The Democrats are trying to play this ridiculous game of attacking Elon Musk for objecting to the pork-filled continuing resolution that was initially put forth this week. They all were up in arms, asking who is he to weigh in?

The answer was a simple one: an American citizen — a citizen that the Democratic politicians are supposed to be serving. But imagine they all were chastising him because he wasn't an "elected" official, as though he couldn't offer his opinion. That was a sign of what they think of all of us in general, they don't think they work for us, they think they rule over us and don't have to respond. But Musk proved them wrong, and they were mad. //

They wanted to anger Trump by calling Musk the "shadow president," as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) did when she asked, "Who's the president now?" about the situation. That's pretty desperate and just shows how empty they are.

That's when CNN commentator Scott Jennings skewered them with an extremely important point.

Jennings turned that around on Jayapal as he spoke with Erin Burnett. "She [Jayapal] let the mask slip right at the end when she said, 'Who is the president right now...I mean, who is the President-elect?' She asked the right question first — who is the president right now?" //

Catturd ™ @catturd2
·
No one voted for Kamala in the primary and you didn't have a problem with that.

Nina Turner @ninaturner
No one voted for Elon Musk.
1:10 PM · Dec 19, 2024

Retired Professor
4 hours ago edited
A big, big part of this was Fani's failure to take a cross-appeal, as well as her prior failure to even preserve a proper record in the trial court for later use on appeal. This underscores what I've been saying for months about how Fani is not a very good lawyer, among her many other shortcomings, such as lack of judgment, etc.

Nevertheless, this is a very good outcome, and further ensures we have heard the last of this sham proceeding, as far as its impact on President Trump is concerned. But I'm sure Fani will continue to waste taxpayer money (as well as costing all the defendants more attorneys fees) by dragging this matter up to the Georgia Supreme Court, just to try to cover her eponymous anatomical part.

I hope all the defendants sue her and Nathan Wade for all they're worth when this is over.

During the first Trump administration, Democrats accused Republicans of abusing the Senate process in order to confirm nominees. //

The House just passed the JUDGES Act, which would create the first new positions on the U.S. District Court since 2003. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., allowed the Senate to pass it on Aug. 1, when he thought Kamala Harris would win the White House. Now that Donald Trump has won, and the House has passed the bill, President Joe Biden says he will veto it to prevent Trump from having more vacancies to fill.

Democrats controlled the Senate side of the process during Biden’s term and ran a highly partisan operation — with tactics they once criticized Republicans for using — to steer the judiciary sharply to the left.

Biden will appoint a total of 235 judges to the four courts with life-tenured judges: 187 to the U.S. District Court, 45 to the U.S. Court of Appeals, two to the U.S. Court of International Trade, and one to the U.S. Supreme Court. He will exceed President Donald Trump’s first-term total by one and take the second spot on the list of most single-term appointments in American history. Only President Jimmy Carter, after Congress created 152 new judicial positions in 1978, appointed more.

Biden’s total is even more impressive because the confirmation process is more cumbersome than ever. //

While Democrats created a new process in 2017 in order to routinely challenge Trump’s nominees, a determined Republican leadership in the Judiciary Committee and full Senate kept the confirmation process trains running. Democrats have done the same for the past four years. Today, according to the Federal Judicial Center, appeals court judges in active service are evenly split between Republican and Democrat appointees, while 60 percent of active district court judges were named by Democrats.

Stephanie Ruhle, host of "The 11th Hour" on MSNBC, explained recently that Donald Trump was far more accessible as a candidate than Kamala Harris.

So approachable was he that Ruhle decided on a whim to call and ask for an interview, which he promptly declined. But still, he answered the phone. That's the point.

Even if he shot her down in typical Trump fashion.

“If I were to want to connect with VP Harris or President Biden, there’s 50 people between me, and that I could write a note that maybe could get to somebody to get somebody that (through) Pony Express and a pigeon, something might end up in a mailbox near them," Ruhle said in an interview with Lukas Thimm.

Yet, getting in touch with Trump was as easy as picking up her phone and dialing.

Ruhe said she "rolled the dice" and called Trump after the "crazy rally" at Madison Square Garden, "And he answered!”

Gunther Eagleman™
@GuntherEagleman
·
Follow
WOW—CNN just released a poll showing that 55% of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling the transition.

You know they hate giving Trump positive press.

