> at least under Federal Aviation Administration rules, this maneuver was very illegal.

> § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

> New York Times reporter Thomas Gibbons-Neff said that one of the Black Hawks had flown so low that it broke a large branch off a tree with its rotor wash, which fell, but thankfully didn't injure anyone on the ground below.

So who do you think is going to prosecute that? For that matter, how do you plan to get passed power of the Pardon the President wields?

The Senate abdicated their responsibility and chance to hold Trump accountable. This is the outcome.

I don't like the looks of either side of this bloody conflict.

Look, I want to be clear. I think the Democrats had a case, but didn't pick their issues correctly at the impeachment. I also think the Republicans completely missed the point that their candidate had totally shattered pretty much every historical bound of decency in terms of responsible, dignified behavior as expected of a President. If that vote had been much closer, we might see a bit more restraint coming from the President's office right now. That didn't happen.

I just want to be clear that there is nothing that makes me more nervous than a President who is shown no sign of being second guessed by the Legislature, especially during a crisis. It wouldn't even matter if roles were reversed and it were Hillary in the White House with Democrats in control of the Senate. I'd still be calling them out.

It is so easy to get carried away by the reins of power. Most people do not realize just how well equipped the Government is to go full authoritarian if it came down to it. The only thing that has kept that from happening has been our value system doing a fairly decent job of keeping that tendency in check. Or at least it seemed to be prior to 2001.

I don't disagree. We're descending into authoritarianism due to the utter lack of checks and balances. I was just responding to the comment above that questioned if the news was "overblown". Doesn't sound overblown to me or the various people reporting on it.

You can take a look at the videos yourself. Go on snapchat maps, click near the WH. That[0] is not "recon and visuals," that is a military helicopter intimidating US civilians on our own soil.

[0]: https://s.sc-cdn.net/1KO38_D-saomzlpaMCGJvY96UMxYdW5Lsb-9MzD...

Last night these "peaceful" protestors burned a church directly across from the White House. The Lincoln memorial was defaced. The World War 2 memorial was defaced. The military has to protect the capital.

And this is a fire and police department set ablaze in Minneapolis: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UO8ppmbjK8

You've lost the plot.

Lol. Absolutely unnecessary use of police brutality against minority communities and peaceful protestors leads to more intense protestors and violence. And your response is “you’ve lost the plot”.

Stand this one out. You have no understanding of the situation on the ground.

It's illegal for the military to monitor US citizens. It is illegal for them to police non-federal property.

Wasn't this past curfew (7pm in DC), which is illegal for them to be gathering?

Indeed it was a curfew violation. That is not a valid reason to illegally use the might of the US military.

> Indeed it was a curfew violation. That is not a valid reason to illegally use the might of the US military.

Is that a law you can cite or your opinion? I’m really asking, IDK

Playing devil's advocate, didn't they call in the national guard though? That's what the national guard is. I guess I am not surprised at seeing military grade machines.

The devil seems to be doing just fine without any help these days.

The national guard has a bad track record, but at least it is legal and their job. The US military cannot legally do this.

Last night they attempted to burn a church directly across from the White House. These are domestic acts of terror. The military's highest responsibility is to protect the nation.

Arson is a crime, but a crime worthy of the US military? That feels insane.

The choppers were by all accounts being used against groups of peaceful protesters who were nowhere near the church in question. They were not the ones involved in the arson.

Are you familiar with how America got started?

I don't think this is relevant for your parent, but I wish more people considered this to put our current events into a proper context.

The Boston Tea Party was a riot by the colonial residents and it was an instigating event in the Revolutionary War.

The 2A is a threat that the people will (and according to founding fathers should) rebel if the government becomes too tyrannical.