Likely missed by most but I thought that the fact that the two lead presenters for the hearing last night had sworn under oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." in their military service prior to becoming representatives was a solid move.

And something worth a refresher read regarding oaths of office:

"Federal employees, Representatives, Senators, judges, political appointees, and the President and Vice President of the United States take an oath of office. So what does taking an oath mean? Why even do it?

The reason is simple — public servants are just that — servants of the people. After much debate about an Oath, the framers of the U. S. Constitution included the requirement to take an Oath of Office in the Constitution itself. Article VI of the Constitution says “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The Constitution does not prescribe the actual text of the Article VI oaths. For federal civil service employees, the oath is set forth by law in 5 U.S. Code § 3331, which reads as follows:

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.””

The President is also required by the Constitution to take an Oath of Office. Article 2, Section 1, of the US Constitution prescribes the Oath. It says “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” "

For those who missed last night's nearing-a powerful part of the closing statement from Liz Cheney:

""In our hearing tonight, you saw an American president faced with a stark, unmistakable choice between right and wrong. There was no ambiguity, no nuance. Donald Trump made a purposeful choice to violate his oath of office to ignore the ongoing violence against law enforcement to threaten our constitutional order."

So began Liz Cheney's summation of Thursday night's prime-time hearing. She continued: "There is no way to excuse that behavior. It was indefensible. Every American must consider this: Can a president who is willing to make the choices Donald Trump made during the violence of January 6th ever be trusted with any position of authority in our great nation again?""

And there you have it!  

The here and now trick sack- Clearly Cheeto is not fit to run again but absent the Justice Department being confident of a slam-dunk how do you stop it?
His minions refuse to accept the truth so he has an inside track.  The R's need to take on the challenge and block any attempt of his.  Good luck with that!
The dumbing down of the USA.  
And it's early on Friday-I will be fueling for LEO and depending on the mood escape velocity is definitely in play.  
Stay healthy and safe out there-

LEO launch has not yet occurred-
So give this a read when you are clear eyed: (this is copied from The Atlantic today-there is much more.) Excellent points and worthy of serious consideration.  

David French CONTRIBUTING WRITER

"Federal and state prosecutors may soon need to decide whether to bring charges against a former president and current front-runner for the Republican nomination. (edited in an attempt to keep it from the TL:DR death knell.)  Then, when the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what was necessary.” Did yesterday’s hearing add anything to this narrative? Yes, modestly. Here’s a summary of the key evidence, from The New York Times:

If I was standing in front of a jury, I’d ask them to ponder a question—if Trump truly wanted only a “peaceful” protest, why did he passively allow the horrific violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard?

The answer, I’d argue, was that everything was happening precisely as Trump had intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?

Again, there are strong defenses to any prosecution for incitement. Trump’s calls for peace may convince the Department of Justice that an incitement prosecution is simply too tough to mount, in spite of all the additional evidence outlined above. Or Trump’s calls for peace may convince a judge that the high standard of incitement simply isn’t met.

But that doesn’t mean Trump is safe. To understand why, let’s turn briefly to Georgia—the state where evidence of his alleged criminality has always been the most compelling.This week Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis designated the 16 Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming they were Georgia’s presidential electors to be “targets” of her criminal probe into efforts to overturn Georgia’s presidential election results.

The reason for the target designation is not hard to see. Georgia election law not only makes it a crime to solicit election fraud; it specifically criminalizes willfully tampering with “any electors list, voter’s certificate, numbered list of voters, ballot box, voting machine, direct recording electronic (DRE) equipment, electronic ballot marker, or tabulating machine.” (Emphasis added.)

Indeed, as the criminal investigation plays out, the fake-electors scheme may well be the most clearly illegal element of the entire effort to overturn the election. Their designations represent a series of concrete, overt acts that move beyond verbal bluster about election fraud and raise the question—who initiated, approved, and/or directed the scheme?

As I’ve written before, Trump’s recorded demand that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find 11,780 votes”—along with his not-so-veiled threat that Raffensperger faced a “big risk” of criminal prosecution if he failed—was already quite legally problematic. Add this threat to the fake-electors scheme, and the elements of a criminal conspiracy come clearly into view.

At the end of the day, it is highly likely that the key question for federal and state prosecutors won’t be Can we make a case against Trump? Instead, it will be Should we make a case against Trump? Should the government seek to prosecute and imprison a former president of the United States? Does that calculus change if that former president is also the current front-runner for the Republican nomination?

