General Discussion

empedocles

(15,751 posts)

17. Imho, 'treason', is unpredictably/epidemically powerful. In most of 1941 voters were

Fri May 8, 2020, 10:17 AM

May 2020

still isolationist. FDR ran as an isolationist in 1940.

Pearl Harbor had a big impact, but the Congress did not move against the American Bund, with large German American populations from Pennsylvania to Texas. Voters didn't sufficiently get the threat.

When hitler declared war against the US a few days later, the public started to get it, closer to home, and a significant, inner threat to the US Government. Soon after, the Bund was declared illegal. [Prescott Bush and Joe Kennedy had to sharply change their 'tunes'].

[I think I understand the DU frustration with the republicon blocs not getting the threat of trump, or Covid 19. However, in historical context, the slow movements on those kind of very serious issues, - is very easy to anticipate].

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What do we know about this Judge that is going to rule on Flynn's case this Monday? [View all] kentuck May 2020 OP

He's very independent; he was previously not able to hide his disgust for Flynn's crimes and he has hlthe2b May 2020 #1

In a flynn sentencing hearing, the word TREASON came up. [Not argued] empedocles May 2020 #4

What do you mean by "epidemic" word? kentuck May 2020 #5

Imho, 'treason', is unpredictably/epidemically powerful. In most of 1941 voters were empedocles May 2020 #17

And which judge is it.......... MyOwnPeace May 2020 #2

That was Judge Reggie Walton. I know both judges personally and they are old school. Solomon May 2020 #9

Thank you! MyOwnPeace May 2020 #19

Judge Sullivan told Flynn that he had betrayed his country, so unless they threaten him tblue37 May 2020 #3

trump seems to have been wary on the pardon power empedocles May 2020 #6

IF I were the judge I would kacekwl May 2020 #7

Meaningless to speculate! Barbara McCuaig said. on Rachel last night the judge "most likely Ninga May 2020 #8

I disagree with your sentiment. If the judge wants to stick with Solomon May 2020 #10

You know this how? It is the DOJ's case, it does not belong to the judge. If they want to withdraw Ninga May 2020 #11

How does it not belong to the Judge? kentuck May 2020 #12

Ok, explain to me what happens to the case when charges are dropped? The case belongs to the Ninga May 2020 #13

Not from what I have read, PRETZEL May 2020 #15

You are correct. The case is on the last page of the final chapter. LastDemocratInSC May 2020 #18

Yes. He has already been convicted but not yet sentenced. Solomon May 2020 #27

Nah, those rw fascist Russian Repugs at SCOTUS will definitely take the case and exonerate drumpf. lark May 2020 #14

welp, i dunno. but mopinko May 2020 #16

I love my DU peeps. But. I asked a lawyer friend what recourse Judge has, she said none. Ninga May 2020 #20

Is the Judge part of the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch. kentuck May 2020 #21

I don't know. I guess we will find out. Ninga May 2020 #22

The courts are the third supposedly co-equal branch of our government. They don't work for the Solomon May 2020 #28

The DOJ has *requested* dismissal. The motion has not been ruled on. sl8 May 2020 #23

Thank you. I read the first link and found it helpful to understanding. Unfortunately, see Ninga May 2020 #24

Jeez. He has already been convicted! What about that that people do not understand! Solomon May 2020 #29

With respects Glenn Kirscher a lawyer who has appeared before the judge in court GusBob May 2020 #25

Of course he will, but a hearing produces what? Please see the link. Ninga May 2020 #26

The hearing will show that their motion has no basis in fact and law and so the conviction should Solomon May 2020 #30

Ok then. I trust your experience. Thanks. Ninga May 2020 #31