home

Sunday Night Open Thread

Donald Trump had an unscheduled doctor's visit today.

Barack Obama warns the Democrats against going too far left in their choice of nominee for President.

What's new in your world? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Impeachment Hearings Continue
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Walter Reed visit (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    ...was for a hysteria-ectomy.

    It failed.

    It was an (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    attempted heart attack.  According to Republicans, it does not count unless it successfully goes to completion.

    Parent
    This guy can't be the Democratic nominee. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    Joe Biden says marijuana is a 'gateway' drug.. Old Joe needs to stop queuing up "Reefer Madness" on Netflix. Joe, it's not a documentary.

    The gateway drug theory has been debunked time and again. Exactly what gateway are all the 50 and 60 year olds I know that smoke weed waiting for to open?

    This is the 1990s drug warrior mentality that brought about the crime bill that Joe enthusiastically supported.

    We have already have an out of touch senior citizen doddering around the White House. We don't need to replace him with another one.

    The number one 'gateway' (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    drug in America is alcohol. Always has been. I had a beer long before I even know what marijuana was. I took LSD cause I wanted to take LSD (it was freaking amazing! FSM bless purple microdot), not because I smoked pot.

    Parent
    It can't be (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 08:11:52 AM EST
    And I don't think it will be.

    Parent
    I wish I had your confidence (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    But if I were a betting person I would put my money on Biden.

    Parent
    I am a betting person (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    And I don't think it will be Biden.  But I'm probably not now prepared to bet on it.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    he appears to be going down in polling. I seriously think losing Iowa could really ding his chances at the nomination. Nate Silver says there is only 10% hardcore Bernie and Biden voters and the other 80% is fluid. I guess we'll see. We've had poll leaders at this point that did end up the nominee and poll leaders who did not.

    Parent
    Iowa really doesn't matter for Biden (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    Because no one expects him to win there.

    As long as he maintains his lock on black Democrats with all the candidates splitting white Democrats, I don't really see who else takes it.  I definitely don't see Pete winning them over, especially considering his recent fiasco on the 400 "supporters", and Warren doesn't seem to be making the inroads she needs either and IMO has made some missteps lately in that regard.  Harris seems to have stalled and Bernie has a ceiling.  I don't really see Deval Patrick or anyone else taking off at this point.     I hope I'm wrong.

    Parent

    A lot of it depends (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    on whether Biden losing IA affects his whole narrative about being the candidate to "take on Trump". Except for Pete rocketing to the top in Iowa things have been stagnant for the most part. Something may shake loose but it won't be until after Christmas.

    Parent
    Pete rocketing (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    to the top suggests that there is a lot of room for a moderate, and that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have reached their ceiling.

    If not Biden, then maybe Harris or Amy....But if Biden can withstand losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially if it is Pete who wins Iowa, then he can win the nomination.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    Bernie and Elizabeth are basically fighting for the same voters and cancel each other out. There's a lot of flux going on right now. Silver says there's only 20% that is truly committed to a candidate.

    Parent
    As Zerlina Maxwell (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    said this is great for a presidential campaign in 1996.

    Parent
    ... but not before then. Clearly, the guy is a 20th century politician in a 21st century world. That said, our real problem is that the current president is an oligarchical vestige of the Gilded Age.

    Parent
    Oh, look! From the Washington Post, ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:33:42 PM EST
    ... "Patrick and Bloomberg could be exactly what Democrats need" by Rahm Emanuel.

    BWAH-HA-HA-HA-ha-ha-ha ...!!

    Parent

    Biden does change (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 07:47:11 AM EST
    He was ahead of Obama in publicly supporting marriage equality.  He can still be moved into changing his positions.

    Parent
    I won't dispute that. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    But given what Biden's saying on the campaign trail, one would be forgiven for thinking that he was running against Bob Dole and Ross Perot in 1996.

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#40)
    by Natal on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:06:50 AM EST
    we in Canada made a mistake.  It's been over a year and I've no idea where to go to buy the stuff. In fact I think I've only seen one person smoking it in public and I live in large city, Calgary.


    Parent
    Trump "might" testify in the hearings (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    And monkeys "might" fly out of my butt.

