Trump Elected: The True MAGA Era Begins, Now What?

[Abats]

She was dressed totaly black with this white line on her hat. For me this symbolism looks like a little brightness which arise from the dark, like a shy hope

 

[dennis]

As above so below? Melania's choices seem to be black and white for this post swearing in evening occasion. I guess with an inauguration you are supposed to "augur" the signs.

There’s been a lot of hype in the news about a great planetary alignment in January 2025. Here are the facts, which are pretty cool anyway. It won’t be a magical lineup, but it WILL be an amazing planetary display you won’t want to miss. It’s truly the best overall planet view in years. Here’s more information.
...
Now, let’s review the whole celestial spectacle. In the east, we see Jupiter highest up, outshining everything else. And orange Mars is fairly low, brighter than everything except Jupiter, and matching that lowest blue star, Sirius. Since their luminosities appear equal, you might enjoy looking from Mars to Sirius to see the obvious color contrast of orange and blue-white. Up high, Jupiter is simply white. So we have a red, white, and blue motif happening if you give yourself the liberty of considering Mars as “The Red Planet,” which is its common nickname even though orange is not red any more than the hue of a pumpkin matches that of a stop sign.

A Giant Planetary Alignment on January 25? Get the Facts About An Amazing Planet Display.

There's been a lot of hype in the news about a great planetary alignment. Here are the facts, which are pretty cool anyway. It won't be a magical lineup, but it WILL be an amazing planet display you won't want to miss.

www.almanac.com

Melania chooses black and white gown for inaugural ball

 

[truepositive]

Can't help it, my first thought was 'that black looks like it was photoshopped on afterwards'

 

[Nienna]

According to US attorney Mike Davis, the States can lead the charge. Davis started the Article 3 Project.

I'm no expert but I think they are all still open to prosecution at the state level. This only applies to federal charges.

From what I've read yesterday, Texas and Florida are already looking into going after Fauci for crimes he committed in those states.

 

[axj]

Regarding Canada, Panama and Greenland more people seem to be catching on to Trump's strategy of making outrageous demands or threats at the start of negotiations to get a favorable deal later.

Russian diplomats call it "trolling Canada ahead of trade negotiations":

Russian diplomats claim Trump is ‘trolling’ Canada – media

US President Trump is likely trying to soften up Ottawa ahead of trade negotiations, according to Moscow’s embassy in Canada

www.rt.com

While this RT analysts calls it the "madman strategy", eg. to get concessions from Denmark on things like mineral mining rights in Greenland:

The ‘madman strategy’: The secret behind Trump’s foreign policy

Why 47th president’s Greenland move could reshape the world order

www.rt.com

 

[Cosmos]

As for Musk‘s and now also Trumps stated “inspiring“ mission to get humans to Mars:

Although I still think the huge sums that this would require could be spend much more productively on earth, I can also see that such a inspiring mission could be something helpful at this point. So if they really want to do that, how about getting that money and still have MUCH left by simply stopping all the death and chaos America is spreading throughout the globe in secret programs of wars and overthrowing regions and also all the other huge sums that are spend by CIA, NSA and FBI an co. in other useless programs? Stopping NATO would also be very helpful in that regard. That doesn’t mean you have to compromise on making the military strong (which is a good thing). You can do both.

Hope they will go into that direction.

 

[Mrs. Peel]

I saw yesterday much was being made by the other side about Trump not putting his hand on the bibles that Melania was holding during the swearing in. Haven't had time yet to check around and see is there is any explanation for that today.

 

[Abats]

I found this video showing Eric Trump being caught by his wife doing this gesture, told him to stop it seems.

Is it again some sign of allegiance ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1881535217229590838

 

[Beau]

She was dressed totaly black with this white line on her hat. For me this symbolism looks like a little brightness which arise from the dark, like a shy hope

For me Melania's hat choice was all about shielding her eyes from her enemies. It's been mentioned how angry she is about the feds raiding their home. Gotta imagine she was staring daggers at the Bidens and Clintons.

 

[Keit]

I found this video showing Eric Trump being caught by his wife doing this gesture, told him to stop it seems.

Is it again some sign of allegiance ?

For me it seems that she is asking him to move aside a bit. He stood too much in front of her.

As for his hand gesture, I was curious and searched in Russian for how to position your hands while standing. And I found the following picture. It says in Russian: "Connect the finger pads. This gesture demonstrates your confidence. It is being used by politicians and CEOs."

I guess not every politician or CEO can manage this gesture without looking like a reptilian overlord


F

 

[dennis]

The USA under JFK was on track to peacefully explore space and then it all went kaflooey, at least the manned missions after the few trips to the moon. Although Musk and Bezos are likely figureheads of more covert groupings redirecting money and energy away from the death and destruction track to a more nurturing activity up there and down here would be inspiring, notwithstanding the tenuous financial state of affairs.

Maybe Zuckerberg will consider getting into the rocket business.