4:37 PM · Dec 11, 2024 //

(((Harry Enten)))
@ForecasterEnten
·
Follow
It's Trump Party & his GOP opponents can cry if they want to...

1. Almost all GOP who voted to impeach/convict Trump are gone from Congress.

2. 96% (!!!) GOP voters approve of his prez transition, which is up 16 pts (!) from Jan 2017.

3. All 2028 GOP frontrunners are MAGA.

10:27 AM · Dec 16, 2024 //

Bottom line? The American people voted for Trump and his policies. That's what they want put through. They want an economy that doesn't run them over; they want a secure border; they don't want to be involved in endless wars. And they want the government cleaned out and reoriented to its true purpose and not an ever-mushrooming money pit bureaucracy that seeks to control us.

We are Americans. We don't emphasize status that other societies do — like Japan. But that doesn't mean we ignore personality traits that can result in higher status. That's why Americans feel better with an alpha in charge. That's why a lot of Americans are breathing a sigh of relief right now. We're counting on America to be made strong again, and that's a task that will take a strong leader. That's a task for an alpha. And we have an alpha returning to the White House, at last, next month. //

oldgimpy&cranky
16 hours ago
I dunno' if Trump-As-Alpha reassures me as much as...

Look, he's basiclly honest - I have not seen him tell a whopper yet, (unless he was joking).. He treats Children, kindly; shows Respect to both peers and inferiors. I've never seen him abuse or berate a child or peer or inferior. Ever.

He chides and ridicules the Fake News, Politicians and legal-weasels as apropos.

Oh, and did I mention: he's a millionaire. Tycoon. Real Estate Magnate? So, he has a clue how money, banks, employees, unions, contracts, lawyers, government, red-tape - all that happy-horseshit - actually WORKS

MELANIA TRUMP @MELANIATRUMP
·
It was a privilege to host Mrs. Akie Abe at Mar-a-Lago once again. We fondly remembered her late husband, former Prime Minister Abe, and honored his remarkable legacy.
9:54 PM · Dec 15, 2024 //

Kaitlan Collins @kaitlancollins
·
Trump is set to have a private dinner this Sunday with Akie Abie, the widow of the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a person familiar says. The dinner will take place at Mar-a-Lago and Melania Trump is expected to attend. Trump and Mrs. Abe have maintained a close relationship ever since her husband was assassinated two years ago while delivering a political speech in his home country.

7:11 PM · Dec 12, 2024.

And here's the part that most in the media would not want you to know:

Trump regularly calls Mrs. Abe to check in on her, a source close to the president-elect confirmed, and the dinner was scheduled through direct conversations between the two, not government channels, as is often the case with diplomatic figures.

Donald Trump has won again. ABC News and George Stephanopoulos have settled the defamation lawsuit brought by the incoming president, with the news network agreeing to pay $15 million in damages while also issuing an apology.

The lawsuit was first filed after Stephanopoulos claimed as a matter of fact that Trump had “raped” E. Jean Carroll. The comment came during an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace. [who is an actual rape victim]

Of course, the issue was that Trump has never been charged or convicted of rape criminally nor has he been found liable for rape in any civil suit. Stephanopoulos made it up in an attempt to bait Mace, and it ended up being the basis of the now-settled civil suit against he and ABC News.

The approach is going to be everybody line up. If you want to survive, you better be good. Don't get on Santa's naughty list here because we will primary you." She mentions Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and her questions about SecDef nominee Pete Hegseth, but Ernst had already indicated she was supportive of Hegseth by the time Murkowski made these remarks. //

It should surprise no one that voters who voted in Trump should want Republican senators to support the nominees Trump has put forth, in order to implement his agenda. That's why they put him in office -- so he could implement the agenda they want. It's not even "allegiant to party" -- it's being allegiant to the voters. If the voters don't like what you are doing, then yes, they are going to primary you and try to vote you out.

That's how the process works. You're supposed to represent them. And supporting the nominees isn't going to "energize the Democrats" -- not supporting the nominees is going to energize the Democrats. If Trump's agenda is put into place it's going to reduce the control of the Democrats and benefit Americans and the entire country.

If a "Republican" doesn't get that, that's a problem. //

Claudius54
an hour ago
"She claimed that she wasn't attached to the label of "Republican.""

... well, at least she's being honest.