I won’t pretend the answers are easy. I won’t pretend prosecution isn’t a risk. But as the evidence accumulates, the moral and political imperative becomes apparent. The former president isn’t a king. He’s a citizen of a constitutional republic, and citizens should stand trial when the evidence indicates they may have committed serious crimes."

lousubcap said:

David French CONTRIBUTING WRITER

At the end of the day, it is highly likely that the key question for federal and state prosecutors won’t be Can we make a case against Trump? Instead, it will be Should we make a case against Trump? Should the government seek to prosecute and imprison a former president of the United States? Does that calculus change if that former president is also the current front-runner for the Republican nomination?

I won’t pretend the answers are easy. 

Those are the easiest answers, for some of us.  

lousubcap said:

LEO launch has not yet occurred-
So give this a read when you are clear eyed: (this is copied from The Atlantic today-there is much more.) Excellent points and worthy of serious consideration.  

David French CONTRIBUTING WRITER

"Federal and state prosecutors may soon need to decide whether to bring charges against a former president and current front-runner for the Republican nomination. (edited in an attempt to keep it from the TL:DR death knell.)  Then, when the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what was necessary.” Did yesterday’s hearing add anything to this narrative? Yes, modestly. Here’s a summary of the key evidence, from The New York Times:

As a mob of his supporters assaulted the Capitol, former President Donald J. Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it, an array of former administration officials testified to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack in accounts laid out on Thursday.

In a final public hearing of the summer and one of the most dramatic of the inquiry, the panel provided a panoramic account of how, even as the lives of law enforcement officers, members of Congress and his own vice president were under threat, Mr. Trump could not be moved to act until after it was clear that the riot had failed to disrupt Congress’s session to confirm his election defeat.

If I was standing in front of a jury, I’d ask them to ponder a question—if Trump truly wanted only a “peaceful” protest, why did he passively allow the horrific violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard?

The answer, I’d argue, was that everything was happening precisely as Trump had intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?

Again, there are strong defenses to any prosecution for incitement. Trump’s calls for peace may convince the Department of Justice that an incitement prosecution is simply too tough to mount, in spite of all the additional evidence outlined above. Or Trump’s calls for peace may convince a judge that the high standard of incitement simply isn’t met.

But that doesn’t mean Trump is safe. To understand why, let’s turn briefly to Georgia—the state where evidence of his alleged criminality has always been the most compelling.This week Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis designated the 16 Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming they were Georgia’s presidential electors to be “targets” of her criminal probe into efforts to overturn Georgia’s presidential election results.

The reason for the target designation is not hard to see. Georgia election law not only makes it a crime to solicit election fraud; it specifically criminalizes willfully tampering with “any electors list, voter’s certificate, numbered list of voters, ballot box, voting machine, direct recording electronic (DRE) equipment, electronic ballot marker, or tabulating machine.” (Emphasis added.)

Indeed, as the criminal investigation plays out, the fake-electors scheme may well be the most clearly illegal element of the entire effort to overturn the election. Their designations represent a series of concrete, overt acts that move beyond verbal bluster about election fraud and raise the question—who initiated, approved, and/or directed the scheme?

As I’ve written before, Trump’s recorded demand that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find 11,780 votes”—along with his not-so-veiled threat that Raffensperger faced a “big risk” of criminal prosecution if he failed—was already quite legally problematic. Add this threat to the fake-electors scheme, and the elements of a criminal conspiracy come clearly into view.

At the end of the day, it is highly likely that the key question for federal and state prosecutors won’t be Can we make a case against Trump? Instead, it will be Should we make a case against Trump? Should the government seek to prosecute and imprison a former president of the United States? Does that calculus change if that former president is also the current front-runner for the Republican nomination?

I won’t pretend the answers are easy. I won’t pretend prosecution isn’t a risk. But as the evidence accumulates, the moral and political imperative becomes apparent. The former president isn’t a king. He’s a citizen of a constitutional republic, and citizens should stand trial when the evidence indicates they may have committed serious crimes."

Dangnapit Cap.  Can you give a summary or something?  I always start reading your posts, then after about 27 words, I get tired and need a nap.

Trump used a Secret Service phone to communicate with the insurrection squad.  

Conspiracy to boost popcorn sales 🍿

As you have longevity here you know that Richard's Sporting Goods chain has to be expressed as such for who knows why.  But we have work arounds.  
Stay healthy and safe out there-

The Cen-Tex Smoker said:

 unless you are trying to brighten someone’s day with a wiener joke. 

Tell that to the "thumb" I was talking to at Starbuck's this morning.