President Trump just placed the DC police under federal control

[Edgetho]

You have to remember a lot of people He hired were on recommendations of members of the club....to keep Him reigned in.
Look at who He brought on this time and all the noise from the howler monkeys.

It is true that The Deep State consists of many Republicans. A lot of whom are quite comfortable playing the Washington Generals to the dimocrap scum Harlem Globetrotters. Professional Losers.

Those people don't have a clue how to Lead, how to be in a majority. In fact, they don't want to be. The Murkowski's and Collins' and the Mitch The Bitches of the Party. Although Mitch does deserve credit for keeping the worst scumbag (merrick garland) to ever be nominated to SCOTUS out of it, that's about it.

The New Republican Party is a Take Charge Party with Take Charge people and Take Charge Leadership. Something we haven't seen since Nixon. Even Ronaldus Magnus was cowered by the DISGUSTING FILTH who, for way, WAY too long were the King Makers of this Country. Which wouldn't have such a bad thing except for the fact that the DISGUSTING FILTH is led by Rosie O'Donnell wannabes and Suzy Sorority types through and through

 

[Hafar1014]

What if Mexico agreed to allow China to build bases in Mexico along the US border and station Chinese bombers, fighters and missiles there? Would you act like Russia has and bomb Mexico?

The Israelis have fifty hostages for every one held by Hamas.

Israel doesnt hold hostages they are criminals

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey is deploying 300 to 400 National Guard troops to the District of Columbia at the request of the Trump administration, the governor's office said in a statement on Saturday.
[…]
Drew Galang, a spokesperson for Morrisey, said the state's National Guard received the order to send equipment and personnel to D.C. late on Friday and was working to organize the deployment.”

Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to US capital

(Reuters) -The Republican governors of three states are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the request of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has portray...

www.yahoo.com

The fascist right has abandoned any pretense of advocacy for lawful, constitutional governance.

 

[Auld Phart]

typical democrat

hates the idea of law and order.

 

[yidnar]

“West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey is deploying 300 to 400 National Guard troops to the District of Columbia at the request of the Trump administration, the governor's office said in a statement on Saturday.
[…]
Drew Galang, a spokesperson for Morrisey, said the state's National Guard received the order to send equipment and personnel to D.C. late on Friday and was working to organize the deployment.”

Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to US capital

(Reuters) -The Republican governors of three states are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the request of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has portray...

www.yahoo.com

The fascist right has abandoned any pretense of advocacy for lawful, constitutional governance.

the left wants crime to run rampant in the Nations Capital .. treason !

 

[Crepitus]

“West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey is deploying 300 to 400 National Guard troops to the District of Columbia at the request of the Trump administration, the governor's office said in a statement on Saturday.
[…]
Drew Galang, a spokesperson for Morrisey, said the state's National Guard received the order to send equipment and personnel to D.C. late on Friday and was working to organize the deployment.”

Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to US capital

(Reuters) -The Republican governors of three states are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the request of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has portray...

www.yahoo.com

The fascist right has abandoned any pretense of advocacy for lawful, constitutional governance.

At least they are no longer claiming tRump doesn't have the authority to call out the national guard.

 

[Auld Phart]

At least they are no longer claiming tRump doesn't have the authority to call out the national guard.

hey, moron.

You do know the president has to go thru the governor to call out the NG, right?

who was the governor of DC on Jan 6, 2001?

 

[Dekster]

“West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey is deploying 300 to 400 National Guard troops to the District of Columbia at the request of the Trump administration, the governor's office said in a statement on Saturday.
[…]
Drew Galang, a spokesperson for Morrisey, said the state's National Guard received the order to send equipment and personnel to D.C. late on Friday and was working to organize the deployment.”

Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to US capital

(Reuters) -The Republican governors of three states are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the request of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has portray...

www.yahoo.com

The fascist right has abandoned any pretense of advocacy for lawful, constitutional governance.