From Wiki: According to CQ Roll Call, she voted with President Barack Obama's position 72.3% of the time in 2013; she was one of only two Republicans to vote with Obama over 70% of the time. She opposed Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination in 2018 and supported Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination in 2022. In 2021, she was one of seven Republican senators to vote to convict Donald Trump of incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment trial; the Alaska Republican Party censured her for that vote.

If she runs again, I doubt that "ranked choice" is going to save her ... given that she's the 'rankest' possible choice.

The cluelessness of the liberal media and the Democrats has been something to see since the election.

They're still trying to figure it out and wraps their minds around how President-elect Donald Trump won.

One of the few people who gets it is CNN's Van Jones. As we reported, he explained how Trump got the rise of new media and made use of that, that the legacy mainstream media was the "fringe" and the "fringe" was now the mainstream.

Former CNN commenter Chris Cillizza asked him about that. This truly explains how clueless Democrats are.

"How the hell did Donald Trump figure out that the mainstream media is the fringe and the fringe is now the mainstream...The 78 year old guy who doesn't even have a computer and still, like, writes handwritten notes? How did he become the guy who cracked the code?" Cillizza asked.

Um, because it's obvious, if your eyes are open? If you're able to count the numbers that the new media is getting versus the old? Because Trump's eyes are open? It's not a huge mystery, there's no deep code to crack. Meanwhile the Democrats were still stuck back, bragging about "door knocking." //

He was open to talking to everyone, anywhere, even with people who were going to attack him to reach out to people and he had concrete policies and answers. Unlike Kamala Harris. You're talking about a guy who was able to survive and triumph over everything thrown against him, get shot in the ear and stand up shouting, "Fight! Fight! Fight!"

Everybody keeps I mean, the problem is you have a framework in your mind that how can Donald Trump, how could Donald Trump? Guys can we cut it out? Donald Trump is not an idiot. Donald Trump, let me just be very clear. Donald Trump is smarter than me, you, and all critics. You know how I know? Because he has the White House, the Senate, the House, the popular vote…

He said Trump had the "fervor" of a political movement around him, and his "best buddy" is the "richest person in the history of the world," and "the most relevant Kennedy is with him."

This dude is a phenomenon. He is the most powerful human on earth and in our lifetime. And we're still saying, Well, how is this guy [doing it]? We look like idiots.

Cillizza completely agreed.

Kudos to Van for being honest.

But most of the Democrats and the liberal media are still stunned, blaming everyone else but themselves and still calling Trump Hitler, not getting that doesn't fly and no one believes them. And they're not going to like what Van had to say because it upends all their narrative for almost a decade. //

anon-isiz
38 minutes ago
You look like idiots because you have chosen to be idiots. You’re out of touch with the majority of your fellow citizens because you consider them beneath you. Your fellow Americans have rejected you entirely and they aren’t finished, yet, Girls.

Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter
·
This retard is the epitome of the generals who have failed to unequivocally win a major war on 30+ years.

Gen Michael Hayden @GenMhayden
Enough said.
[ Hitler was also Time magazine man of the year ]
8:42 AM · Dec 13, 2024 //

JD Vance @JDVance
·
Barack Obama was also Time’s person of the year. So was Bill Clinton.

One of President Trump’s great contributions to American society is revealing that many of our respected career bureaucrats are, in fact, fools.

Gen Michael Hayden @GenMhayden
Enough said.
8:37 AM · Dec 13, 2024.

So unless Hayden is willing to admit that Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Taylor Swift, and a host of other Democrats are Hitler, too, he may just want to stop digging that hole. It's just nonsensical. Heck, Time even picked "You" as the Person of the Year in 2006 for all the people who posted on social media, so that sounds like it might even include Hayden.

If ever there was an "open mouth, insert foot" moment, this would be it.

Andrew Jackson was the seventh President of the United States from 1829 to 1837, seeking to act as the direct representative of the common man.
More nearly than any of his predecessors, Andrew Jackson was elected by popular vote; as President he sought to act as the direct representative of the common man. Decrying officeholders who seemed to enjoy life tenure, he believed Government duties could be “so plain and simple” that offices should rotate among deserving applicants. //

While "populism" means different things to different people — much like the left's definition of "inclusion" doesn't mean to the rest of us what it means to Democrats — here's how Merriam-Webster defines the term:

... a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the Establishment.