    Marie Yovanovich goes to a jazz club... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    What I would give (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    To have participated in the brain storming session that produced this motto

    METH!!  WE'RE ON IT!

    (Not the Onion)

    They've obviously left no turn unstoned. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    ;-D

    Parent
    Half a million (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:13:22 PM EST
    for the stupidest ad in history and one million for actual treatment.

    I'd expect nothing less from the party of fiscal responsibility.

    Parent

    Ron Johnson is a disgrace (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 06:53:23 AM EST
    this letter he sent to the Ringmaster and Barker

    Is just a disgrace.  It's really almost unbelievable.

    There is an election coming and in every race where it's possible IMO they should nationalize it.  Make it clear the local democrat is not just running against, and voters should not just vote against, the local republican but they are running against the entire republican crime syndicate.  Every democrat should run against allowing Johnson, Nunes, Jordon, Graham, McConnell, Gomert, etc al access to a single lever of government.

    Every ad should include the whole f'ing clown car.

    I seeing a great ad about how many republicans can dance on the head of a mushroom.

    The truly sad part for Lt. Col. Vindman ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    ... is that by coming forward to tell the truth, he may have foreclosed upon any furtherance of his own military career. A promotion in the U.S. Army, Marine Corps and Air Force to the rank of colonel and above, and in the Navy and Coast Guard to the rank of Captain and above, requires an official White House approval. Well, fat chance he's going to get that sign-off now from this particular administration.

    Lt. Col. Vindman's awareness of the potential risk he was incurring by reporting the president's misconduct is what makes his own subsequent actions even more compelling. In the future, we may realize it likely rises to the level of heroic.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    A disgrace (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 08:03:16 AM EST
    From TPM's Josh Marshall: (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    "Alexander Vindman's occasionally halting delivery, slightly nerdy appearance underscores an impression of an essentially guileless individual. He's an almost unrealistically novelistic player in this drama."

    "Vindman's appearance is a not terribly subtle reminder that the US often needs a continuing flow of immigrants committed to American values to counter balance native born Americans who are eager to betray them."

    LINK.

    Parent

    ... has pleaded for compassion at sentencing on behalf of defendant Patrick Carlineo Jr., the 55-year-old white male who recently pleaded guilty in federal court to threatening the congresswoman's life:

    "We must ask: who are we as a nation if we respond to acts of political retribution with retribution ourselves?

    "The answer to hate is not more hate; it is compassion. Punishing the defendant with a lengthy prison sentence or a burdensome financial fine would not rehabilitate him. It would not repair the harm he has caused. It would only increase his anger and resentment.

    [...]

    "Threats of political violence and hate speech are not unique to Mr. Carlineo. They are an increasing feature in our public sphere. We will not defeat it with anger and exclusion. We will defeat it with compassion.

    "As Nelson Mandela said, 'People must learn to hate, and if they can be taught to hate, they can be taught to love.'

    "We must teach the defendant love.

    "For this reason, I do not believe the defendant would be served by a severe prison sentence or substantial financial fine and ask you to show compassion in your sentencing."

    Rep. Omar's letter to U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci Jr. can be read here: Page 1 and Page 2

    Aloha.

    CNN (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 07:40:51 PM EST

    President Donald Trump's visit to Walter Reed on Saturday did not follow the protocol of a routine presidential medical exam, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    Medical staff at Walter Reed did not get a staff-wide notice about a presidential visit to the medical center in Bethesda, Maryland, ahead of Trump's arrival, according to that source.



    Trump says (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 07:54:35 PM EST
    he does not care about being Impeached--it would actually help him, so some say.

    Nope.  He cares a lot.  And he knows he will be Impeached for tacky, corrupt bribery.  And he knows he is guilty.

    This is getting to him.

    Parent

    I'm not sure he cares (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:07:11 AM EST
    That much about being caught doing tacky things

    That's been sort of a defining characteristic of his life.  Not even sure he cares that much about being caught.  He has been caught and exposed plenty over the years.

    I think he cracking at the thought that for the first time in his miserable life he is going to be held accountable.  

    He can't "settle".  He can't counter sue but his repeated suggestion others should be impeached not him shows his "I'm rubber and you are glue"  preference in dealing with this kind of stuff.

