RETWEET: Thousands of #MAGA supporters are splitting from the Republican Party to form the Patriot Party. I don't understand why
@realDonaldTrump won't join them? If he's a patriot he'll do so—publicly, proudly, quickly. If Trump won't join the Patriots, something's off with him.
by ponchi101 Thousands of MAGA's won't make any difference. If you start talking hundreds of thousands, maybe in one state or another. You will need a few million to make the idea truly lethal.
But you know for whom.
What color will they choose? I recommend Brown.
by ti-amie Because a top Democratic operative used the word "effers" to describe the GOP Rubio went on a rant about disrespect.
Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
The stunning hypocrisy we’re beginning to see from folks who were silent for four years about vulgarities and hideous smears and more is going to require seatbelts and various safety equipment. Strap in!
by ponchi101 It took me the incredible stupidity to actually look up "effers" in the Webster, before I got it.
Gee, I guess we have to ban that word from this forum, don't we?
by Togtdyalttai It would be great to see Trump run for president in 2024 for the Patriot Party.
by ponchi101
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:57 pm
It would be great to see Trump run for president in 2024 for the Patriot Party.
He would get more votes than whatever is left of the GOP. I think.
by ti-amie Scott Dworkin @funder
I just wanna be clear that Jen O’Malley Dillon didn’t call anyone a f*cker.
“I’m not saying they’re not a bunch of f*ckers,” is what Jen said. Anyone saying differently is fake news. Smiling face with sunglassesThumbs up
by ti-amieHow Fake News Is Hatching in Immigrant Communities
Right-wing conspiracy theories are reaching Asian and Latino voters through platforms like WeChat, KakaoTalk and WhatsApp. Democrats must take notice.
By Cathy Park Hong
Ms. Hong is a poet and the author of the book of essays, “Minor Feelings: An Asian American Reckoning.”
Dec. 20, 2020
In August I was on the phone with my mother, a 70-year-old Korean immigrant, to discuss the upcoming election. In the past, she had complained that President Trump was a lunatic, so I naturally assumed that she would support — or at least be neutral about — Joe Biden.
“I don’t like him either,” she told me. “He’ll be soft on China. I know all about his son Hunter’s business dealings there.”
Hearing her parrot a right-wing talking point was out of the ordinary. My mother doesn’t watch Fox News or any other English-language news. In her 40-plus years living in the United States, she has never voted. Alarmed, I began calling her more often to whack down spurious claims, as if I were playing a carnival game. Sick of my calls, my mother eventually registered to vote for the first time and voted for Mr. Biden.
But since the election, the fake news she hears has only worsened, spiking from Fox News talking points to batty QAnon-level conspiracy theories. When I ask where she gets her news, my mother simply says, everyone thinks this.
“Who is everyone?”
“Everyone!” she insists, rattling off all her friends who have told her falsehoods that George Soros or Bill Gates will control Mr. Biden. As if under the spell of a cult, my mother has a fresh new conspiracy theory for me each time we speak. Recently, she asked me if Mr. Biden stole the election — because how else could thousands of votes suddenly have appeared for him in Michigan?
While it’s well established that fake news is spiraling out of control, we must pay attention to the disinformation rapidly hatching in nonwhite immigrant communities as well. Asian-Americans are the fastest growing electorate in the nation and are becoming a powerful voter bloc as more and more live in swing states. Polls have so far shown that Asian-Americans voted for Mr. Biden by a smaller margin than they did for Hillary Clinton in 2016, a rightward trend that Christine Chen, executive director of the nonpartisan civic organization APIAVote, said could be partly because of an influx of disinformation. With the upcoming U.S. Senate elections in Georgia, Democrats cannot afford much slippage.
Right-wing conspiracy theories have infiltrated Asian and Latino communities through social media platforms like WeChat, WhatsApp, Facebook, KakaoTalk and YouTube. Organizers say that older immigrants who don’t consume mainstream English-language media can be more susceptible to disinformation about American politics. “Disinformation is really hard to track because it isn’t just contained in the continental U.S. but being lobbied from friends and family from, let’s say, Colombia,” María Teresa Kumar, chief executive of Voto Latino, said. “Democrats don’t understand how deep it is.”