Populism usually arises from a general discontent. … People feel that things are out of control, socially and economically. … The idea that this is the fault of the meritocratic elite. //

As big as Donald Trump’s victory was, his conservative populism’s political potential is bigger still.

While the primary post-election focus has been on where Trump over-performed, there are significant areas where he underperformed too.

And if Republicans could capture some of the votes Trump left on the table, they could significantly exceed Trump’s impressive 2024 victory margin in the future.

There is no reason conservative populism should not have at least an equal appeal to moderates. After all, Trump was able to tie Harris among voters who said abortion should be legal in most cases.

Geiger Capital
@Geiger_Capital
·
Follow
Absolutely hilarious line from Trump’s TIME Person of the Year interview…

TIME: “Speaking of Kamala. What do you think her worst mistake was in the campaign?”

TRUMP: “Taking the assignment.”
10:53 AM · Dec 12, 2024

“Taking the assignment,” he replied. "Number one. Because you have to know what you are good at."

OrneryCoot
3 hours ago
If Patel and Trump bring all of this information to light, I believe that the public will respond in kind; trusting the public with such information will bring about trust BY the people for this administration, which will bode well for midterms and 2028. It will by no means be the most important thing, but it will carry significance for many. That alone is a reason to declassify and release material like that described above. //

Chelan Jim
2 hours ago
And why was the balloon, the size of a school bus, allowed to float across the continent taking pictures/images without interception. Are we that confident that no military, commercial or strategic utility targets need not worry of such an invasion of our airspace?

U.S. citizens would be arrested for flying a drone near many of the areas this balloon got near enough to take hi-res video and pictures. //

charlie
2 hours ago
Releasing all of the info may help further harm the reputations of the agencies involved - making it easier for Elon/Vivek and President Trump to clean house

Another line of criticism focuses on Hegseth’s personal life. To be sure, Hegseth wouldn’t meet the qualifications to serve as an elder or pastor in a church, and he has admitted to poor decisions in the past. But this raises a broader cultural question: When did Americans stop celebrating redemption stories? Today, Hegseth is happily married, active in his church, and a devoted father who embraces classical homeschooling. He served his country in combat and earned the respect and loyalty of those who worked with him in both military and civilian life.

Redemption is a deeply American ideal, but it often seems selectively applied. I recall reading about convicted bank robber Shon Hopwood, who, after release, earned a law degree and went on to teach at the Georgetown University Law Center—a story presented as an inspiring tale of growth and perseverance. But do the same people who applauded that story extend the same grace to Hegseth, a man who has overcome personal failings to achieve admirable success? If we value growth and change, shouldn’t we apply this principle consistently?

Evaluating someone’s past for predictions of future behavior is fair, but the recent past matters just as much as the distant past. //

Ultimately, the debate over Hegseth’s nomination reflects deeper societal tensions: between forgiveness and accountability, between ideological loyalty and open-mindedness, and between traditional and unconventional leadership. Whether or not one believes Hegseth to be the right person to serve as the next secretary of defense, this debate forces us to confront how we choose leaders and what values we prioritize in doing so.

As for me in this moment, I echo what Abraham Lincoln said of Ulysses S. Grant. “I can’t spare this man, he fights!” The bureaucrats had their turn. We would do well to have a warrior like Pete Hegseth leading the military as soon as possible.

The House Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump released its final report on Tuesday. The report covers the July 13 wounding of President-elect Trump at Butler, Pennsylvania, and the September 15 assassination attempt in West Palm Beach, Florida. //

So, the Secret Service was notified at 2:30 a.m. that Trump would play golf. He arrived at the golf course around 11 a.m. At 1:30 p.m., Trump having been on the golf course for about two hours, the Secret Service is conducting its preliminary sweep of the golf course boundary and discovers the shooter. The shooter, Ryan Wesley Routh, had been in his shooting position since 1:59 a.m. This latter data point is not mentioned in the report.

I'm not a highly trained Secret Service agent; I'm just a dumb sh** infantryman from Southside Virginia, but if I'd been given that mission, I would have conducted a preliminary sweep of the golf course sometime after dawn, placed observation posts at key spots and then done a rolling sweep after the golf party started moving. I would not have started my first pass over the golf course as Trump was playing through.

