Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

So much for Back the Blue the right-wingers keep yapping on about.

So you're saying if I'm invited by my congressman Jim Himes to the gallery of the House of Representatives that I can refuse a search of my bag on principle? Brilliant.

At the entrance to the gallery? Possibly, I'm unaware of the regulatory/legal environment once actually inside the building. Good luck getting past the metal detector at the entrance to the building, though. Metal detectors have been there for us non-Congressional-types for about 50 years, and that is non-discretionary.

One may 'back the blue' whilst still retaining your fourth amendment rights.

Christy42

FatherTed wrote: »

Actually Boebert refused to have her bag searched by Capitol police going into the House Chambers and she has said he carries her precious glock with her into the Capitol.

She's the darling of the folks who caused the destruction and killed a Capitol police officer last week. I just wonder if she had been with Pelosi and the hehaws confronted them, would she have pulled her glock out to protect Pelosi or helped them?

She is happy to go with dog whistles but I strongly suspect she will avoid anything flat out breaking the rules herself. She wants those votes, if a few of them get arrested thinking she is leading the charge. Oh well, no big deal.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

At the entrance to the gallery? Possibly, I'm unaware of the regulatory/legal environment once actually inside the building. Good luck getting past the metal detector at the entrance to the building, though. Metal detectors have been there for us non-Congressional-types for about 50 years, and that is non-discretionary.

One may 'back the blue' whilst still retaining your fourth amendment rights.

There's no real point in us arguing with her position but if it backfires on her with another member following her inspiration choosing to carry also in the belief of being unsafe without a pistol despite the CPD security, well...

Getting back to the vote issue at the trial, if Mitch shows up and signals how to vote by either voting AYE or abstaining [in or out of the chamber] the image will have immediate significance for the other GOP senators and huge for the nation.

BonnieSituation

FatherTed wrote: »

The photo in the tweet is from last year.

The one of Boebert?

But doesn't it show regardless of when she was leading these peopenon a tour that 1. she did lead these people on a tour and 2. that people on that tour were arrested for their part in last week's madness?

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

At the entrance to the gallery? Possibly, I'm unaware of the regulatory/legal environment once actually inside the building. Good luck getting past the metal detector at the entrance to the building, though. Metal detectors have been there for us non-Congressional-types for about 50 years, and that is non-discretionary.

One may 'back the blue' whilst still retaining your fourth amendment rights.

True, it appears they did indeed back the blue. Hitting one on the back with pipes and sticks whilst he was face down on the steps of the legislature.

It's a convenient moniker until it's not.

aloyisious

FatherTed wrote: »

The photo in the tweet is from last year.

If so, is it truly an image of her leading a tour around the Capitol way before she was elected and sworn in at the Congress Capitol very recently with the other green congresspersons? Her job was as owner & manager of a rifle-friendly restaurant before her election.

FatherTed

aloyisious wrote: »

If so, is it truly an image of her leading a tour around the Capitol way before she was elected and sworn in at the Congress Capitol very recently with the other green congresspersons? Her job was as owner & manager of a rifle-friendly restaurant before her election.

Lol I’m no fan of that racist nut job, I was just pointing out the picture was not of a tour she gave last week. And indeed her tweets indicating Pelosi’s movements during the insurrection are very questionable and probably will be investigated.

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

At the entrance to the gallery? Possibly, I'm unaware of the regulatory/legal environment once actually inside the building. Good luck getting past the metal detector at the entrance to the building, though. Metal detectors have been there for us non-Congressional-types for about 50 years, and that is non-discretionary.

One may 'back the blue' whilst still retaining your fourth amendment rights.

The Sargent at arms said guns are only allowed in representatives offices, not for carrying around Willy nilly,

And please spare us the fourth amendment and second amendment crap. Blue lives matter only matter when it’s POC are being asked to comply by the police. If a black kid refuses to open his bag for the police and he goes on about the fourth amendment, he’d last about 5 seconds.

aloyisious

FatherTed wrote: »

Praying its Rudy. Here he is on Bannon's podcast saying it was all Antifa. And says it was a group of Antifa guys who pushed Ashli Babbitt through the door and was promptly shot by SS/Capitol Police. Even Bannon thinks he's crazy.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-653-pandemic-stand-freedom-w-raheem-kassam-rudy/id1485351658?i=1000505247881

It'd be a shame for some-one with a mayoral history like his got way out of his depth with Trump. It could be a sign of an illness that goes with age.