Nonwhite voters are the Democratic Party’s base, but the party has ignored them, assuming that the Republican Party’s racist and nativist politics would be enough to mobilize them. An APIAVote survey conducted this past summer found that half of Asian-Americans had not been contacted by either party. This is typical. Asian-Americans have historically been left out of voter outreach efforts because they make up just under 6 percent of the nation and cluster in blue coastal states. Trying to engage an atomized demographic that speaks dozens of different languages can also pose a challenge to political organizers.
Asian-Americans and Latinos both comprise dozens of different nationalities, making it difficult to draw broad conclusions about their voting patterns. But anti-communism has traditionally been part of the Republican Party’s appeal to older immigrants, and disinformation that paints the Democratic Party’s platform as socialist has reinforced that appeal, especially among some older Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese and Vietnamese immigrants who fear anything left-of-center teeters too close to the Chinese Communist Party. Right-wing groups have also used WhatsApp and WeChat to smear the goals of Black Lives Matter, warning that mass riots were to occur on Election Day, to deter Asian and Latino immigrants from going out to vote.
Editors’ Picks
How New York City Vaccinated 6 Million People in Less Than a Month
Christmas Is Coming. Cue the Guilt Trips and Tears.
With Rents Going Down, They Looked to Trade Up. Which of These Homes Would You Choose?
It’s nearly impossible to chase down all the disinformation scattered across the globe. It’s spread by former Trump aides, foreign governments and a Falun Gong-backed media empire determined to take down the Chinese government. Steve Bannon partnered with the exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui to plant bogus stories of hidden business dealings by the Biden family in China, which then went viral among the Chinese diaspora. Nguyen Dinh Thang, president of the civil society organization Boat People SOS, has noticed many Vietnamese-language Facebook pages, some with tens of thousands of followers, spreading falsehoods about the U.S. elections to Vietnamese nationals and immigrants.
The disinformation that reaches my mother from ethnic language platforms is often traced to Mr. Trump himself. My mother doesn’t get her news from conservative Korean YouTube channels or the messenger platform KakaoTalk. She hears it over the phone from friends, some of whom recently told her that hospitals have been inflating Covid-19 death numbers to qualify for more insurance money. She had no idea the president falsely claimed that during a rally in October.
If the global ubiquity of fake news is not addressed, it could continue to peel away minority community support that Democrats count on. Disinformation has been weaponized to poach on immigrant fears so that, like their white working-class counterparts, some Asian and Latino immigrants are voting against their economic interests. With tech giants refusing to provide serious oversight, fake news not only exploits their fears of socialism but provokes any latent anti-Black prejudices, warning that to “defund the police” would lead to anarchy.
Democrats and progressives must be surgical in their canvassing, and train many more bilingual volunteers to reach out to immigrant voters via social media and in-person, finding trusted messengers who take the time to build relationships with community leaders. Grassroots organizations like the Georgia-based Asian American Advocacy Fund, VietFactCheck and Asian Americans Against Trump have been committed to that labor.
Lastly, for progressives who come from immigrant families, it’s up to us. We must use our blood connections to counter these lie machines by engaging with our families and friends about, for instance, the crucial importance of the Georgia Senate elections or the detailed policies behind the “defund the police” movement that can help stop cops from killing Black people.
In November, Asian-Americans came out in record numbers and helped deliver swing states like Georgia to Mr. Biden. In Georgia’s Seventh District, which flipped from red to blue this election, 41 percent of the electorate were first-time voters as a result of grass-roots efforts and family outreach. I talked to one Korean-American woman who said she was flying to Atlanta to escort her mother, who had never voted before, to the polls.
My own mother now asks me about every story she hears. Granted, she also has other motives. “If I tell you what I hear,” she said, “then I know you’ll call me back.”
by ponchi101 I wrote a little bit about in my last blog (tat1.0). A good friend told me: "Venezuela never had a chance. We were the guinea pigs for this election". By that he meant that Smatmatics, the company being talked about for "stealing" the election, was simply a test run in Venezuela, when they DID steal the referendum in 2004.
I was aghast. I consider him rather smart (he is in Australia, another exile).
And all of my GF's stupid friends in Miami voted for Tiny, because "Biden will be soft on Venezuela". The fact that Tiny has been in power for four years and Maduro is doing fine simply does not register.
We will be defeated by stupidity. It is only a matter of how many "we" are.
by ti-amie This is happening in the African-Caribbean community as well.
by ti-amie Don't mess with people from Venezuela.