But it gets a lot better. //

The agent who discovered Routh fired six rounds (they think) at the gunman from a distance of five feet, scoring a perfect goose egg. //

How does any human miss a target basically within arm's reach? How do you get within five feet of a gunman without seeing anything (rhetorical question: you probably have your earbuds in, listening to tunes or a podcast, and daydreaming about what you're going to do when you get off shift)? And how, in the name of all that is Holy, can't you definitively tell how many rounds were fired? "[B]elieved six shots in total were fired" is NOT a number. Don't they keep track of ammunition in the Secret Service? Don't they have an SOP for loading magazines? How will "final ballistics" help determine this if you apparently don't know how many rounds you started out with? //

The Secret Service is a broken organization. A shameful performance by Director Kimberly Cheatle at a congressional hearing (BREAKING: Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle Resigns After Disastrous Hearing – RedState) and the juvenile "I'm a public servant" rant by Acting Director Ronald Rowe last week (MUST SEE: Screaming Fight Between GOP Rep, Secret Service Director at Trump Assassination Attempt Hearing) are just the most visible indicators of an organization that is just not capable of carrying out its mission of protecting the president.

‘This social media play worked because we talked to very specific niche audiences through the content creators that the public was listening to.’ //

The evolution of technology and media has consistently changed how political campaigns reach prospective voters.

First it was through partisan newspapers and political cartoons. Then came the explosion of radio and television. And now, candidates find themselves navigating the vast Internet landscape in their bid to get voters to the polls.

While the embrace of social media was a notable feature of Barack Obama and Donald Trump’s respective presidential campaigns, the 2024 contest revolutionized the way in which candidates engage new voters across Big Tech platforms. //

Working behind the scenes was Vote4America, a get-out-the-vote venture launched earlier this year that partners with conservative-leaning content creators. In collaboration with these influencers, the group sought to engage unregistered and low-propensity voters favorable to Republican causes ahead of the 2024 contest, such as those who listen to programs about outdoor sports (hunting and fishing) and veterans’ issues.

“This [was] not a ‘Turnout your base’ [election]. This [was] a ‘Go find new voters and low propensity voters and get them to the polls’ [election]. And it was the low-propensity voters that we have been focusing on the whole time, ” Vote4America spokesman Stephen Aaron told The Federalist. //

A post-election Navigator Research survey among 5,000 self-identified 2024 general election voters notably found that a significant percentage of swing voters and new Trump voters received their news from non-corporate media sources. According to a poll summary, “Leading up to the election, 45 percent of ‘swing voters’ and 52 percent of new Trump voters cited getting their news through social media, a far greater share than the national electorate (37 percent).”

“Alternative news sources like social media and podcasts were much more prevalent among ‘swing voters’ (52 percent) and new Trump voters (59 percent) compared to the overall electorate (43 percent),” the summary reads. //

Aaron claimed the biggest hurdle for Vote4America was getting election strategists to understand that it was “low propensity voters [who] were going to swing this election” and “that talking to low propensity voters over social media was going to be the most effective way to do that.” //

The 2024 election “was largely the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate, where after that debate, if you could not perform on TV, you could not succeed in politics,” Aaron said. “And what we’re going to see [moving forward] is that if you can’t perform on these long-form, authentic platforms [and] can’t be yourself … you’re not going to be able to perform in politics.” //

“Trump has largely removed shame from politics, and so you don’t have to be quite as concerned anymore about, ‘Oh, am I going to say the wrong thing?'” Aaron said. “There wasn’t one candidate in this election cycle who lost his election because of a one-sentence slip in an interview or on a podcast. So, you don’t have to worry about that anymore. What you have to worry about is: Can you be yourself in front of an unfiltered, raw audience?”

Unsurprisingly, Welker frames her response with a lie: "The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, "All persons born in the United States are citizens."

The actual quote is:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

While there has been widespread acquiescence to an interpretation that says a child born to an illegal is a citizen, there is nothing in our law that says that and a great deal that says just the opposite. Read this excellent essay on why birthright citizenship is not a constitutional right.

