heybruce

You mean this: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." You are wrong, in a clear and comically obvious manner. A commander who allows his troops to be overrun in battle by failing to order the troops to to defend themselves has committed dereliction of duty, even if he didn't actively participate in overrunning his own troops. The fact that Trump did not actively participate in the attack on the Capitol does not mean he is innocent of dereliction. The fact that he encouraged it in his speech, wanted to participate, and watched without taking any action to end the violence makes it clear that he is guilty of worse than dereliction of duty. Whether Trump can be convicted of instigating the violence remains to be seen. However he is clearly guilty of gross dereliction of duty at a minimum and unfit to hold any government office.

Yes, much like his conversation with Zelenski, Trump was careful not to specify what illegal acts he wanted, while making it very clear that he wanted. The actions of an experienced crime boss.

https://youtu.be/Q7JqhDmX-C4 If Jan 6 Committee has 'done anything,' it's 'exonerated' President Trump: GOP lawmaker.mp4 Dereliction of duty is not a vague concept. It's similar to "freezing under fire", which would get a combat commander court martialed. However Trump, the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, sworn to defend the nation and uphold the US Constitution, didn't freeze under fire, he enjoyed the sight of his supporters storming the Capitol for two hours. Only when it was clear that they would not succeed in stopping the election certification or hanging Mike Pence did he reluctantly take action to call them off. If you think you are supporting your claims or enhancing your credibility by quoting Stephen Miller and linking to a Sean Hannity video, you are wrong.

Maybe off topic, but it is very common for manufacturing industries to "comply" with labor laws by subcontracting the dirty work. Long ago when I was young I worked for a company that did maintenance for a pulp wood mill. We did the work that the mill didn't want the union workers with medical benefits doing. The work was hard, dirty, dangerous (I got many chemical burns), demeaning (when I worked on the garbage truck I had to ride in the back with the garbage) and sometimes illegal (covering up safety violations after someone was killed on the job). However it paid one and a half times the minimum wage, and at the time I couldn't walk away from that much money. I sympathize with people who will do what it takes to earn honest money. That includes the illegal immigrants.

Gee, if Hutchinson misrepresented what happened that day, you'd think they'd want to set the record straight. Could there be a reason why they wouldn't want to set the record straight on what happened that day?

There is very, very clear evidence of dereliction of duty while the Capitol was under attack. That alone disqualifies Trump from ever again becoming President or holding any kind of responsible position. Unfortunately some people are ok with such demonstrated incompetence.

"And I see no attempt to consider what Unintended Consequences may result from using such heavy-handed and narrowly-focused enforcement schemes." To be clear, are you arguing against heavy-handed and narrowly-focused enforcement schemes against illegal immigrants as well? Or are you ok with using such tactics against the immigrants but opposed to using them on the businesses that hire them? Also, outside of farming, most illegal immigrants are working in restaurants, hotels, car washes, yard care, and other non-essential businesses that people can live without. What's wrong with requiring people to pay more for such luxuries? However if doing without immigrant labor does present an unacceptable risk and burden to the country, the correct response is to make it easier for immigrants to work in the country legally.

Correct. Some industries such as meat processing, might be able to increase prices to cover the cost of wages high enough to attract legal residents, but many farms could not. All over the world rich nations bring in labor from poor nations to harvest produce and vegetables, but the civilized rich nations do it through legal guest worker programs. The US should do the same. "Let's assume that illegal workers make only half of what legal workers do." Apparently you assume that doubling the wages paid will attract enough workers to the seasonal, zero benefit jobs of harvesting crops. I seriously doubt it would attract enough of them.

Minefields and armed drones patrolling the border? Seriously? What have you got against aggressively enforcing existing laws against hiring illegal immigrants, perhaps supplemented with a few new laws, using existing resources?

As I've already explained, closing the border is impractical. Stiff penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants is not.

And it's impossible to defend the Republican's strategy of demonizing illegal immigrants while playing nice with the businesses that hire them. So neither party is serious about the problem. Once again, why are you making it an issue about political parties?

What makes you think the Democratic party was behind Obama and his deportations? https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510799842/obama-leaves-office-as-deporter-in-chief Also, why are you making this about party politics? Have I posted anything suggesting that either party is doing anything right regarding illegal immigration?