Last week, a lawyer for Antonio Mugica sent scathing letters to Fox, Newsmax and OAN demanding that they immediately, forcefully clear his company’s name.Credit...Niklas Hallen/Getty Images
The ‘Red Slime’ Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media
Voting machine companies threaten “highly dangerous” cases against Fox, Newsmax and OAN, says Floyd Abrams.
By Ben Smith
Published Dec. 20, 2020
Updated Dec. 21, 2020, 6:06 a.m. ET
Antonio Mugica was in Boca Raton when an American presidential election really melted down in 2000, and he watched with shocked fascination as local government officials argued over hanging chads and butterfly ballots.
It was so bad, so incompetent, that Mr. Mugica, a young Venezuelan software engineer, decided to shift the focus of his digital security company, Smartmatic, which had been working for banks. It would offer its services to what would obviously be a growth industry: electronic voting machines. He began building a global company that ultimately provided voting machinery and software for elections from Brazil to Belgium and his native Venezuela. He even acquired an American company, then called Sequoia.
Last month, Mr. Mugica initially took it in stride when his company’s name started popping up in grief-addled Trump supporters’ wild conspiracy theories about the election.
“Of course I was surprised, but at the same time, it was pretty clear that these people were trying to discredit the election and they were throwing out 25 conspiracy theories in parallel,” he told me in an interview last week from Barbados, where his company has an office. “I thought it was so absurd that it was not going to have legs.”
But by Nov. 14, he knew he had a problem. That’s when Rudy Giuliani, serving as the president’s lawyer, suggested that one voting company, Dominion Voting Systems, had a sinister connection to vote counts in “Michigan, Arizona and Georgia and other states.” Mr. Giuliani declared on Twitter that the company “was a front for SMARTMATIC, who was really doing the computing. Look up SMARTMATIC and tweet me what you think?”
Soon his company, and a competitor, Dominion — which sells its services to about 1,900 of the county governments that administer elections across America — were at the center of Mr. Giuliani’s and Sidney Powell’s theories, and on the tongues of commentators on Fox News and its farther-right rivals, Newsmax and One America News.
“Sidney Powell is out there saying that states like Texas, they turned away from Dominion machines, because really there’s only one reason why you buy a Dominion machine and you buy this Smartmatic software, so you can easily change votes,” the Newsmax host Chris Salcedo said in one typical mash-up on Nov. 18. Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business reported on Nov. 15 that “one source says that the key point to understand is that the Smartmatic system has a backdoor.”
Here’s the thing: Smartmatic wasn’t even used in the contested states. The company, now a major global player with over 300 employees, pulled out of the United States in 2007 after a controversy over its founders’ Venezuelan roots, and its only involvement this November was with a contract to help Los Angeles County run its election.
In an era of brazen political lies, Mr. Mugica has emerged as an unlikely figure with the power to put the genie back in the bottle. Last week, his lawyer sent scathing letters to the Fox News Channel, Newsmax and OAN demanding that they immediately, forcefully clear his company’s name — and that they retain documents for a planned defamation lawsuit. He has, legal experts say, an unusually strong case. And his new lawyer is J. Erik Connolly, who not coincidentally won the largest settlement in the history of American media defamation in 2017, at least $177 million, for a beef producer whose “lean finely textured beef” was described by ABC News as “pink slime.”
Now, Mr. Connolly’s target is a kind of red slime, the stream of preposterous lies coming from the White House and Republican officials around the country.
“We’ve gotten to this point where there’s so much falsity that is being spread on certain platforms, and you may need an occasion where you send a message, and that’s what punitive damages can do in a case like this,” Mr. Connolly said.
Mr. Mugica isn’t the only potential plaintiff. Dominion Voting Systems has hired another high-powered libel lawyer, Tom Clare, who has threatened legal action against Ms. Powell and the Trump campaign. Mr. Clare said in an emailed statement that “we are moving forward on the basis that she will not retract those false statements and that it will be necessary for Dominion to take aggressive legal action, both against Ms. Powell and the many others who have enabled and amplified her campaign of defamation by spreading damaging falsehoods about Dominion.”
These are legal threats any company, even a giant like Fox Corporation, would take seriously. And they could be fatal to the dream of a new “Trump TV,” a giant new media company in the president’s image, and perhaps contributing to his bottom line. Newsmax and OAN would each like to become that, and are both burning money to steal ratings from Fox, executives from both companies have acknowledged. They will need to raise significantly more money, or to sell quickly to investors, to build a Fox-style multibillion-dollar empire. But outstanding litigation with the potential of an enormous verdict will be enough to scare away most buyers.
