https://www.cc.com/video/ce9wme/the-colbert-report-the-word-ownership-society

And, no, he doesn't need lawyers to draw up documents. He doesn't even need to write it down. At least according to former US pardon attorney (Bush 1 & Clinton admins), Margaret Colgate Love.

It sounds like Trump can (& will, because why not?) just film a video in which he says "I hereby pardon anyone who set foot on Capitol grounds on January 6, except any LEOs who tried to thwart the insurrection by my fan club."

She said past pardons of a delineated class have all been conditional, for instance on the pardoned persons doing community service. However, as we know, if it is not specifically required, Trump will not be constrained. Anyway, his condition could require them to yell, "Heil Trump!" And, obviously, they will.

None of them will be punished.

Not crimes not part of the impeachment.

Trump is a criminal on so many fronts. He needs to go to jail. Of course, the likelihood of that seems infinitesimal, impeachment or not, win or lose the election.

I will be thrilled to be proven wrong about that.

Life is complicated. I've been very conflicted about this issue since well before Franken was accused.

Year after year in our history we've seen women being put on trial for the crime of daring to tell the truth about what happened to them, and countless women who didn't dare speak out because of that sort of unjust treatment. It is infuriating & heartbreaking.

Judging by the experiences of my female friends & family members, any statistic claiming much less than less than 100% of women having dealt with some sort of uninvited, unwelcome, or inappropriate sexual advance is understating the facts.

On the other hand, how can justice be served if an accusation, any accusation, is taken unquestionably as proof of guilt? And, not to dismiss any inappropriate behavior of this nature, but how can there be no recognition of the difference between various degrees of misconduct?

So, I've been very vocal about my disagreement with any decision about or by Franken before the ethics investigation was completed. There is a lot to be suspicious about as far as the timing and nature of the accusations against him.

On the other hand, I've also been really disappointed to see so many DUers go well past that idea and into vehemently attacking Franken's accusers in misogynist ways, like saying Tweedon's behavior on stage invalidates her right to complain about sexual misconduct by others.

That's the kind of thing that's kept many women silent about abuse. Hardly different from comments like, "Well, look what she was wearing. She was asking for it," and, "You know, she did sleep around" as justification for rape.

I'll admit, my first thoughts on seeing Tweedon's behavior on stage were along the lines of it seeming odd and suspicious that she could behave that way and then be offended by Franken's actions. But I analyzed that. She was acting a version of herself on stage, and her actions may even have been loosely planned. Also, most men, while having every right to be offended by such behavior, aren't.

Well, I'm sure this is already TLDR for most, and I know I'll find few friends by refusing to take a side, but it's a complex issue. So, even if no one even gets this far, I may as well finish my thoughts.

I continue to feel it was wrong for Franken to be forced out. I feel like we are now in a great battle for Democracy and losing Franken is losing one of our best warriors. However, I believe Gillibrand and the others are also warriors in a different war and are standing on principle and in solidarity with all of women and against sexual misconduct.

As one of Gillibrand's major efforts has been working on the problem of rape and sexual harassment in the military, her call for Franken's resignation seems completely logical and consistent.

I may not believe the best decision at this moment was to stand on principle, but do think that's what those Congresswomen did. So I think it would be wrong to condemn and abandon the Democratic women in Congress for standing up for women in general.

So, there you have it. Flame away.

Years of women being put on trial for the crime of daring to tell the truth and the women who didn't dare speak out because of this injustice is infuriating & heartbreaking.

Going by the experiences of my female friends & family members, any statistic claiming much less than less than 100% of women having dealt with some sort of uninvited, unwelcome, or inappropriate sexual advance is understating the frequency with which this occurs.

On the other hand, how can justice be served if an accusation, any accusation, is taken unquestionably as proof of guilt?

And, not to dismiss any inappropriate behavior of this nature, but how can there be no recognition of the difference between various degrees of misconduct?

So, as far as this particular case at this particular moment, I don't take it lightly. But I come down on the side you've presented so well here. Thanks for your post.

is this:

This inquiry sent me down a rabbit hole on the use of single vs double quotation marks. Oi vey.


Continued...

This is an excellent article about how some believe that implementing a program based on "threat assessment" can help decrease these shooting incidents. I remembered the article and searched for it. It turns out Esquire just reposted it yesterday. It's a long read but well worth the time.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30024/mass-shooters-1014/




http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30024/mass-shooters-1014/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-save-confederate-statues-not-artwork-article-1.3419756



https://simanaitissays.com/2017/02/23/art-deco-the-met-the-polish-brigade-trump-tower-and-truth/




http://thisculturalchristian.blogspot.com/2016/06/without-artistic-merit-donald-trump.html

RollingStone.com posted the video under the title, Watch Bruce Springsteen Taunt Trump With 'Don't Hang Up' in Australia, explaining in the related article:
Poutraged admirers, defenders, and enablers of Donald "America-Basher in Chief" tRump are reporting through their Ministry of Propaganda outlets that Springsteen declared himself, 'Embarrassed' to be an American', inciting the RW base to fire off a barrage of strongly worded comments and tweets. Of course, being embarrassed to be an American and being an embarrassed American as a guest in the country whose leader the US president just yelled at and hung up on are not quite the same thing, but then nuance never was a strong suit of the Trumpistas.

According to FoxNews.com, (Sorry, not liking to this, but it can easily be found in a search.)

Discussing his song Wrecking Ball, a denouncement of the Wall Street bankers who crashed the economy, Springsteen told the Guardian:

Anyone who has been paying attention would know that Born in the USA was also a song of questioning and angry patriotism, not the declaration of nationalistic pride it's often been misinterpreted as. The songwriter very publicly objected to Ronald Reagan using the song as a rallying cry for the Republican candidate's campaign, and has not been secretive as to the reason he asked them to cease and desist.

Breitbart.com also claimed, in a piece entitled, Bruce Springsteen Tells Australia Audience He’s ‘Embarrassed’ to Be American :
(Nope, not linking to Breitbart either. The quotes will easily lead you to the story.)

The RW base is really riled up that Springsteen has dared to disrespect the pResident and criticize America. Oh, the Irony and the Hypocrisy. Someone ought to write a book.