If you are not pissed at Florida politics, it doesn't matter, because you don't live there. Go north young man, anywhere north, because you are playing with fire just entering the state, and its inhabitants consider Covid and the occasional race riot or cocaine wars, business as usual.
Meet Ronald Fischetti, Trump's lawyer who used to run a law firm with the prosecutor investigating the Trump Organization excerpt: "Ronald Fischetti, an 85-year-old white collar, criminal defense attorney, was the perfect person to represent Donald Trump in an investigation that's been approaching his company as if it were an organized crime operation, given his experience representing public officials facing corruption charges and high-profile mobsters. Fischetti also had another likely selling point: He is a former close colleague of Mark Pomerantz, the prosecutor overseeing the case. In the 1980s, Fischetti and Pomerantz led law firms that made a mark in New York's criminal defense scene, defending drug dealers, businessmen, and mob figures alike. Before Fischetti was the name behind law firm Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, he was partner in the firms Fischetti, Feigus & Pomerantz and Fischetti, Pomerantz, & Russo LLP."
Status of Trump's rioters who are from the New England area. Few Jan. 6 Capitol riot arrests from ME, NH, Conn. and MA remain jailed
Everyone who attended Lindell's Cyber Symposium felt like the TV audience when Geraldo finally opened Al Capone's vault after all the hoopla. Mike Lindell Loses It On CNN Reporter As His Cyber Symposium Disintegrates excerpt: But when confronted by a CNN reporter, Lindell claimed he couldn’t show the evidence, as he’d promised, because of something-something, the media. “I have that proof with my people that we’re bringing to the Supreme Court,” Lindell told CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan. “I don’t need the media driving the narrative before my case to the Supreme Court.” That excuse was in sharp contrast to his claims leading up to the event, in which he promised to deliver “100%, non-subjective evidence” that Donald Trump won the election. (He didn’t.) Lindell swore his evidence would be so strong that the Supreme Court would unanimously rule in his favor, that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris would resign and that Trump would be reinstated on Aug. 13. Instead, the supposed evidence was described by one of Lindell’s own experts as a “turd.”
Then we would have President Pelosi... (Because that's how it works if both resign) The MAGA crowd would be so fucking pissed...
The GOP would need to regain control of the House. They could appoint Trump as Speaker of the House, even if he isn't a House member. The GOP would somehow have to dispose of Biden and Harris. Trump would become president.
Critics mock believers in Trump’s ‘reinstatement day’ excerpt: ""The morning of August 13, it'll be the talk of the world," Mr Lindell said during an appearance on a conservative podcast. However now that the day has come, President Joe Biden is still firmly in the White House."
Aha! It was Antifa all along! Lindell-apalooza melts down: MyPillow guy claims antifa sabotaged his "cyber symposium" | Salon.com
I don't like violence. It is necessary in everyone's life at some point. The Iraqi people should have met Saddam Hussain with similar violence when he first took power. In Libya the people should have stood up to Gaddafi. Here we have "THEM" who want to use the 2ND Amendment to intimidate the rest of us and hold power under any circumstance, even when they make up the the list of fake facts.
Totally agree, and that’s the violence I’m talking about- one that’s necessary for protection only. I’m not an advocate for violence either, but, unfortunately, some people just don’t get it and will not stop until you go head to head with them.
A bill was proposed in July to prevent a non-member of Congress from being appointed Speaker of the House. The Congressional record would need to be examined to see if it passed. An attempt to make a non-member Speaker would likely create and entrenched legal battle over whether or not the Framers meant to allow a non-member to become Speaker. Bill Aims to Keep Trump From Becoming House Speaker excerpt: "One of the stranger ideas aired in this strange period of American political history is that in the event Republicans retake control of the U.S. House in 2022, they might give their lord and master Donald Trump the Speaker’s gavel. As I noted last month, it’s technically possible. The odds of Republicans flipping the House next year are relatively high given the currently narrow Democratic margin, the long history of midterm losses by the party controlling the White House, and the likelihood of Republican gerrymandering during the imminent redistricting process. The U.S. Constitution’s provisions for the Speakership do not stipulate that the position be held by a sitting member of the House, though it has never been occupied by an “outsider.”"