On the retirement of Trump issue, Bloomberg's Sky channel is running a story [on it's rolling scroll-down top-news sidebar] that he plans to retire to Mar-a- lago and keep on some of his present White House staff in his employ there. I'll believe it when I see it. Bloomberg is also reporting on it that NYC prosecutors want to interview Don Jnr.

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

The Sargent at arms said guns are only allowed in representatives offices, not for carrying around Willy nilly,

It seems the regulations may state otherwise.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-pistol-packing-freshmen-prompt-congress-gun-review-d115b85f-d830-48be-9e8e-59f5dbe222a5.html

There's a ban on carrying them into the House and Senate chambers, the Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor, as well as other rooms around either chamber, according to a Capitol Police Board document from 1967.

Or if we go back to 2018...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-democrats-look-to-roll-back-little-known-rule-allowing-guns-in-the-capitol/2018/12/05/85966172-f71f-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html
House Democrats are looking to roll back a little-known, five-decade-old Capitol Hill regulation that allows members of Congress to keep guns in their offices and carry them around the Capitol grounds.

If the document is silent about all places other than those specifically declared off-limits, then it is reasonable to presume that the other places are lawful, willy-nilly or otherwise.

And please spare us the fourth amendment and second amendment crap. Blue lives matter only matter when it’s POC are being asked to comply by the police. If a black kid refuses to open his bag for the police and he goes on about the fourth amendment, he’d last about 5 seconds.

This is being said from a position of ignorance at best. It has always been a position of conservatives that in police interactions to be polite, but to firmly rely upon any individual rights. Go back easily ten years on internet fora, the refrain has always been in police interaction to say as little as necessary, ask "am I free to go" as soon as reasonable, and to deny permission to search. The theory being that an individual right is useless if routinely waived.

Actually, the advice, now I'm looking, is similar to what the NAACP suggests. https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Racial_Profiling_Know_Your_Rights_Supplement_6-12-12.pdf

BonnieSituation

It alway just feels to me that every American, both the citizenry and legislators are under this bizarre paranoid spell.

I mean, even your responses above MM, about "individual rights" being the primary motivator is just bizarre.

You have to forgive me, but I'm sure I'm not alone, but my brain hasn't got the capacity to compute the need nor the point in having a gun on the Capitol grounds let alone having to prepare myself for police interactions as a result of my possession of said gun.

It seems that the middle man of "carrying a weapon" could be dispensed with surely. Seems to be an extra step to hassle and annoyance.

But then again, "Muh gun and and muh rights and tyranny" etc.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems the regulations may state otherwise.

Personally, given the events in that building over the past two weeks and the actions of some of the elected tenants, if I was the new serjeant-at-arms I'd be inclined to do several sweeps of it for improperly located weapons and for the items to be destroyed after photo-messages were sent to the elected tenants letting them know of the discoveries and the date for the destruction of the items. But that's getting away from the excitements of Trump.

Edit: It seems Speaker Pelosi has stepped into the breech. From MSN. Speaker Pelosi said the metal detectors were necessary after the recent insurrection. She has since informed all politicians that entering the building without using the metal detectors will lead to a $5,000 fine, which will rise if offences mount. In a statement she confirmed that the new rules will kick on from January 21, which is one day after the inauguration of US President-elect Joe Biden.

Ms Pelosi said: ‘On behalf of the House, I express my deepest gratitude to the U.S. Capitol Police for the valor that they showed during the deadly insurrection on the Capitol, as they protected the lives of the staff and the Congress.

‘Sadly, just days later, many House Republicans have disrespected our heroes by verbally abusing them and refusing to adhere to basic precautions keeping members of our Congressional community, including the Capitol Police, safe. ‘The House will soon move forward with a rule change imposing fines on those who refuse to abide by these protections. ‘The fine for the first offence will be $5,000 and $10,000 for the second offence. The fines will be deducted directly from Members’ salaries by the Chief Administrative Officer. ‘It is tragic that this step is necessary, but the Chamber of the People’s House must and will be safe.’