And so Newsmax and OAN appear likely to face the same fate as so many of President Trump’s sycophants, who have watched him lie with impunity and imitated him — only to find that he’s the only one who can really get away with it. Mr. Trump benefits from presidential immunity, but also he has an experienced fabulist’s sense of where the legal red lines are, something his allies often lack. Three of his close aides were convicted of lying, and Michael Cohen served more than a year in prison. (Trump pardoned Michael Flynn and commuted the sentence of Roger Stone.)
OAN and Newsmax have been avidly hyping Mr. Trump’s bogus election claims. OAN has even been trying to get to Newsmax’s right, by continuing to reject Joe Biden’s status as president-elect. But their own roles in propagating that lie could destroy their businesses if Mr. Mugica sues.
The letters written by lawyers for Smartmatic and Dominion are “extremely powerful,” said Floyd Abrams, one of the country’s most prominent First Amendment lawyers, in an email to The New York Times. “The repeated accusations against both companies are plainly defamatory and surely have done enormous reputational and financial harm to both.”
Mr. Abrams noted that “truth is always a defense” and that, failing that, the networks may defend themselves by saying they didn’t know the charges were false, while Ms. Powell may say she was simply describing legal filings.
“It is far too early to predict how the cases, if commenced, will end,” he said. “But it is not too early to say that they would be highly dangerous to those sued.”
Lawyers said they expected that the right-wing networks, if sued, would argue that Smartmatic and Dominion should be considered “public figures” — which would require the companies to prove that its critics were malicious or wildly reckless, not just wrong.
Mr. Connolly said he would argue that Smartmatic was not a public figure, a legal status whose exact meaning varies depending on whether Mr. Mugica files suit in Florida, New York or another state.
“They have a very good case,” another First Amendment lawyer who isn’t connected to the litigation, the University of Florida professor Clay Calvert, said of Smartmatic. “If these statements are false and we are taking them as factual statements, that’s why we have defamation law.”
Fox News and Fox Business, which have mentioned Dominion 792 times and Smartmatic 118 times between them, according to a search of the service TVEyes, appear to be taking the threat seriously. Over the weekend, they broadcast one of the strangest three-minute segments I’ve ever seen on television, with a disembodied and anonymous voice flatly asking a series of factual questions about Smartmatic of an expert on voting machines, Eddie Perez, who debunks a series of false claims. The segment, which appeared scripted to persuade a very literal-minded judge or jury that the network was being fair, aired over the weekend on the shows hosted by Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo, where Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell had made their most outlandish claims.
Newsmax said in an emailed statement that the channel “has never made a claim of impropriety about Smartmatic, its ownership or software” and that the company was merely providing a “forum for public concerns and discussion.” An OAN spokeswoman didn’t respond to an inquiry.
I’m reluctant to cheer on a defamation case against news organizations, even networks that appear to be amplifying dangerous lies. Companies and politicians often exploit libel law to threaten and silence journalists, and at the very least subject them to expensive and draining litigation.
And defamation cases can also collide with subjects of genuine public interest, as in the most prominent case I’ve been involved in, when a businessman sued me and my colleagues at BuzzFeed News for publishing the Steele Dossier, while acknowledging that it was unverified. There, a judge ruled that the document was an official record that BuzzFeed was entitled to publish.
In this controversy, even the voting companies’ worst critics find the coverage wildly distorted.
“They’ve been mining every paper I’ve ever written and any deposition I’ve ever given and it’s nonsense,” said Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa who has long argued that voting software isn’t as secure as its vendors claim. He said Ms. Powell’s cybersecurity expert, Navid Keshavarz-Nia, called him on Nov. 15, apparently seeing him as a potential ally, and spent an hour going point-by-point over claims that would wind up in a deposition. “He seemed sane, but every time I would ask him for evidence that would support one of these allegations he would squirm off to a different allegation,” Mr. Jones said.
As the conversation wore on, he wondered, “Was someone trying to pull a ‘Borat’ on me?”
But the allegations are no joke for Smartmatic and Dominion. Mr. Mugica said he had taken worried calls from governments and politicians all over the world, concerned that Mr. Trump’s poison will seep into their politics and turn a Smartmatic contract into a liability.
