Congresswoman Greene ® was speaking uninterrupted a few moments ago, in the House as an elected Representative broadcast live on at least 3 national television stations, as well as C-SPAN Radio and television. Without any irony or self awareness, the word “censored” was displayed on her face mask.
Nothing at all. Its just that cosmetic surgery often does not age gracefully.
I remember when I first arrived in SoCal, in an area with a very high Hollyweird ratio at the time, it was quite disconcerting at first seeing and interacting with women of a certain age, and beyond, with a fixed frozen expression on their face. If the surgery was not completely successful it was almost like talking to a kabuki theater mask. It was there I was first told the trick about how to tell someones true age. Look at the neck skin. A bit like with horses teeth the true age of neck skin is difficult to hide.
I will say that you dont see so many obvious cosmetic surgery disasters these day. Thats progress, I suppose.
I’d call Biden’s face a plastic surgery disaster
Hunter is probably going to be sitting close by him on the dais with that image being ubiquitous. I can foresee an avalanche of sordid stuff from the harddrive from hell being released for maximum embarrassment.
A Message from President Donald J. Trump
BREAKING: U.S. House has impeached President Trump for inciting deadly riot at U.S. Capitol; first president to be impeached twice.
So the countdown starts for the inevitable CNN headline on the video…Trump calls for violent overthrow of Constitution…and kill all Democrats.
Ha ha, yea… so he appears to be very carefully staying consistent since the rally and calling for peace.
Oh this is new - the smart guys over at GAB archived all of Trump tweets it appears, and have imported it into a GAB account… twattery what now?
I do not believe he has claimed the account yet but who knows.
Now everyone can actually get to see what they wanted no one to see.
Go Home in Peace video is there in sequence.
I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!
25,831 likes731 comments2,078 reposts
Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!
Going back to the video:
Some subtext there methinks - he’s letting the other side know he has the intelligence i.e. your next move, I know.
I had a post about the build up of white-supremacy / attack imminent type narrative being crafted in the media since the 6th of Jan, emanating from the likes of Clinton, Pelosi, and then the FBI leading with a warning of attacks on 50 state capitals, or some such warning - anyway, lots happening, more to happen.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country
From the debate preceding impeachment.
Rep.@mtgreenee: Trump "has held over 600 rallies in the last 4 years & none of them included assaulting police, destroying businesses or burning down cities. Democrats have spent all this time endorsing & enabling violent riots that left billions in property damage & 47 dead."
Text of a Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate
Issued on: January 13, 2021
Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq .) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq .), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order taking further steps to deal with the threat posed by the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) increasing exploitation of United States capital to resource and to enable the development and modernization of its military, intelligence, and other security apparatuses which continue to allow the PRC to directly threaten the United States homeland and United States forces overseas, including by developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction, advanced conventional weapons, and malicious cyber-enabled actions against the United States and its people.
Through the national strategy of Military-Civil Fusion, the PRC increases the size of the country’s military-industrial complex by compelling civilian Chinese companies to support its military and intelligence activities. Those companies, though remaining ostensibly private and civilian, directly support the PRC’s military, intelligence, and security apparatuses and aid in their development and modernization. At the same time, they raise capital by selling securities to United States investors that trade on public exchanges both here and abroad, lobbying United States index providers and funds to include these securities in market offerings, and engaging in other acts to ensure access to United States capital. In that way, the PRC exploits United States investors to finance the development and modernization of its military.
To deal with that threat, I signed Executive Order 13959 on November 12, 2020. Executive Order 13959 prohibits certain purchases involving publicly traded securities, or any securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any Communist Chinese military company. Those companies are ones the Department of Defense has listed, or will list, pursuant to section 1237 of Public Law 105-261, as amended, or are identified as Communist Chinese military companies or their subsidiaries by the Secretary of the Treasury using similar criteria.
Today, I signed an Executive Order amending Executive Order 13959. The amendments prohibit certain sales as well as purchases of publicly traded securities, or any securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any Communist Chinese military company. They also prohibit possession of such securities by United States persons 1 year after a company is determined to be a Communist Chinese military company. And, finally, they allow the Secretary of Defense publicly to list whether a company is a Communist Chinese military company using the criteria in section 1237(b)(4)(B) of Public Law 105-261, as amended by section 1233 of Public Law 106-398 and section 1222 of Public Law 108‑375, regardless of whether the Secretary must report that determination under section 1237(b)(2).