I don't know if executive action will be sufficient to change our direction because it will be open to reversal by any future president. I think the clearest course of action would be a legal case that results in "y'all can do that if you want to, but there is no constitutional reason to support birthright citizenship.". https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment. //

Trump may find that the same obstacle that prevented a solution for Dreamers early in his first term remains. The Democrats don't care about solving the Dreamer issue. But they care very much about keeping it alive so they can demagogue it to fight immigration reform and raise cash from their donor base; see The Democrats Don't Want a DACA Deal, They Want a DACA Issue. Trump has a lot more bargaining potential with this issue than with birthright citizenship. DACA has been ruled illegal by a federal judge. That has stopped any processing of the 80,000+ applications now in the pipeline. The decision has been appealed and will be heard by the Fifth Circuit. //

However, if the Democrats refuse to cooperate, Trump will face an uphill battle in crafting a successor to DACA that can pass the House only on GOP votes. Then he will be confronted with a choice of ignoring the law, like Obama and Biden, or deporting tens of thousands of people to countries where they are foreigners. I can even see the Democrats opting to force this choice. //

The border wall and tougher policing are just one part of the equation. For any kind of long-term border security, we must ensure that cretins like Joe Biden have their ability to make up policy on the fly limited. We must act to withdraw the incentives that attract millions of people to the US. One of those incentives is the knowledge that by having a kid on American soil, the parents can probably avoid deportation. And we must also act with mercy toward those, like the Dreamers, who were left stateless by the actions of their parents. At the same time, we need to make sure that any program to accommodate DACA registrants has a final date attached, and it doesn't become just another way of beating the system. //

NightTwister
an hour ago
While I've stated before that I think Dreamers may need a different solution, they must be the last ones dealt with, and even then, any that have shown a hatred of their new country must be excluded. If they hate it here, they can leave.

Those who have committed crimes here are gone first. Then those who committed crimes in their home country. Change laws and practices to force self-deportation. Then find and deport the remainder. THEN we can worry about the Dreamers. Under no circumstances can they be first.

Afederal judge on Monday granted former President Donald Trump’s request for the appointment of a special master to review the documents seized by the FBI during a raid on his Mar-a-Lago home last month. Presiding Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, further held that the Department of Justice cannot review or use for criminal investigative purposes any material seized pending the review process.

Besides handing Trump a victory in his battle for some oversight of the Biden administration’s digging into his documents, Cannon highlighted several significant facts over the course of her 24-page order that further call into question the DOJ’s targeting of Trump.

Here are the seven top-line takeaways:

1. President Biden Was Directly Involved

The very idea that a blanket preemptive pardon would be handed out is an anathema to the very idea of justice because it would occur before any charges were made. And it would prevent any charges from ever being leveled. As such, the idea of preemptive clemency simply gives one carte blanche to act in any manner he/she sees fit while in office, provided they have the expectation of pardon. //

I don't see how this leads to anything but a pathway to the abuse of political power. //

If you cannot ever have a trial, then a guy like Mayorkas can treat the entire country like his own little fiefdom and forever change the United States culturally, socially, and legally. All on his own. And with a blanket and preemptive pardon, presidential cabinet members, NGOs, and partisan bureaucrats have the freedom to make policy that we didn't vote for and probably never would.

What the progressives could gain, if Markey were to get his Christmas wish, is a short-term insurance policy against prosecution for guys like Mayorkas, or John Brennan, or Mark Milley, but it will set a precedent for long-term abuse by presidents in the future. Trump could employ the same tactics, and while the progs would scream and shout, there wouldn't be much they could do about it legally, not to mention the fact that they were the ones who started rolling that snowball down the hill in the first place. //

Now, for Trump, if he were to find himself in the position where he could not prosecute certain individuals for treason or malfeasance, perhaps he could at least have them investigated. The products of such interrogatories might not lead to any charges because of the pardons, but at least such "fact-finding endeavors" might illuminate what abuses (if any) actually occurred so that we could avoid more in the future. This information would be made public to the electorate, and from that, what happens happens.

Tearing down institutions and traditions tears apart a society, a country. Sure, things can evolve over time, but to rip stuff out by the roots all at once is very reckless. Issuing preemptive pardons before any charges are even leveled prevents justice because we never have an opportunity to find out if it was ever being served in the first place. Did Mayorkas break the border all of his own volition just because he felt like it? Was he instructed to do it? If so, by whom? Who does he report to? Oh...the president. //

Billy Wallace
20 minutes ago edited
Pardoning everyone in your administration will be the new normal if Biden does it

if Biden does it, Trump most certainly will in January 2029, and why wouldn't he? I would

it will just become standard operating procedure, as will issuing an executive order declaring any and all records and documents in your possession to be declassified personal records