West Virginia lives off the government tit. They shall not anger the budgeter in chief

 

[dudmuck]

View attachment 1148063

Tacos. lottsa Tacos. anybody want a Taco? come on folks, they're chicken flavor...

 

[toobfreak]

President Trump just placed the DC police under federal control​

What do you think about that?

I understand that the DC police are more than OK with it, they are ENDORSING the move.

 

[scruffy]

I understand that the DC police are more than OK with it, they are ENDORSING the move.

Yep. Their own union boss is accusing the police chief of cooking the books. And he must have heard it from the rank and file. The DC cops like being federalized. They don't like their police chief.

 

[toobfreak]

Yep. Their own union boss is accusing the police chief of cooking the books.

I imagine a lot of that goes on, in policing, in law and in politics. Cook the books, always just to try to make yourself look better than you really are or someone else worse.

 

[toobfreak]

I imagine a lot of that goes on, in policing, in law and in politics. Cook the books, always just to try to make yourself look better than you really are or someone else worse.

I should add to that: I wonder how it is that all these places cook their books---

1. Police stations
2. Mayoral offices
3. Courts and AGs
4. Political parties

But the only person who ever gets nabbed or prosecuted for it is Donald Trump? And for what? Because his book-keeper recorded legal installment payments for legal services by his attorney as legal services.

 

[sartre play]

Scumbag voters elect scumbag politicians. Period.

BOTH SIDES.

 

[Kilroy2]

In shock?

Federal appeals court judges suggested Wednesday they may be willing to move President Donald Trump’s appeal of his 34-count criminal conviction from state to federal court, a move that could make it easier to throw out the only felony conviction against Trump—and all but erase the president’s felony charges.
_____________________
The three-judge panel, which included judges appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, suggested they may be amenable to Trump’s request, arguing that since the Supreme Court ruled after Trump was found guilty that he can’t be criminally charged based on “official acts” in office, there’s a “strong interest” in letting a federal court decide the “weighty interests” at play in the case.

Trump Hush Money Conviction: How Appeals Court Could Kill Trump's Felony Charges

Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts, but never had to serve any kind of sentence for his crimes.

www.forbes.com

If the case was in federal court, Trump could ask to have the conviction dismissed because it involved evidence related to his official acts as president—and a court could be likely to grant the request given the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which said Trump’s immunity from some criminal charges includes charges that are based on evidence from his official presidential acts. Yet Nixon got shot down years ago so does a president really have absolute immunity or is it all about the OPTICS OF THE PRESIDENCY and wheter Republicans or Democrats are sitting in the court.

Trumps behavior hardly holds up to what the constitution says. It just weak people sit on the courts.

Is Justice a coin flip that some believe this and other believe that.

The deeds of Trump are known, just because republicans hate the optics of it all is just the way power exsists in the USA.

In shock?

Federal appeals court judges suggested Wednesday they may be willing to move President Donald Trump’s appeal of his 34-count criminal conviction from state to federal court, a move that could make it easier to throw out the only felony conviction against Trump—and all but erase the president’s felony charges.
_____________________
The three-judge panel, which included judges appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, suggested they may be amenable to Trump’s request, arguing that since the Supreme Court ruled after Trump was found guilty that he can’t be criminally charged based on “official acts” in office, there’s a “strong interest” in letting a federal court decide the “weighty interests” at play in the case.

Trump Hush Money Conviction: How Appeals Court Could Kill Trump's Felony Charges

Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts, but never had to serve any kind of sentence for his crimes.

www.forbes.com

Not really, it was a vote along party lines 5/4 as it was a majority decision. Some thought as you suggested but at least 4 disagreed. Giving evil person absolute immunity is like giving the devel a free reign.

Justice John Roberts’ majority decision said that a former president has criminal immunity for some official actions taken while in office. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity,” Roberts explained.

So what he is saying that if anyone else did what trump did then they would be a criminal but because he is president, he gets a free ride.

YEt why did Nixon get a free ride. Republicans did not control the supreme court.