I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.
DONALD J. TRUMP
John Solomon called it a “drive By Impeachment”, now we have Ping Pong Impeachment… 'tis some Ding Dong all the same.
12:30 AM · Jan 14, 2021
In my lifetime the Democrats have either drawn up or actually filed Articles of Impeachment on every single Republican president. None actually succeeded to the Senate vote. However 25% of the Democratic Presidents were actually Impeached. It was voted on in the Senate. I expect the next guy if not retired beforehand will make it 40%.
(Jan 11th) Ret. Gen. McInerney "WWIII has started… hybrid warfare"
Perhaps infowar game going on here.
Online claims bubbling that the numbers of troops there or on the way to Washington DC are more than the US sent to Afghanistan in 2004.
Pull the other…
Someone feelin’ the heatz or gettin’ ahead of a story?
String of tweets put in chronological order (paragraph = unique tweet)
I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?
I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.
That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.
Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.
The check and accountability on this power has always been the fact that a service like Twitter is one small part of the larger public conversation happening across the internet. If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service.
This concept was challenged last week when a number of foundational internet tool providers also decided not to host what they found dangerous. I do not believe this was coordinated. More likely: companies came to their own conclusions or were emboldened by the actions of others.
This moment in time might call for this dynamic, but over the long term it will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet. A company making a business decision to moderate itself is different from a government removing access, yet can feel much the same.
Yes, we all need to look critically at inconsistencies of our policy and enforcement. Yes, we need to look at how our service might incentivize distraction and harm. Yes, we need more transparency in our moderation operations. All this can’t erode a free and open global internet.
The reason I have so much passion for Bitcoin is largely because of the model it demonstrates: a foundational internet technology that is not controlled or influenced by any single individual or entity. This is what the internet wants to be, and over time, more of it will be.
I don’t know your age but this is not accurate.
Only 2 sitting Presidents have been Impeached and subject to a Senate vote since 1901. One was Democrat (went to trial) and the other Republican (didn’t go to trial). That’s a 50/50 split in 120 years out of 19 Presidents.
Another 8 had Impeachment Resolutions introduced in the same period (only one which was successful but didn’t lead to Impeachment or a Senate vote. The process was abandoned and there was no Impeachment).
So that’s 10 in total since 1901 - split as follows Democrat 3, Republican 7. But there has been more Republican Presidents in the period (12 versus 7). Mind you there has been more Republican 1 term Presidents in the period (4 versus 1).
Your 25% statistic amounts to 1 Democratic President - the only one who went to trial since 1901. However there has only been one other Impeachment in the same period - a Republican President.
Exactly. They deleted Trumps “be peaceful, go home” message.
I said in my lifetime.
So starts with LBJ. I’m old enough to remember watching the riots on the TV news after MLK was assassinated in 1968. And Bobby Kennedy being shot too.
My numbers are correct. There was talk about LBJ’s radio station corruption scandal, thoroughly buried, leading to staffers doing the preliminary drafting but never happened. Nixon, check. Ford, over the Pardon, check. Staffer circulated the documents, no traction. Carter, Panama Canal and other matters, documents circulated, almost went to committee. Would have if he had won reelection. Reagan, check. For IranGate. Only not placed before the House because midway through second term and would have been politically very unpopular with electorate. Tip O’Neill knew what he was doing. Bush I, check, Clinton, Impeached as voted on in Senate, majority but not two thirds, just like with Andrew Johnson. Bush II, check. Obama, the Dan Quale gambit, untouchable. Trump, first congressional staffer documents in circulation even before Inauguration and discussed at caucus. Two Trump impeachments filed, voted on by House but fail to meet any valid criteria of validity under procedural precedent . Oddly enough, just like with Andrew Johnson impeachment, which was quite a farrago.
Impeachment is a purely political process and has no greater standing in Common Law. Pretty much the legal equivalent of being voted out of the Big Brother House…