    And it has always worked.  His whole miserable life.

    Not this time.

    Even if he is not removed he will be branded by it.  His Brand will be branded by it.

    Plus, talk is spreading  that it's looking bad enough the senate might have to censure him at least if they want any chance of keeping the majority.


    Parent

    I think we're (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:39:45 AM EST
    past censuring him at this point. It has gone too far. That would have been a good argument to hear from house republicans when all this broke. But now we're too deep in the weeds with Trump's corruption and every day brings forth more evidence that the senate is going to have to vote. However the fact that they are even going public with the fact that they are thinking they should censure him means that there are some serious cracks in Trump's support in the senate.

    Parent
    Speaker Pelosi knows how to poke (none / 0) (#9)
    by leap on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    the Orange Menace. She calls him insecure and "an imposter in that office, 'way over his head".

    Speaker Pelosi also said "What the president did is so much worse than what even Richard Nixon did. At some point Richard Nixon cared about the country enough to recognize that this could not continue..."

    He probably cares not a whit about being worse than Nixon, but being called an insecure imposter? Bet he's on his gold toilet releasing fumes, his trigger finger on Twitter.

    Parent

    ... to either go big or go home:

    Margaret Brennan, CBS News: "Do you think Democrats had a good week?"

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Well, I think the American people have had a good week. I think truth has had a good week. I think patriotism has had a good week. And I think the Constitution has got a good week. I don't think the President has had a good week."

    Brennan: "Well, Republicans argue here--"

    Pelosi: "You know what? If-- if we could just talk about what we want to do-- I really have a real discomfort level of responding to what Republicans say because they are in denial about what has happened in the country. So if you want to ask me about where we're going on this [impeachment inquiry], I'm happy to respond to that. But I find it a waste of my time and yours to just be talking about what Republicans say."

    Brennan: "Well, I want to just let you respond, though, to the argument that's being made in messaging by Republicans here. That the grounds--"

    Pelosi: "No, but I don't want to respond--"

    Brennan: "--for the impeachment--"

    Pelosi: "--let it stand. Let their arguments stand because they're so-- in such quicksand that I don't even want to have it given any more visibility by my dignifying any of their misrepresentations of what they say. And I say that out of great respect for you because I respect you as a great journalist. And I'm honored to have this interview with you. But I say to everybody else, I'm not here to talk about what they say because they are not facing the reality of what is happening to our country. And this is about our democracy that is at risk with this President in the White House."

    Our democracy's capacity to survive this right-wing assault on its institutions now mostly rests upon the Speaker's ability to guide her caucus, as well as the rest of us, through a political minefield. Let's hope that younger Democratic politicians -- <cough!>AOC! Swalwell!</cough!> -- are taking notes, because this is what real leadership looks like.

    As for our self-absorbed but less-than-illustrious D.C. press corps, who often seem to be staring at the rest of the country from the inside of a goldfish bowl, they really need to decide whether or not the entire Constitution is worth defending, or if their concern should be strictly confined to the specific clause in its First Amendment protecting the freedom of the press.

    Because right now, given the fact that so many in the media insist upon lazily mischaracterizing this constitutional crisis as a political horse race between Democrats and Republicans, rather than rightly recognizing it as an ethical struggle between right and wrong, they're clearly doing our country a real disservice.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Set up to fail? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    Jonathan Turley is was on CSPAN today talking about how it looks like Pelosi has set up this impeachment inquiry, one she never wanted to start, to fail by going tall and thin on the inquiry (Ukraine only) and pushing for a vote by the end of the year.

    I know she's said she hasn't made that call, but it sure seems like it. Maybe it bothers me that the whole thing is being treated as a calculated effort for the 2020 elections and not something that NEEDS to be done to clarify what is and is not acceptable from any President.

    Do you all think that sticking to one specific issue (the phone call and some adjacent subjects) is the right way to go when there is just so much else out there?

    Parent

    I do (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    I would disagree it is not being treated like something needs to be done.

    I think that is exactly how it is being treated.