“This potentially could destroy it all,” he said.
Mr. Mugica wouldn’t say whether he has made up his mind to sue. Mr. Connolly said that he has “a lot of people watching a lot of videos right now,” and that he’s researching whether to file in New York, Florida or elsewhere. I asked Mr. Mugica if he’d settle for an apology.
“Is the apology going to reverse the false belief of tens of millions of people who believe in these lies?” he asked. “Then I could be satisfied.”
by ti-amie I read this last night and Ive been thinking about his premise ever since. I don't play video games especially the super immersive ones for the very reason's laid out here. After awhile where does fantasy end and reality begin? There is a lawsuit in Massachusetts I think against a brokerage firm called "Robin Hood" where the plaintiffs say this company has turned investing into a game and that people are losing their money. They talk about it on this weeks Slate Money.
Seth Abramson
QAnon is an ARG (Alternate Reality Game). It was set up that way and is managed that way. QAnoners are playing an ARG and refuse to stop for the very reason transreality gaming can be hazardous: you can forget what's game and what's reality. QAnoners are lost in a dangerous game.
The reason this matters is that Trump and his agents aim to expand the gamification of reality beyond the confines of QAnon's ARG mythology. Now they're turning the finding of evidence of "election fraud" into a transreality game with its own mythology. All of this is dangerous.
When we think of the far right as a space of "fake news" rather than the gamification of reality, we falsely accept the notion that Trumpists are interested in news. They're not. They're interested in tailored escapism, and in redefining reality as a mythology they can live with.
When you misdefine someone as simply an indiscriminate "news consumer" rather than deeming them a LARPer—Live-Action Roleplayer—you erroneously analyze their characteristics and erroneously model their behavior.
Trump himself is an ARG—and people enjoy the game too much to stop.
Trump and his agents are deliberately creating a new intelligence theater, in which intelligence agents must "enter the game"—yes, a bit akin to entering a Matrix—to combat the seditious ends Trump, Flynn and others intend to direct their ARG to. It's all weird digital-age stuff.
By this same logic, QAnoners cannot be reached by *real* news presented to them in *conventional* terms.
Instead, intelligence agents will end up infiltrating the Trumpist QAnon ARG with the "real" using scenarios in which the "real" *momentarily* seems to be part of the "game."
This is why I described the Trump era as the First Reality War, and urged folks in intel to treat reality as an active combat theater. Government will need many more digital-age cultural theorists than it anticipated. Not cyber folks—I mean world-builders and their interlocutors.
The good news: the generation coming up gets transmedia, transreality, XR, ARGs, pervasive gaming, immersive theater, reality mining, gamification, collaborative OSINT and the like far more than their elders. Which is key, as much of the Trumpist threat will come in such spheres.
For instance, "Communism" exists in Trumpist mythology the same way Shinra did in Final Fantasy VII: as an in-game construction defined by narrative utility and seamless integration with a UX. Trumpists have no idea how the term connects to anything actually happening in America.
So Trumpists can't be deprogrammed from their sense of what Communism—or for that matter socialism—means in meat space, as their (false) consciousness of these terms is the product of an in-game "economy." You either change their game or get them to stop playing. Both are *hard*.
But put aside intelligence and counterintelligence.
What this means for the average American is that you may have members of your family or certain acquaintances who you can no longer speak to because *even when they are talking to your face* they are playing a transreality ARG.
My advice to those with Trumpists or QAnoners they still want to interact with: you have to find ways to get them to *put the ARG aside* momentarily. Which is hard, because Trump and his team are daily expanding the size of the ARG to try to make it *roughly the size of reality*.
The best many of us can do right now is to try to draw these LARPers into non-game spaces in which they have non-game interactions with non-game participants—and to try to make such spaces and interactions of such high entertainment value that the game begins to seem unnecessary.
But you don't address the situation by trying to introduce "real news" (qua news) directly into the situation, as you are dealing with someone whose interest is in entertainment rather than news—and whose fundamental complaint is with reality itself, not with information streams.
I teach digital-age cultural theory, XR literacy, mass communications, post-postmodernism, digital journalism and transmedia worldbuilding at the university level—while my recent books are classified as being on the subject of intelligence and espionage—so these are my interests.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:20 pm
Don't mess with people from Venezuela.
... The ‘Red Slime’ Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media
Voting machine companies threaten “highly dangerous” cases against Fox, Newsmax and OAN, says Floyd Abrams.
