The GOP are fascists who hate our form of government (democracy)
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
that’s leadership too. It’s not like Bush’s plan was a bad one. Banks were failing and consumer and investor confidence was shot. I remember there was a run on E*TRADE because E*TRADE was writing mortgages through their commercial bank.
Oh yes, of only every interview was like this for them.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/22/politics/pentagon-anxiety-trump-final-days/index.html
Pentagon anxiety rises as officers wait for Trump's next unpredictable move
(CNN)It's like a low murmur just below the surface. "We don't know what he might do," says one officer in the Pentagon. "We are in strange times," says another officer. Some senior military officers are trying to steer clear of the White House for the next month, rather than be in the President Donald Trump's orbit.
With just some 30 days to go before the US military watches its current commander in chief leave office, there is growing anxiety in the ranks about what Trump might do in these remaining days. Will the President order some unexpected military action, such as a strike on Iran, or will he somehow draw the military into his efforts to overthrow the election results?
It's a troubling enough scenario that military leaders have taken the unusual step of publicly stating that they will not play a role in deciding an American election.
CNN has spoken to nearly a dozen currently serving officers either in senior roles or with direct knowledge of how senior commanders feel right now. Not all are in the Pentagon.
No one will allow their names to be used. Currently serving military personnel are not allowed to speak against the president of the United States -- but opinions are divided. Some say don't talk about it, it only fuels the fire. Others say drag the quiet talk into the sunshine of public debate.
But the conversations are all unsettlingly similar. Concerns have been rising since Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper last month and replaced him with acting Secretary Chris Miller, then proceeded to install political loyalists in key civilian positions.
One officer said people are making "lists" of everything they can think of that the President might do. Several worry there could be a round of firings or forced resignations of more Pentagon officials, including top military officers.
Until a few days ago, these conversations might have been avoided. But last Friday night, by all accounts, the idea of using the military to change the election outcome reached directly into the Oval Office. Trump hosted a raucous meeting that included lawyer Sidney Powell, who has pushed conspiracy theories about the election, and her client, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, where the idea of declaring martial law to overturn the election came up.
Powell advocates the federal government seizing and inspecting voting machines. In a Newsmax video posted on social media a few days before the White House meeting, Flynn, once head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, with access to the greatest military secrets, raised the prospect of martial law, though he carefully said he doesn't advocate it. But he also suggested the President could take "military capabilities" and "rerun" the election in swing states.
It's not clear Trump accepted any of the ideas, and top civilian aides are reported to have pushed back. No military officers are known to have been present.
CNN independently confirmed that meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times.
But the idea had a serious impact on the senior ranks. A day after Flynn's Newsmax video aired, Gen. James McConville, the Army chief of staff, and Ryan McCarthy, the Army secretary and a Trump appointee, issued a terse statement saying, "There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election."
No military official CNN has spoken with recalls a recent time prior to Trump when top serving officials had to send the message they cannot get involved in election results. Let alone put out multiple messages to that effect.
While active-duty officers cannot air their concerns publicly, retired generals often do speak out.
Flynn's recent comments are seen as outright dangerous to the troops by some who know the retired three-star general well. Retired Gen. Tony Thomas ran Joint Special Operations Command, the military unit in charge of secretive missions around the world. In a series of recent tweets, he worried about the fundamental damage Flynn may be inflicting just by raising the idea of troops being involved in an election.
"Mike stop. Just stop. You are a former soldier. You know that leveraging the military to 'rerun elections' is a totally inappropriate role for the profession. You are also undercutting the extraordinary trust and confidence America has in their military. Stop!"
Several military officials tell CNN that for the remainder of his term, if Trump issues any orders, the key will be whether they are determined to be legal. If they are not legal, and the President cannot be talked out of potential illegal orders, it could raise difficult questions about what senior military leaders do next.
If they are legal -- even if distasteful -- they will be followed. If they are not legal, and the President cannot be talked out of them, the situation could raise dire questions about whether senior military leaders feel they can stay on the job.
Just last month, Trump's top military adviser, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his position clear about what the US military does and does not do in this country. "We are unique among militaries," he said in remarks at the opening of the Army's museum.
"We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution." A constitution that Milley likes to call his "North Star." It's a commitment that top commanders have long vowed not to violate.
Pentagon anxiety rises as officers wait for Trump's next unpredictable move
(CNN)It's like a low murmur just below the surface. "We don't know what he might do," says one officer in the Pentagon. "We are in strange times," says another officer. Some senior military officers are trying to steer clear of the White House for the next month, rather than be in the President Donald Trump's orbit.
With just some 30 days to go before the US military watches its current commander in chief leave office, there is growing anxiety in the ranks about what Trump might do in these remaining days. Will the President order some unexpected military action, such as a strike on Iran, or will he somehow draw the military into his efforts to overthrow the election results?
It's a troubling enough scenario that military leaders have taken the unusual step of publicly stating that they will not play a role in deciding an American election.
CNN has spoken to nearly a dozen currently serving officers either in senior roles or with direct knowledge of how senior commanders feel right now. Not all are in the Pentagon.
No one will allow their names to be used. Currently serving military personnel are not allowed to speak against the president of the United States -- but opinions are divided. Some say don't talk about it, it only fuels the fire. Others say drag the quiet talk into the sunshine of public debate.
But the conversations are all unsettlingly similar. Concerns have been rising since Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper last month and replaced him with acting Secretary Chris Miller, then proceeded to install political loyalists in key civilian positions.