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

Personally, given the events in that building over the past two weeks and the actions of some of the elected tenants, if I was the new serjeant-at-arms I'd be inclined to do several sweeps of it for improperly located weapons and for the items to be destroyed after photo-messages were sent to the elected tenants letting them know of the discoveries and the date for the destruction of the items. But that's getting away from the excitements of Trump.

That's fair, but I suspect not much would come of it. I doubt many legislators are leaving their firearms scattered around in unauthorised locations.

Edit: It seems Speaker Pelosi has stepped into the breech...’

Well, at least it indicates an acceptance on her part that just putting up a sign saying 'no guns here' is no guarantee of compliance or safety. I wonder if that lesson will be applied to other locations...?
I also wonder how long it will last before the legislators get sick of it and they go away.

I mean, even your responses above MM, about "individual rights" being the primary motivator is just bizarre.

"It's the principle of the thing" is by no means an uncommon hill to die on, as it were. Yet American jurisprudence is extremely clear that there are defined limits beyond which, even if they make 'make sense' to some people, are not permitted. Example, if I'm visibly wearing a gun, the police are not permitted to stop me and ask if I have a license. They are not permitted to pull me over when driving to see if I have a driver's license and insurance. That sort of thing. The default position is that I am a law-abiding citizen unless I do something which indicates otherwise.

If you think about it, "because I can" is an extremely common excuse for all sorts of activities which are unremarkable in their commonplaceness, but have no 'rational' reason for being done, all that matters are their legality. With respect to police interaction, saying as little as possible is recommended because there is no good which can come of doing anything other than the minimum. If the cop asks "Do you mind if I look in your vehicle?" (It's always phrased to the default of denial, because there's more chance of saying "no" meaning 'no I don't want that' before you realise what you said), your options are to permit it, in which case you have no better legal position than you were before (and who knows what might turn up that you didn't know about), or to deny it, in which case you are still in the exact same legal position as you were before. Immediately follow with "am I free to go". If you believe you are being unlawfully searched/detained/etc, the recommended course of action is to say something like "I do not consent, but shall not resist". Then find a lawyer after the fact. Actively resisting an officer, even if he's wrong, is highly discouraged on practical grounds.

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Personally, given the events in that building over the past two weeks and the actions of some of the elected tenants, if I was the new serjeant-at-arms I'd be inclined to do several sweeps of it for improperly located weapons and for the items to be destroyed after photo-messages were sent to the elected tenants letting them know of the discoveries and the date for the destruction of the items. But that's getting away from the excitements of Trump.

Edit: It seems Speaker Pelosi has stepped into the breech. From MSN. Speaker Pelosi said the metal detectors were necessary after the recent insurrection. She has since informed all politicians that entering the building without using the metal detectors will lead to a $5,000 fine, which will rise if offences mount. In a statement she confirmed that the new rules will kick on from January 21, which is one day after the inauguration of US President-elect Joe Biden.

Ms Pelosi said: ‘On behalf of the House, I express my deepest gratitude to the U.S. Capitol Police for the valor that they showed during the deadly insurrection on the Capitol, as they protected the lives of the staff and the Congress.

‘Sadly, just days later, many House Republicans have disrespected our heroes by verbally abusing them and refusing to adhere to basic precautions keeping members of our Congressional community, including the Capitol Police, safe. ‘The House will soon move forward with a rule change imposing fines on those who refuse to abide by these protections. ‘The fine for the first offence will be $5,000 and $10,000 for the second offence. The fines will be deducted directly from Members’ salaries by the Chief Administrative Officer. ‘It is tragic that this step is necessary, but the Chamber of the People’s House must and will be safe.’

If kids have to pass through metal detectors to get into school then it makes sense for the leaders of the country to have to do the same.

VinLieger

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If kids have to pass through metal detectors to get into school then it makes sense for the leaders of the country to have to do the same.

And what are the consequences of kids refusing to pass through? They should be the same.

Timberrrrrrrr

VinLieger wrote: »

And what are the consequences of kids refusing to pass through? They should be the same.

Well the consequences so far have been kids shot dead, the senators, house reps etc should be grateful that they have protections such as metal detectors to keep them safe.