For what it's worth.
Smartmatic ran the software and hardware for the 2004 REFERENDUM in Venezuela, proposed by the opposition to oust Chavez. Run by the National Electoral Council (CNE, and nothing like the American Electoral College), the software used by Smartmatic was never audited by independent experts. This was frequently requested but the CNE did not allow it, and Smartmatic never obliged (they could not).
I knew the guy that designed the software; he was a teacher at the Universidad Simon Bolivar, the premier STEM school in the country. He designed the software so that it would count NO votes (Chavez DOES NOT STAY) up to a point, and the YES votes (Chavez STAYS) freely. So, for example, you would have three adjacent machines reaching 177 NO votes, but a larger count of YES, which were uncapped.
I knew two other professors at the school, and they confirmed that: he had rigged the vote. Being a Chavez' supporter, he could not be fired (and there were no proofs) but the entire faculty black-balled him due to his unethical position. After being subject to a break-in and robbery, he was given a position in the Barcelona Consulate. He had no diplomatic experience.
The husband of a friend had stock in Smartmatic. He was able to see what they had done and sold his shares, a bad financial move as Smartmatic ran all elections in Venezuela for years and was very profitable.
So: do I believe Smartmatic rigged this election? No. But many Venezuelans do (I mentioned that in a different post); the simple mentioning of Smartmatic does that. Plus, these guys are not the Barefoot Carmelites (an office in Barbados, run by a Venezuelan? Is that smell the rotting fish on the beach or...?). But Smartmatic has a strong case: they solely ran the L.A. election and therefore it is hard to say they rigged an election that was nationwide. Venezuelans, of course, are too stupid to see also the other points: Why rig four states when rigging only one (i.e NY) gives you the same result? Also, Smartmatic would have gone to the highest bidder, and that would have been Tiny. The final item usually escapes their mental grasp: how can the OPPOSITION rig an election?
So, I do not think Smartmatic rigged this one or was involved. But it was not because of their deep democratic beliefs or the purity of their soul. They simply were not offered the job or had no way to carry it.
But that these guys are as unethical as they come, no doubt. John Gotti would feel right at home with them.
(Remember. I am Venezuelan, and always was against the regime. So take my comments with the proper dose of skepticism).
by ti-amie Thanks ponchi. I'm sure the folks who mentioned Smartmatic know this background. I'm also sure most US jounalists don't have a clue and with so few foreign newsrooms these days Tiny's people can run with this, or felt they could.
by ti-amieCalifornia Governor Picks Alex Padilla to Fill Harris’s Senate Seat
Padilla will become state’s first-ever Latino senator
By Christine Mai-Duc
Dec. 22, 2020 1:00 pm ET
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday named California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, giving the state its first-ever Latino senator.
by ti-amieWill Trump Force Principled Conservatives to Start Their Own Party? I Hope So
American politics will be shaped by the influence of the monarch of Mar-a-Lago.
By Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist
Dec. 22, 2020
As the Trump presidency heads into the sunset, kicking and screaming, one of the most important questions that will shape American politics at the local, state and national levels is this: Can Donald Trump maintain his iron grip over the Republican Party when he is out of office?
This is what we know for sure: He damn well intends to try and is amassing a pile of cash to do so. And here is what I predict: If Trump keeps delegitimizing Joe Biden’s presidency and demanding loyalty for his extreme behavior, the G.O.P. could fully fracture — splitting between principled Republicans and unprincipled Republicans. Trump then might have done America the greatest favor possible: stimulating the birth of a new principled conservative party.
Santa, if you’re listening, that’s what I want for Christmas!
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But here’s why it’s not entirely fanciful: If Trump refuses to ever acknowledge Biden’s victory and keeps roasting those Republicans who do — and who “collaborate” with the new administration — something is going to crack.
There will be increasing pressure on the principled Republicans — people like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski and the judges, election officials and state legislators who put country before party and refused to buckle under Trump’s demands — to break away and start their own conservative party.
If that happens, the unprincipled Trump Republicans — like the 126 House members who joined with the Texas attorney general in a shameful Supreme Court case to nullify Biden’s victory — could have a harder time winning office. That would be a good thing in its own right.
More important, even if just a few principled conservatives came together and created a kind of third party in Congress, they could be kingmakers. With the Senate so finely balanced, moderates on each side have significant leverage.
