Former President Donald Trump welcomed chants by his supporters calling for his Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged on January 6th, 2021, according to Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), a lead investigator on the House select committee probing the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

During the first public hearing held by the committee on Thursday, Cheney cited testimony by Trump advisers who recalled the president saying, “Maybe our supporters have the right idea. Mike Pence deserves it.”

...

Cheney also said that the committee will air testimony that Trump “really did not want to put anything out” by urging his supporters to stand down and leave the Capitol, and that the former president was “really angry” at advisors who said he needed to do so.

“On the morning of January 6, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain president of the United States,” Cheney said, adding that he had “a seven-point plan” to overturn the 2020 election.

Cheney said Trump made “relentless efforts to pressure Pence both in private and public.”

“What President Trump asked Vice President Pence to do wasn’t just wrong. It was illegal and unconstitutional,” she added.

In the US, this is a conservative position. Liberals are pro-regulation. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm not sure what you're getting at. — Tzeentch

Because it's not an insult, regardless of how one may interpret it. — Tzeentch

I guess for transgenderism specifically it's a shame their stake in reality is so closely related to their identity, to the point of which any discussion about that reality becomes an insult to them. — Tzeentch

People may use their freedom to do things I find morally reprehensible.

And I'm fine with that, assuming it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others or break the law.

That's the essence of liberalism you see. — Tzeentch

What are nazis other than individuals whose views you strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch

Why would purposefully insulting someone be considered a civil way to express one's beliefs? — Tzeentch

No, in a sense it's way worse, because you're going out of your way to try and exact revenge and punishment upon people for behaviors that are perfectly legal, even enshrined as fundamental rights in the constitution and human rights legislation.

I think that's morally reprehensible. — Tzeentch

You did.

Didn't you want to lobby against people who have neonazi thoughts in their head to get them fired from their jobs? — Tzeentch

And before you come with caricatures about yelling fire in a theatre: freedom of speech is about being able to express one's genuinely held beliefs in a civil manner. — Tzeentch

When you say "I believe xyz" in relation to a political opinion, what you're saying is "I want my government to force people to act more in accordance to xyz". — Tzeentch

That's actually even worse, since it implies the law isn't enough to exact the type of revenge you're after. — Tzeentch

The idea that people should be free only if it suits one's opinions is certainly a hypocritical idea. — Tzeentch

Yet at the same time a liberal must recognize there are certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, that are fundamental, a human right and shouldn't be infringed upon. — Tzeentch

I never claimed as much. — Tzeentch

Because as I argued before, the term "liberal" was hijacked by unsavory individuals who in fact aren't liberal at all - much the opposite. They behave like little tyrants that believe their view is best and that it should be imposed on every one else through government force. They're the antithesis to liberalism. — Tzeentch

I'm not trying to fit you in a box. — Tzeentch

Even if you genuinely believe that, your choice of censorship and ostracization are extremely poor ones, and haven't done anything to stop it over the course of nearly a century. — Tzeentch

This description leaves the philosophical fundation of liberalism unaddressed; why must power be kept in check and constantly demanded to account for its actions? — Tzeentch

You're thinking of his great friend in Rome, Biggus Diccus. — Ciceronianus

I think you are joking, but this is maybe a tricky issue. It's hard if not impossible to get by without linguistic norms (like those gendered terms of respect you mentioned). — igjugarjuk

Yes. Free speech goes both ways. But one should never seek to censor her. — NOS4A2

I would prefer to stick with the language the way it is. So men as addressed as a "he", women as "she". — M777

That's not a principle that drives liberalism. — Tzeentch

In an imperfect world inferference obviously is inevitable sometimes, but if your first instinct is to want to interfere, then you're not a liberal. — Tzeentch

They should therefore be kept from interfering in each other's affairs as much as possible.