In England some schools have metal detectors and if a child refuses then they can be refused entry, I'm assuming American schools would have similar standards.

Professor Moriarty

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If kids have to pass through metal detectors to get into school then it makes sense for the leaders of the country to have to do the same.

I can't believe you actually had to make that point. Kids passing through metal detectors to get into school. America needs to take a long hard look at itself in the mirror.

uncleoswald

Well the right have their patsy now, this idiot will be all the "proof" they need to say that Antifa infiltrated the protest to cause incitement.

Expect to be be hearing his name a lot between now and during the impeachment trials.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1349938014672343040

salmocab

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I can't believe you actually had to make that point. Kids passing through metal detectors to get into school. America needs to take a long hard look at itself in the mirror.

Worth it for some morons to be able to play soldiers in the woods though.

Quin_Dub

Looks like Susan Collins is a yes for Impeachment

Joint Op-Ed today from herself and Jeanne Shaheen (Democrat Senator).

Doesn't pull many punches

The attack on the Capitol is a stark warning to those who have peddled conspiracy theories and fallacies surrounding the 2020 presidential election results: If they continue to incite this behavior and refuse to condemn the president’s false allegations about the election, they are threatening our very system of government and its constitutional foundation. As members of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we are obligated to speak out against the acts of domestic terrorism committed on Jan. 6. We are calling on every lawmaker to join us because there can be no equivocation on where this legislative body stands on threats to our democratic republic.

We are encouraged by the bipartisan group of lawmakers who have been fighting to stop this dangerous, political endeavor, but those who continue to reinforce the president’s false narrative deepen the divisions in our country and undermine public confidence in our government.

Leroy42

Jebus, you can't put any store on anything Susan Collins says. She will um, and ahm and be scathing about everythiuung right up to the point where she has to actually vote and then she will fall in line.

It is actually a very clever political ploy, although I think it could only work long term in places like the US.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus, you can't put any store on anything Susan Collins says. She will um, and ahm and be scathing about everythiuung right up to the point where she has to actually vote and then she will fall in line.

It is actually a very clever political ploy, although I think it could only work long term in places like the US.

And the UK. Because the system allows it be like that.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus, you can't put any store on anything Susan Collins says. She will um, and ahm and be scathing about everythiuung right up to the point where she has to actually vote and then she will fall in line.

It is actually a very clever political ploy, although I think it could only work long term in places like the US.

Very true..

She's just been handed a fresh 6 year stint , so she's feeling pretty safe I'd say.

josip

Manic Moran wrote: »

...


"It's the principle of the thing" is by no means an uncommon hill to die on, as it were. Yet American jurisprudence is extremely clear that there are defined limits beyond which, even if they make 'make sense' to some people, are not permitted. Example, if I'm visibly wearing a gun, the police are not permitted to stop me and ask if I have a license. They are not permitted to pull me over when driving to see if I have a driver's license and insurance. That sort of thing. The default position is that I am a law-abiding citizen unless I do something which indicates otherwise.

If you think about it, "because I can" is an extremely common excuse for all sorts of activities which are unremarkable in their commonplaceness, but have no 'rational' reason for being done, all that matters are their legality. With respect to police interaction, saying as little as possible is recommended because there is no good which can come of doing anything other than the minimum. If the cop asks "Do you mind if I look in your vehicle?" (It's always phrased to the default of denial, because there's more chance of saying "no" meaning 'no I don't want that' before you realise what you said), your options are to permit it, in which case you have no better legal position than you were before (and who knows what might turn up that you didn't know about), or to deny it, in which case you are still in the exact same legal position as you were before. Immediately follow with "am I free to go". If you believe you are being unlawfully searched/detained/etc, the recommended course of action is to say something like "I do not consent, but shall not resist". Then find a lawyer after the fact. Actively resisting an officer, even if he's wrong, is highly discouraged on practical grounds.

Would that attitude be the norm across all the states in the US Manic?