 

[Cosmos]

Not only were Bezos and Zuckerberg “on Trump’s side“ during the inauguration with his cabinet and family members but also Apple chief Tim Cook. All people I trust little and were pretty anti Trump. While Cook was visibly communicating and laughing with Killary and the other psycho gang members on the other side.

What are Zuckerberg and co really up to? More then meets the eye or just sanity and/or economic interests? Do they have a conscious or unconscious mission from the PTB?

 

[Elisasheva]

Not only were Bezos and Zuckerberg “on Trump’s side“ during the inauguration with his cabinet and family members but also Apple chief Tim Cook. All people I trust little and were pretty anti Trump. While Cook was visibly communicating and laughing with Killary and the other psycho gang members on the other side.

What are Zuckerberg and co really up to? More then meets the eye or just sanity and/or economic interests? Do they have a conscious or unconscious mission from the PTB?

Imo they smelled some business and calculated that it's profitable to play Trump's friends as long as he has people's support. They stick to those who have the support at a given moment. Maybe Trump promised them drilling business in USA and Greenland. Idk what to think, on the one hand people complain about how corporations exploit them and the markets, the resources, but if they are on Trump's side they suddenly become good guys? The Hillary gang, including other compromised politicians, are just tools. Probably figures like Bezos, Musk etc. are also just some faces for display. Who knows who really owns it. Blackrock? I can't believe Trump isn't some tool as well. They needed to play along with people's expectations. They found and crafted a saviour of the nation. Now Americans think that a figure like Musk cares about their wellbeing and has a big heart. Like the richest people on earth would care about mere peasants we're for them...

 

[PopHistorian]

This gesture demonstrates your confidence.

I read the same elsewhere.

 

[Jones]

Found a small snippet on presidential pardons and it seem like they might not totally get the criminals off the hook.

Pardon Basics

Chief Justice John Marshall described the pardon power in an 1833 case as “an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” The Constitution’s Framers put little textual restrictions on this broad authority, which they had borrowed from English custom, when designating the President’s Article II powers. Indeed, several proposals offered at the Constitutional Convention would have curbed this power. Such proposals included requiring Senate approval of each pardon, prohibiting pardons for the crime of treason, and prohibiting pre conviction pardons. Each proposal was voted down, leaving only the two restrictions found in the current text—presidential pardons are limited to federal criminal offenses and may not be used “in cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s power does not extend to criminal convictions under state law. Also, a pardon only absolves penal sanctions and cannot be used to absolve a person from civil sanction or liability directly. Given the basic contours of the pardon power, several significant questions remain to be answered.

Can the President issue a so-called “prospective pardon”?

With respect to crimes committed prior to the issuance of the pardon, it appears the President can issue a pardon before any criminal proceeding against the pardon recipient has been initiated. In the1866 case ex parte Garland, the Supreme Court announced that the pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” Put another way, for the President to issue a pardon, the crime must have already been committed, but the President need not wait for an indictment or other information before granting the pardon. Take, for example, President Gerald Ford’s pardon for former President Richard Nixon, which granted Nixon “a full, free, and absolute pardon . . .for all offenses against the United States which he . . . has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.” Although no indictment had been brought against Nixon, his pardon shielded him from any future federal prosecution based upon any criminal acts he may have committed during the time period stated. A 1995 memo from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) confirms this understanding by the executive branch, noting that “throughout the Nation’s history, Presidents have asserted the power to issue pardons prior to conviction, and the consistent view of the Attorneys General has been that such pardons have as full an effect as pardons issued after conviction.”

So, the issuance of a pardon is recognition that a crime/s has/have been committed and while a pardon can prevent a jail term, it doesn't protect the party from civil fines or being sued for liability.

I've read some news reports that claim that the acceptance of a pardon is not an admission of guilt, however the following seems to indicate that's not the case even though there had been some legal discussion on the matter.

Is acceptance of a pardon an “admission of guilt” that carries legal consequences?

Whether accepting a pardon is an “admission of guilt” under the law is another gray area surrounding the pardon power. In Garland, the Court described the legal effect of a pardon in broad terms:

A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.

However, in the 1915 case, Burdick v. United States, the Court arguably seemed to move away from this expansive reading when it observed that a “confession of guilt [may be] implied in the acceptance of a pardon.” More recent lower court cases tend to agree that a pardon does not abrogate the recipient’s guilt. The D.C. Circuit, for instance, opined that “Garland's dictum was implicitly rejected in Burdick v. United States, which recognized that the acceptance of a pardon implies a confession of guilt.” Applying Burdick, the D.C. Circuit concluded that “because a pardon does not blot out guilt ... one can conclude that a pardon does not blot out probable cause of guilt or expunge an indictment.” The Seventh Circuit agreed that “a pardon does not ‘blot out guilt’ nor does it restore the offender to a state of innocence in the eye of the law as was suggested in Ex Parte Garland.” It has not been definitely adjudicated whether Garland remains good law after Burdick.

Could still be some action against those that Biden has pardoned by the sounds of it.