In an imperfect world inferference obviously is inevitable sometimes — Tzeentch

The principle that drives liberalism is the idea that individuals and governments are inherently unfit to be arbiters of what is acceptable and what isn't on the behalf of others. (One needs only a brief glance at human history to see where this idea came from.) — Tzeentch

Liberalism is a philosophy that starts from a premise that political authority and law must be justified. If citizens are obliged to exercise self-restraint, and especially if they are obliged to defer to someone else’s authority, there must be a reason why. Restrictions on liberty must be justified.

Most of your ideas imply you want to be a proponent to individual freedom and expression. — Tzeentch

You'd be applying the principles your views are based on inconsistently, you'd be cherry-picking essentially. It'd be confused and hypocritcal. — Tzeentch

A liberal would certainly not choose censorship, since that betrays everything liberalism stands for. — Tzeentch

Oh certainly, but a liberal would do so in open debate. — Tzeentch

I'm generalizing here, but liberal today is starting to become synonymous with authoritarian collectivism, characterized by a disregard for individual rights and fundamentals such as freedom of speech. For strong governments that are given mandates to decide what is truth and what is "disinformation", etc.

A complete perversion of what liberalism is and the principles it is built upon. — Tzeentch

It's in such a climate that liberal ideas could be hijacked and perverted into something that's essentially the opposite of liberalism. — Tzeentch

After watching how people in the street would immediately tense up, after being asked a simple question of 'what is a woman?' and tried to give a 'politically correct' answer, you are getting a feeling that they very well know the answer, yet are scared sh*tless of saying it or, probably, even thinking it.

In my opinion such internal blocking of engaging with certain thoughts is a very bad idea, as it noticeably hinders one's ability to think clearly.

What do you think? — M777

I can't understand why moderators resist doing that, except in particularly egregious examples of abuse. It would only take a few seconds. — Clarky

The cells are a part of you. So you transduce the waves to nerve impulses. Consciously or not, you do it. — NOS4A2

The cells transduce the waves to nerve impulses. The cells are a part of you. So you transduce the waves to nerve impulses. Consciously or not, you do it. — NOS4A2

The ball broke the window. You kicked the ball. Sure. — NOS4A2

It was designed for someone to pull the trigger and set of the mechanisms which ultimately shoots the bullet. — NOS4A2

The cells in your ear are a part of you and I’m pretty sure you’re conscious. — NOS4A2

The movement of hair cells. That’s the extent of the causal power of words. — NOS4A2

Biology isn’t a machine or built like a gun, though. — NOS4A2

Guns aren’t conscious or able to control their actions. — NOS4A2

But hair cells transduce vibration into impulses. — NOS4A2

All that soundwaves trigger is the delicate biology of the inner ear. After transduction it’s all you. The biology—you—does all the work. It causes your hearing; and if any aspect of the biology is messed up along the way, it doesn’t. — NOS4A2

It’s nothing like saying that. Do you think mechanical soundwaves convert themselves to nerve impulses? — NOS4A2

Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.

The verdict is a major defeat for Durham and his Justice Department prosecutors, who have spent three years looking for wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia probe. He claimed Sussmann lied during a 2016 meeting in which he passed a tip to the FBI about Donald Trump and Russia.

The prosecution hung its case on the testimony of one FBI official, James Baker, based entirely on his recollection of a conversation. Baker, however, was foggy on many of the specifics of his interactions with Sussmann, and even testified to Congress that he couldn’t remember if he knew who Sussmann was working for.

...

The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.

...

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

The second is that the FBI never leaked its investigation until after Trump was elected. The only reporting on the whole matter before the election was in a New York Times report that the FBI “saw no clear link to Russia.” Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton investigation had sprung leaks all over the place. So the Trump-Barr-Durham theory somehow posits that the FBI set up a phony investigation in order to leak it and then forgot to leak, instead doing the opposite by telling the Times that the Bureau did not suspect the Trump campaign.

