad thing---you need people with opposed partisan axes to grind to get perspective.  In US politics no one seems interested n the truth. 

What has happened on the Hunter Biden laptop story is interesting also. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Putin cannot remain in power, says Biden

Biden profusely cites God in his call for regime change in Moscow. 

I happen to think a more-aggressive response to Putin is warranted.

Citing God and calling for regime change----mixing Bible-thumping and regime-change politics might be the wrong kind of saber-rattling. 

Biden could be a dangerous person to leave loose at a podium without supervision. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.--

You like academic tomes. Here is a study of the Russiagate-Trump narratives. Just a different point of view. 

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/33281/1/A Catastrophic Media Failure%2C Trump and the Illusion of Truth. PrePub Graham Majin.pdf

 

 

 

Ben,

      This is garbage-- nothing but pseudo-intellectual blather based on erroneous assumptions.

       For example, your UK author wrote, "Two days after the news broke that Trump didn't collude with Russia..." 

       Huh?

      That speaks volumes.

      He, obviously, doesn't understand the facts in the case.

      Newsflash.  The Mueller Report never concluded that Trump did not "collude" with Russia.

      That was merely the bogus spin in the right wing media.

Edited March 27, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

2 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

      This is garbage-- nothing but pseudo-intellectual blather based on erroneous assumptions.

       For example, your UK author wrote, "Two days after the news broke that Trump didn't collude with Russia..."  Huh?

      That speaks volumes.

      He, obviously, doesn't understand the facts in the case.

      Newsflash.  The Mueller Report never concluded that Trump did not "collude" with Russia.

      That was merely the bogus spin in the right wing media.

You may be right.

On the other hand, you have been skeptical of other government investigations, conclusions, and framing.  As well as affiliated or co-opted M$M coverage. 

You place a great deal of faith in the Mueller report. So it goes.