We just saw that with the relief bill negotiations, which Trump, on cue, is now threatening to undo. It was the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus — coalesced by the centrist movement No Labels — and an informal bipartisan group of senators that produced the deal from the bottom up.
Imagine Biden’s center-left Democrats and principled center-right conservatives working together on fixes for infrastructure, immigration, Obamacare or climate — without Trump around to disrupt any progress.
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But one thing I learned covering the Middle East is that there is only one reliable thing about extremists — they don’t know when to stop. So, in the end, they almost always go over the cliff, taking a lot of people with them.
Donald Trump is a political extremist. He does not stop at red lights. He does not abide by norms, ethics or the truth. As a result, his huge disinformation campaign against Biden’s election, and his attacks on Republican officeholders and right-wing media that won’t parrot his lies and conspiracy theories, is already fracturing the party at the state level in places like Georgia and Arizona.
It’s drawing a sharp distinction between principled Republicans who chose to put their constitutional obligations before Trump’s interests and the unprincipled ones who either are too cowardly to speak up or eagerly hopped into the Trump clown car to secure his blessings for their next election.
Think of two recent images. The first is of the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, on Dec. 15 briskly walking past a CNN reporter who was asking him a simple question: Would he acknowledge that Joe Biden was the president-elect? McCarthy was too cowardly or too unprincipled to answer.
If you’re a Republican lawmaker, do you really want to spend the next four years running away from CNN every time you’re asked to opine about the latest demented thing Donald Trump has said or done — because you’re afraid that he’ll launch a primary attack against you with his devoted base if you show integrity?
The contrasting image is of Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey. It’s Dec. 1 and Ducey is literally signing the papers certifying his state’s election results and officially awarding Biden its 11 electors — ignoring Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud in Arizona.
Ducey’s cellphone rings, but it is no ordinary ringtone. It is “Hail to the Chief,” a ringtone Ducey installed in July so that he would never miss a call from Trump. But this time Ducey simply takes the phone out of his pocket, silences it, puts it aside and goes on signing the papers.
According to a report in The Hill, “Trump later called into a hearing with state Republicans that was happening during the certification” and “tore into Ducey,” declaring, “Arizona will not forget what Ducey just did.” Trump was right, but not in the way he predicted.
On Saturday, CNN described the civil war that has broken out in Arizona: “G.O.P. party leaders and elected officials who’ve gone all-in for Trump, backed by right-wing media, have relentlessly attacked those who can’t bring themselves to go along with the lame-duck president’s refusal to concede. To be sure, similar splits exist across the G.O.P. nationwide. But the infighting in Arizona offers a clear picture of why some Republicans fear that if Trump continues stirring up and directing his followers once he’s out of office, the party may cripple itself at the state and local level.”
The story added: “‘Some Republicans have decided to file for divorce from reality, facts be damned,’ said Barrett Marson, a publicist who worked for Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s political action committee. … Perhaps most notable in the subsequent salvos was a tweet from the governor’s chief of staff, Daniel Scarpinato, to ‘Freedom Caucus’ chair Rep. Andy Biggs calling him nuts and ending, ‘Enjoy your time as a permanent resident of Crazytown.’”
To be sure, calling Ducey a “principled Republican” is a low bar, considering that he had no problem backing Trump all the way until now. Unlike other Trump-friendly Republicans, though, he was ready to draw a constitutional redline he would not cross.
But every day that goes by Trump shows us that as his power decreases, he surrounds himself with more and more unprincipled crackpots, who fan his delusions and propose more and more extreme actions, like Michael Flynn’s neofascist suggestion of declaring martial law and rerunning the election in some states Trump lost.
Therefore, the stress that Trump creates will surely get only worse after he leaves the White House, when, to stay relevant, he’ll need to say ever more extreme things that keep his base — now fully marinated in his conspiracy theories — energized and ready to attack any principled Republican who deviates from Trump. Also, all those Fox News commentators who prostituted themselves to Trump (and their ratings), helping to make his extreme base even more extreme, can’t stop now. They’ll lose their audience.