    Parent

    At this point, (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 03:50:46 PM EST
    it makes sense to narrow the scope and limit the focus on the Ukraine wrong doings.  The Ukraine shakedown is not only egregious, but also, representative of the serial abuse and misuse of power by the president.

     The Ukraine mess has all the elements of Trump's reign of criminality: campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, witness intimidation, and Russian collusion (if not, based testimony in the Roger Stone trial--the crime of conspiracy).

    The Mueller Report in both Vol I and Vol II set forth ample grounds for impeachment, but the diffident Robert Mueller fell down on the job, in my view, by presenting conclusions that were deliberately obtuse:  "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so." Followed up with Mueller permitting Barr to lie about its contents and control its release. And, his reluctance to present his findings did not help, either.

    So, yes, sticking to one issue (not just the July 25 phone call, but the work of scoundrels and thieves surrounding that call) is the right way to go.  Frustrating, perhaps, in that it may be perceived as nailing Al Capone on income tax evasion.  But, Trump's shakedown is stated flat out in the Constitution as impeachable: treason, BRIBERY and other crimes and misdemeanors.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    yes maybe no.

    Sure there is plenty out there and IMO they should try to get him on everything under he sun.

    However most Americans  do not have the attention span to process more then a tiny slice.

    This Ukrainian thing has more of a discrete crime story to it, there are plenty of credible witnesses and plenty of obvious lies  to expose.  

    So far the Democrats have been steadily building a compelling narrative and enough "court room drama" to keep the audience entertained.

    Parent

    House attorneys have just argued ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    Steve13209: "Do you all think that sticking to one specific issue (the phone call and some adjacent subjects) is the right way to go when there is just so much else out there?"

    ... in federal court in their effort to compel the Justice Dept. to release the grand jury material from the Special Counsel's investigation that Trump's written deposition to Robert Mueller, in which Trump allegedly lied to federal prosecutors, is now subject to the impeachment inquiry.

    So it's pretty clear that House leadership is keeping an open mind, and House investigators are likely following the evidence where it leads them.

    Aloha.  

    Parent

    I don't think they have to explicitly (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    Include Russia/Mueller in the actual articles because the whole thing is acting as a frame and backdrop for the impeachment show.

    He was essentially caught trying to do exactly the same thing he basically got away with before.  It makes it even easier to believe the evidence that piling up.

    This is going to be a helluva week.

    Sondland is really looking pivotal.

    He should show up to testify in a T-shirt that says

    I GAVE A MILLION BUCKS FOR AND AMBASSADORSHIP AND ALL I GOT WAS A KRAPPY PERJURY CHARGE

    Parent

    LOL! The new 'Let's Make a Deal!' (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:44:32 PM EST
    "And that's not all! Look behind Door No. 2 to see what else you got for your million dollars! It's a -- two congressional subpoenas, exorbitant legal bills and a potential perjury rap!"

    Parent
    Schiff (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    Recently talked about sending him back to his golden throne

    Parent
    This story about the radio host (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 08:16:32 AM EST
    Who was fired in the middle of his show for criticizing Trump is good.  But I just heard him speak.  I had no idea who he was but watch the linked video and see if you agree with me that the very first thing I thought when I heard his voice was

    THIS guy has a voice for RADIO.

    LINK

    If you close your eyes.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    he could be a cartoon.

    Parent
    I' sat on a jury for a big case... (none / 0) (#24)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 02:04:45 PM EST
    that he was prosecuting. Let me tell you that voice gets really annoying real quick. One of the reasons I couldn't wait for that trial to be over.

    Parent
    Barack Obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:25:41 AM EST
    Also warned people against not pushing hard enough and resting on the accomplishments of his administration.

    Funny how none of the headlines reflect that part of his statement though.

    At this (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    point I just think we need to realize Obama has insight as a party elder much like Hillary, Bill and others and just take what he says in that context and move on.

    Parent
    When ACA (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    was developed it was designed to include a public option along with efforts to reduce drug pricing.  But, it was said that to include these components it would not be bipartisan, and maybe it would not pass. A compromise was necessary.  It was a good start and improvements could be made later--a very reasonable position.