The demonstrators didn't need guns because they had numbers on their side, and the numbers worked. They succeeded in storming the Capitol, causing Congress and the Vice President to seek safety, and temporarily stopping the certification of the election results. They did this after Trump told them to march to the Capitol and fight like hell. The fact that they didn't have a plan for what to do next does not change the fact that they were there at the urging of Trump to stop the certification of the election results and to prevent the peaceful transition of power for the first time in US history. People who deny the significance of this are Trump cultists who put Trump before country.

Your first link describes a series of raids in one state in 2019. So what? Your second link shows fewer border arrests and deportations during Trump's first year than during Obama's final years. Again, so what? Perhaps the most significant words in the first source: "Federal authorities would not say if the businesses who cooperated with the raids would be charged." Got anything showing a serious crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants?

As I explained, it is much cheaper, and possibly profitable, to simply regularly check the employment status of businesses known to rely on illegal immigrants and impose heavy fines on those that do. The fact that this isn't being done shows that politicians don't see illegal immigration as a problem, or at least as significant a problem as to justify annoying businesses and political donors. The US-Mexico border is 3145 kilometers or 1954 miles long. Using four shifts of officers working 42 hour shifts for all 168 hours of the week would require over 120,000 officers to station one every 100 meters on this border. That costs serious money and it would not prevent people entering the country by sea, air and other borders, not prevent mobs rushing this thinly patrolled border, and not prevent people from entering the country illegally and overstaying. I call BS on every politician calling for greater border security who isn't calling for much more aggressive enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants. DeSantis is at the top of my BS list.

I agree the media should ignore Trump, ideally starting many years ago. That would drive the man-child crazy.

The government isn't doing both. Neither Republican or Democratic elected officials are making any kind of serious effort to penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants. For that reason it's simply good business to continue using them. Locking up people for illegally entering the country is expensive. The US spends $80 billion a year to lock up 2.3 million prisoners, or almost $35,000 per prisoner per year. Adding another one million illegals will add another $35 billion to the US budget. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/12/17/the-hidden-cost-of-incarceration Of course if those who are caught are deported they have little to lose by attempting to re-enter the country. And its impossible to close thousands of miles of border. Heavy penalties imposed on businesses that hire illegal immigrants could help pay for the cost of enforcing immigration laws, but that would upset business people who vote and hire lobbyists, so that's not going to happen. Obviously the cost effective approach is to penalize the businesses. The fact that the government isn't seriously considering doing this, and wasn't under Trump, shows that elected officials don't really think the problem is serious. But immigrant bashing makes for great political theater. So we get things like DeSantis's immigrant status law that doesn't get enforced--great theater and no unhappy businesses.

It speaks volumes about you that you consider an attack on the Capitol while Congress was certifying the Presidential election results as nothing. The volumes begin with "Clearly not a patriot."

Not Trump supporters? Another desperate defense of the indefensible.

You are getting desperate for a justification if you are speculating on LARP.

What is your source of misinformation? No, they didn't just march and take selfies. They climbed walls, smashed windows, assaulted officers with flag poles, bear spray, fire extinguishers and anything else they could lay their hands on. They stole and vandalized. They disrupted Congress while it was in session. They were attempting a coup. The "left-wing" is not allowed to rampage and attack police and businesses. They were arrested, beaten, tear-gassed, and prosecuted. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/22/fact-check-thousands-black-lives-matter-protesters-arrested-2020/6816074001/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/dc-police-arrests-blm-capitol-insurrection-invs/index.html Try leaving your echo chamber when seeking information.

Attacking a police station during a protest against police killings of unarmed suspects is a crime. Attacking the US Capitol while Congress was certifying the election results was clearly an attempt at a coup. Both are bad. However the attempted coup is by far the worse of the two.

Some folks, the ones who care about keeping the US a democracy, think the main objective to these hearings is to ensure that such a blatant attack on our government never happens again.

Actually it is a tactic famously used by Roy Cohn, who Trump idealized. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/19/roy-cohn-donald-trump-documentary-228144/

"get in their faces" as opposed to "march to the Capitol" and "fight like hell". Trump was Commander in Chief and had a sworn duty to protect the country and the Constitution. By not doing anything he is guilty of dereliction of duty at the very least. That alone is grounds to be relieved of Command and never again trusted with such a responsibility.