One officer said people are making "lists" of everything they can think of that the President might do. Several worry there could be a round of firings or forced resignations of more Pentagon officials, including top military officers.
Until a few days ago, these conversations might have been avoided. But last Friday night, by all accounts, the idea of using the military to change the election outcome reached directly into the Oval Office. Trump hosted a raucous meeting that included lawyer Sidney Powell, who has pushed conspiracy theories about the election, and her client, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, where the idea of declaring martial law to overturn the election came up.
Powell advocates the federal government seizing and inspecting voting machines. In a Newsmax video posted on social media a few days before the White House meeting, Flynn, once head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, with access to the greatest military secrets, raised the prospect of martial law, though he carefully said he doesn't advocate it. But he also suggested the President could take "military capabilities" and "rerun" the election in swing states.
It's not clear Trump accepted any of the ideas, and top civilian aides are reported to have pushed back. No military officers are known to have been present.
CNN independently confirmed that meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times.
But the idea had a serious impact on the senior ranks. A day after Flynn's Newsmax video aired, Gen. James McConville, the Army chief of staff, and Ryan McCarthy, the Army secretary and a Trump appointee, issued a terse statement saying, "There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election."
No military official CNN has spoken with recalls a recent time prior to Trump when top serving officials had to send the message they cannot get involved in election results. Let alone put out multiple messages to that effect.
While active-duty officers cannot air their concerns publicly, retired generals often do speak out.
Flynn's recent comments are seen as outright dangerous to the troops by some who know the retired three-star general well. Retired Gen. Tony Thomas ran Joint Special Operations Command, the military unit in charge of secretive missions around the world. In a series of recent tweets, he worried about the fundamental damage Flynn may be inflicting just by raising the idea of troops being involved in an election.
"Mike stop. Just stop. You are a former soldier. You know that leveraging the military to 'rerun elections' is a totally inappropriate role for the profession. You are also undercutting the extraordinary trust and confidence America has in their military. Stop!"
Several military officials tell CNN that for the remainder of his term, if Trump issues any orders, the key will be whether they are determined to be legal. If they are not legal, and the President cannot be talked out of potential illegal orders, it could raise difficult questions about what senior military leaders do next.
If they are legal -- even if distasteful -- they will be followed. If they are not legal, and the President cannot be talked out of them, the situation could raise dire questions about whether senior military leaders feel they can stay on the job.
Just last month, Trump's top military adviser, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his position clear about what the US military does and does not do in this country. "We are unique among militaries," he said in remarks at the opening of the Army's museum.
"We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution." A constitution that Milley likes to call his "North Star." It's a commitment that top commanders have long vowed not to violate.
Last edited:
And it's not only Trump who lost his grip:
House Republicans meet with Trump to discuss overturning election results
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/21/trump-house-overturn-election-449787
Trump loyalists are planning a last stand Jan. 6.
Rep. Jody Hice tweeted after the meeting: "The courts refuse to hear the President's legal case. We're going to make sure the People can!”
President Donald Trump huddled with a group of congressional Republicans at the White House on Monday, where they strategized over a last-ditch effort to overturn the election results next month, according to several members who attended the meeting.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) — who is spearheading the long-shot push to overturn the election results in Congress — organized the trio of White House meetings, which lasted over three hours and included roughly a dozen lawmakers. The group also met with Vice President Mike Pence, who will be presiding over the joint session of Congress when lawmakers officially certify the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, as well as members of Trump’s legal team.
“It was a back-and-forth concerning the planning and strategy for January the 6th,” Brooks said in a phone interview.
Hice tweeted. “I will lead an objection to Georgia's electors on Jan 6. The courts refuse to hear the President's legal case. We're going to make sure the People can!”
But even if a senator joins the House GOP’s attempt to throw out the election results — which is required in order to force a deliberation and vote on the matter — the effort is almost certain to fail.
The House is led by Democrats, while there’s not a huge appetite for the effort in the Senate GOP. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even warned Senate Republicans last week not to get involved. And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has dodged questions about the improbable effort.
Still, the whole episode could turn messy — and become one last Trump loyalty test. Brooks, who said there are plans to challenge the results in six states, said total debate time could clock in at around 18 hours. That means the vote-counting process could bleed into the wee hours of Jan. 7.
During Monday’s meeting at the White House — where lawmakers noshed on a mid-afternoon snack of meatballs and pigs in a blanket — Trump talked with members for over an hour about how Jan. 6 will play out. They discussed logistics, such as what the objection language for each state would look like and how the floor proceedings will work.
The group of conservatives is still debating whether to keep the objection language short or detail claims of widespread voter fraud, which they have not proved and which have repeatedly been rejected in court. And while only one senator and representative can be the chief sponsor of each objection, scores of other lawmakers will likely be listed as cosponsors since there are so many members eager to be involved in the effort.
Meanwhile, the goal of meeting with Pence was to make sure they are all on the same page, since the vice president will be presiding over the proceedings and will have to rule on various objections and procedural issues.
Lawmakers were “trying to make sure that we understand what his view of the procedural requirements are, so we can comply with them,” Brooks said. “Pence will have a tremendous amount of discretion, though I think the rulings he will make will be pretty cut and dry.”
“It’s still somewhat fluid, since this does not happen very often,” Brooks added.
Indeed.Unbelievable there are black people like Candace Owens who contribute to Pragur U.