That approach taken in Ireland would be interpreted as "being difficult" I think.
I'm not sure what the Gardai (our police) would do in that case, but I suspect that if someone had that attitude, they'd go on a "keep an eye on" list in the local station.
Plus the guard at the initial checkpoint might check everything they were legally allowed to check at that checkpoint and slowly.
I would say that over most people would reason that "if you have nothing to hide, then no good can come of it".
That may be because our police can, or at least could have in the past, made life difficult for you, even if you'd done nothing wrong. So maybe that's in the back of people's minds.
But there's also a general feeling here that the police are on our side and we don't do stuff that's going to make their jobs more difficult to do.
Which is nice, considering that a hundred years ago due to our history, the attitude to the police was totally different and antagonistic.

But the law over your way has been on the side of the ordinary, god-fearing citizens for 250 years now.
So why the disconnect between the police and policed that you've described above?

looksee

But the law over your way has been on the side of the ordinary, god-fearing citizens for 250 years now.
So why the disconnect between the police and policed that you've described above?

Would those 'ordinary god-fearing citizens' be just White people or are you including Black people?

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

Carriage of firearms in the Capitol Building is authorised. Carriage in the legislative chambers themselves is not authorised. There has thus far been no indication that any legislators have either carried, or attempted to carry, in the chambers. A number of Congressmen are armed outside the chambers. (Rules for thee but not for me, again. Average citizens may not be. Too many politicians forget that they are part of the citizenry)

Except this isn't true is it?

https://www.uscp.gov/visiting-capitol-hill/regulations-prohibitions/prohibited-items

EDIT: Based on a later post, I double-checked the law and regulations and it's clear that the quoted post is either misleading or incorrect, so I stand by the original post. Carriage of firearms applies to "transporting within Capitol grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped." I would not agree that means "Carriage of firearms" and/or "armed" in its ordinary meaning as quoted.

josip

looksee wrote: »

Would those 'ordinary god-fearing citizens' be just White people or are you including Black people?

I don't think black people could be included, although when Manic was posting the scenario he didn't differentiate between black, white or hispanic.
Assuming he believed that it equally applies to white people, I'm curious why a white American, with nothing to hide, would take that 'attitude' with the police.

Maybe they have more faith in the law, than the police?

josip

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Except this isn't true is it?

https://www.uscp.gov/visiting-capitol-hill/regulations-prohibitions/prohibited-items

That website is for visitors.
I think Manic was saying that it was allowed for legislators, but not visitors?
At least, I think that's what this post meant.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Carriage of firearms in the Capitol Building is authorised. Carriage in the legislative chambers themselves is not authorised. There has thus far been no indication that any legislators have either carried, or attempted to carry, in the chambers. A number of Congressmen are armed outside the chambers. (Rules for thee but not for me, again. Average citizens may not be. Too many politicians forget that they are part of the citizenry)

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

At the entrance to the gallery? Possibly, I'm unaware of the regulatory/legal environment once actually inside the building. Good luck getting past the metal detector at the entrance to the building, though. Metal detectors have been there for us non-Congressional-types for about 50 years, and that is non-discretionary.

One may 'back the blue' whilst still retaining your fourth amendment rights.

This is, at best, a misunderstanding of the Fourth Amendment.

There are two key long-standing elements as to why 4A would never apply here:

1) Administrative searches are justified on the basis that they serve a societal purpose other than standard criminal law enforcement (Vernonia School District 47J, 1995) which actually cites 1987 caselaw establishing a long-held practice. In other words, where there is a balance between the privacy interests of the individual and the greater societal good, the balance tips towards the government unless there is a less intrusive alternative.

2) Consent - if you want to enter the building you must consent to a search. But doesn't that mean I don't have a choice? Well, tough **** according to the Supreme Court who held that "having a confined range of choices does not necessarily render consent involuntary when the individual is responsible for confining those choices" (Florida v. Bostick, 1991). Essentially, if one places oneself in a situation where they are likely to be searched, one could be deemed to have consented to the search.

Zubeneschamali

josip wrote: »

But there's also a general feeling here that the police are on our side and we don't do stuff that's going to make their jobs more difficult to do.

I must be an exception, since I think Manic's rules are common sense and have taught them to my kids.

The police are not your friends, keep answers to direct questions short, who are you, where are you going, yes officer, no officer.

Dont chat to them, don't go with them unless arrested, then ask for a lawyer and shut up.

No good can come to you from anything more.