    Now, it seems, that going farther is too socialistic and it will result in the loss of all that good private insurance. The voters will be scared to consider any changes, say some.  Maybe, just restoration of all the hits ACA has taken from Trump will do. Or maybe, let's think small and be ready to compromise.  A little tinkering is radical enough.

    With Medicare for All set forth as an aspirational goal, dipping the American toe in warmer waters in a transitional manner makes sense.  Health care coverage remains a political winner.

    Indeed, among factors in the re-election of Governor Edwards, in the red state of Louisiana (Trump was ahead of Secretary Clinton by about 20 points in 2016), was Edwards expansion of Medicaid. Kentucky Gov-elect Beshar plans, in keeping with his campaign, to rescind the Trump work requirements for Medicaid. A major factor in the defeat of Bevin who dismantled Kynect.

    Meanwhile, hospitals, previously reluctant, are now filing reams of lawsuits to privately insured patients for unpaid bills for deductibles and co-payments. Even employees of hospitals have been subject to suits, deducting unpaid balances from paychecks, leaving, essentially, pennies.

    Parent

    A "little tinkering" (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    A "little tinkering" leaves people without health care or makes it  too expensive for people to use even when they have insurance.

    Ask for the bare minimum and you will end up with even less. I will believe a "viable" government option when I see it. Any, even most modest proposals, will receive the same level of bipartisan support as ACA received. Zero,Zilch, Nada same as before. Anyone who is promoting the narrative that they can pass bipartisan healthcare is not being truthful.

    People were not happy with the status quo in 2016. The status quo and the litany that the Dem believed that only tiny changes were possible did not motivate enough people in 2016 and I firmly that a small ball approach will not be a winning strategy for 2020.

    Establishment Dems visibly coming out against the left of the party is not a winning strategy. The party needs the enthusiasm and hard work of this element of the party and does not need to go out of their way to demotivate them.

    Parent

    Profile in willful ignorance: (none / 0) (#39)
    by NoSides on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    Joe Biden said Saturday he will not federally legalize marijuana if he becomes president because there isn't "enough evidence" against it being a "gateway drug."

    "The truth of the matter is, there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug," Mr. Biden said during a Las Vegas town hall, according to Business Insider.

    "It's a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it," he said.

    Meet Disco the talking parakeet. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:14:02 AM EST
    Disco knows more words (none / 0) (#42)
    by desertswine on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:43:58 AM EST
    than trump.

    Parent
    And there is this (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    And this (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    Honestly (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

    Is my personal fav

    Parent

    Great footwork. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by desertswine on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 08:24:24 AM EST
    And don't play one on tv

    But Vindmans opening statement, all by itself, is a bulletproof to the head of the Republican bullshi+

    It's a remarkable story

    Um (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 08:25:04 AM EST
    A BULLET to the head

    Parent
    OH my (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    Charged, or expected to be charged (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    But I would be very surprised if the (ex-)guards were actually "arrested" rather than summoned to court to face charges and be released on bond.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:11:03 AM EST
    Everrrrrrrrr

    Parent
    It wasn't you that used the term (none / 0) (#56)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    "arrest" where I suspect it doesn't apply. It's my pet peeve against journalists who can't be bothered to learn the meaning of basic (not really technical) vocabulary that applies to the subject they are covering.

    Parent
    ... would you please explain to us the difference between "indictment" and "arraignment"?

    I've noticed that our local media here in Hawaii often seem to use the terms interchangeably when reporting on the ongoing scandal that's presently ensnared the leadership of Honolulu's law enforcement community, and they have obvious trouble distinguishing the two. I'm sure this happens elsewhere, too.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Sure, no problem. Easy. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    An indictment is a document. An arraignment is a court proceeding. Specifically, an indictment is a formal written statement of criminal charges, as approved by a grand jury. An arraignment is the initial court proceeding at which the charges (which may be contained in an indictment, but in other situations may be set forth in a "complaint" or in an "information") are read to the accused (or handed to them, and the formal reading waived) and the accused is then called upon to plead, either guilty or not guilty. At that early stage of the proceedings, by the way, "not guilty" does not mean, "I didn't do it." It only means, "I do not wish to waive my rights to the procedural steps of a criminal proceeding which may lead up to a trial, or at least not just yet."

    Parent