 

[Delldude]

If the case was in federal court, Trump could ask to have the conviction dismissed because it involved evidence related to his official acts as president—and a court could be likely to grant the request given the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which said Trump’s immunity from some criminal charges includes charges that are based on evidence from his official presidential acts. Yet Nixon got shot down years ago so does a president really have absolute immunity or is it all about the OPTICS OF THE PRESIDENCY and wheter Republicans or Democrats are sitting in the court.

Trumps behavior hardly holds up to what the constitution says. It just weak people sit on the courts.

Is Justice a coin flip that some believe this and other believe that.

The deeds of Trump are known, just because republicans hate the optics of it all is just the way power exsists in the USA.




Not really, it was a vote along party lines 5/4 as it was a majority decision. Some thought as you suggested but at least 4 disagreed. Giving evil person absolute immunity is like giving the devel a free reign.

Justice John Roberts’ majority decision said that a former president has criminal immunity for some official actions taken while in office. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity,” Roberts explained.

So what he is saying that if anyone else did what trump did then they would be a criminal but because he is president, he gets a free ride.

YEt why did Nixon get a free ride. Republicans did not control the supreme court.

Flew over your head that a local DA based a rather questionable case on a violation of federal law that he had absolutely no jurisdiction to pursue, to get around an expired statute of limitations?

 

[buttercup]

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I think what's happening is people are being tricked into trading liberty for "security." Yet again. DC appears to be just the beginning.

In case anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about...the permanent establishment (regardless of which party is in power) allows certain problems or 'crises' to happen (or they'll create a crisis) to be later used as a pretext for more control.

Problem - Reaction - Solution.

As this article puts it:

Whether the trigger is terrorism, civil unrest, economic instability, or public health, the aim remains the same: expand the reach of federal authority, justify more militarized policing, and condition the public to accept the suspension of rights in the name of national security.​

I hope in this situation that's not the case and it's just temporary. But typically whenever the government grabs more power, it stays that way. So for all the folks cheerleading for a militarized police state....you do realize that the "good" party is not always going to be in power, right? So if what's happening in DC moves to other cities around the country... are you comfortable with corrupt commie Dems having that power? Are you OK with an authoritarian police state under your political enemies?

Here's that article. The title might sound dramatic, but it's worth reading...

The Police State Has a New Playbook: Martial Law, One City at a Time

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken Let’s not mi…

off-guardian.org

 

[Delldude]

So for all the folks cheerleading for a militarized police state....you do realize that the "good" party is not always going to be in power, right?

Why does the 'good party' have to resort to performing these actions?

Has the 'bad party' let civil unrest go to these extremes so the populace is willing to give up protections for some sense of security for the bad party's' ideological gains?

In the end who is good and who is bad?

 

[buttercup]

Why does the 'good party' have to resort to performing these actions?

Has the 'bad party' let civil unrest go to these extremes so the populace is willing to give up protections for some sense of security for the bad party's' ideological gains?

In the end who is good and who is bad?

As I've said many times on other threads... I don't subscribe to the idea that we have a genuine two-party system. I believe that both sides are controlled by the same powers. And they're both used in different ways. So yes, the Dems are weak on crime, and their bad policies cause a lot of problems....and the Republicans are being used to bring about the "solution," But the pre-planned solution means more authoritarianism, more surveillance, and other agendas that the public would ordinarily reject... but they accept it when there's a problem or "crisis".... which is always the case. Nearly every time we lose freedom, it's in the name of "national security" or solving a problem. Again, it's Problem - Reaction - Solution.

So to answer your question who is good or bad? I think they're both bad. Because although they have different roles, the overall end result is the same. More authoritarianism, more trampling all over the constitution, and as I've said a guhzillion times before... slowly but surely moving us toward a technocratic police state. And eventually the NWO.

 

[Delldude]

slowly but surely moving us toward a technocratic police state.

Freedom is lost by apathy over time. It's looking like people are waking up globally against the tyranny.

And eventually the NWO.

WEF and Klaus Schwab are admitting they have lost the moment.