Indeed, the Sussmann trial revealed that the Clinton campaign did not want the FBI to open a probe into the Alfabank server because it feared an investigation would make it less likely that the media would write about the story at all. So to the extent Durham deepened the public understanding of Trump’s conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, he inadvertently undermined it.

In May 2020, Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, ordered an investigation into the practice of unmasking. That review, conducted by John Bash — at the time the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas — was finished the following September without finding any evidence of wrongdoing.

...

“My review has uncovered no evidence that senior Executive Branch officials sought the disclosure of” the identities of US individuals “in disseminated intelligence reports for political purposes or other inappropriate reasons during the 2016 presidential-election period or the ensuing presidential-transition period,” Bash’s report said.

All that soundwaves trigger is the delicate biology of the inner ear. After transduction it’s all you. The biology—you—does all the work. It causes your hearing; and if any aspect of the biology is messed up along the way, it doesn’t. — NOS4A2

I want to offer my services to write an algorithm to prevent morons from posting — SkyLeach

'Michael' === username ? post() : error()

They do not affect us more than any other sound from the mouth or any other scribble on paper — NOS4A2

As you said yourself, we are predisposed to act upon certain sounds and images because we’ve learned and trained ourselves to do so. — NOS4A2

Finally, something physical! Sound waves do affect people. Words are not sound waves, though. — NOS4A2

I never said I don’t use the word. It’s that I’m suspicious of the physics of it. — NOS4A2

There is no transfer of energy from any other circumstantial object to Will Smith — NOS4A2

Are we not talking about the same word? — NOS4A2

It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance. — NOS4A2

America wants to know if the former vice-president was abusing his power for reasons of corruption, and if the DNC colluded with Ukraine to influence the 2016 election. — NOS4A2

The reach and influence of the left is profoundly large. — NOS4A2

But the prevalence of left-wing academics and their influence on the growth of political correctness I think deserves a fair hearing. — NOS4A2

And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate. — NOS4A2

Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial. — NOS4A2

The capricious and political use of their labelling and anti-Trump sources, all of whom endorse opposing candidates, makes plain their motives, which seems to me to score points against Trump and to influence the election. — NOS4A2

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign sourced actual disinformation from actual Russian spies and used it to influence the election and any subsequent investigation, thereby putting a democratic election in doubt for years to come. — NOS4A2

For the simple reason that there is no known way of gauging the future influence of rhetoric on human action — NOS4A2

Western conceptions of suicide, I fear, are so much influenced by religion, that the aesthetic, romantic, and interesting qualities have all been stripped away. — NOS4A2

“Fascism” is thus used in the Orwellian sense, as a pejorative, but even worse, as a means to dehumanize and incite violence against political opponents. — NOS4A2

While they openly hate America and incite anti-Americanism they gobble its most ridiculous ideologies. — NOS4A2

No one has ever said nor implied such an idea, and such a dangerous straw man is an incitement to violence. — NOS4A2

You call Americans “fascists” and, like a ghoul, cry foul when your incitement comes home to roost. — NOS4A2

I’ve said Will Smith caused each of his movements. There is no transfer of energy from any other circumstantial object to Will Smith, and therefor no other causal force animating his movements. — NOS4A2

I think the idea of “influence” is the sort of magical thinking I’m talking about. — NOS4A2

I wish. Apart from the over abundance of guns in the US is the fact that those guns can last for many generations. It's not like your TV set wearing out and being replaced or your car collapsing and being replaced. Each new gun produced does not replace one that is trashed. But a nation that cannot refrain from indulging in war is unlikely to stifle the production of weapons for its citizens. — jgill

Well … no. When it comes to homocides the US is WAY ahead. I have actually looked at the stats too you know ;)

True, around 80% of those are gun related … would all of those 80% have not found another means to commit murder though? It may well level out at around the same as some European countries. It well not be the case at all that taking guns out of the equation would reduce the homocide rate to something comparable to other western nations. — I like sushi

But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.