They’re all extremists who can’t stop, and principled conservatives understand that. Listen to Evan McMullin, the former C.I.A. operations officer and later chief policy director for the House Republican Conference, who resigned in 2016 to run for president as an independent:
“Even though Mr. Trump has been defeated, there is still no home for Republicans committed to representative government, truth and the rule of law, nor is one likely to emerge anytime soon,” wrote McMullin in this newspaper. “So what’s next for Republicans who reject their party’s attempts to incinerate the Constitution in the service of one man’s authoritarian power grabs? … The answer is that we must further develop an intellectual and political home, for now, outside of any party. From there, we can continue working with other Americans to defeat Mr. Trump’s heirs, help offer unifying leadership to the country and, if the Republican Party continues on its current path, launch a party to challenge it directly.”
Call me mad, but my gut tells me that when Trump is just the monarch of Mar-a-Lago — just spewing venom — some Republicans will say “enough.” Somewhere in there a new party of principled conservatives might just get born.
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But what a blessing that would be for America.
by ponchi101 Friedman is certainly the writer I like to read the most that I disagree the most with.
And here he is displaying the same pattern that I always have issues with: endless optimism. The reality is that the GOP is dead. It is a cult party, and the person of cult is Tiny. When you have 85% plus republicans still voting for this mafia don, you simply have to accept it: the party has no values any more. No criminal activity is too serious as long as you hold on to power. No insult to anybody is too gross or un-dignifying if you hold on to power. No comment, no position, no clear sign of incompetence is too big if you hold on to power.
Tiny really has a lot of people right where he wants them: one word from him and they lose, automatically, 45% of the vote of any state, city, county or geographical structure they are running for. And vice versa. He anoints them with voters, or he takes them away.
Right now, any GOP'ers that leave the party will be even less successful than the Tea Party (remember when they were the crazy ones? How naïve we all were). Be a GOP'er and leave Tiny, and you are basically an independent with no traction.
The sole way the GOP can even begin to figure a return to normalcy is if he goes away, politically. Otherwise, he simply will be the most destructive force the USA has known. 50 tweets a day to smear Biden will be a good day. Expect that for the next 4 years.
by Kirkus It'll be fascinating to see how the GOP evolves following the rise of Trump. I think a split would see Democrats taking power at every level. It's simple math. If the GOP splits in half we have 50% Dem, 25% GOP1, 25% GOP2. Simplified, I understand. But I'll bet it's not far off.
Works for me.
by ti-amieAmerica’s largest (and arguably most problematic) voting machine vendor is ES&S, not Dominion Voting
Jennifer Cohn
2 days ago·14 min read
In September 2020, a Texas examiner’s report said there was a “ bug” in ES&S’s hash verification script. What happened after is unknown.
By Jennifer Cohn
12/21/20
First, a cautionary note. Close partisan associations and corruption involving voting machine vendors are inappropriate, and significant discrepancies between polling and official outcomes are unnerving and fair game for reporting, as are voting-system vulnerabilities and the many electronic “glitches” that occur in elections. But they do not prove fraud. Moreover, we cannot typically prove that election outcomes are wrong without conducting robust manual audits using hand marked paper ballots (with an exception for voters with disabilities). This is why the Democrats proposed the SAFE Act, which would have required robust manual audits for all federal races this year and banned most of the touchscreen voting machines currently in use. It also would have banned internet connectivity to voting systems. But the GOP killed the SAFE Act. Republicans nonetheless have the audacity to complain after the election about lack of security and transparency, knowing full well that they are primarily responsible for these problems, that they did better (not worse) than polls predicted, and that they went out of their way to block manual recounts in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016.
Meanwhile, Republicans have directed their belated election-security ire almost exclusively at Dominion Voting. They have conspicuously given short shrift to America’s largest and arguably most corrupt voting machine vendor, Election Systems & Software, LLC (ES&S), whose systems in Texas had a software “bug” as of September 2020 that could in theory have enabled ES&S or others to install unauthorized software. (For unknown reasons, the Texas Secretary of State waited until December to post the September report.) The GOP’s apparent blind spot for this and other problems involving ES&S is curious. Before the GOP began screaming “Dominion, Dominion, Dominion,” most of the negative press about the elections industry in the U.S. had for years focused on ES&S. And for good reason.
ES&S, which was previously called American Information Systems (AIS), was founded in the 1970’s by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich, in Omaha, Nebraska. According to Mother Jones, ES&S received its initial financing from the families of Religious Right activist billionaires Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and Nelson Bunker Hunt. Ahmanson and Hunt were both heavy contributors to the Chalcedon Foundation, Christian Reconstruction’s main think tank. According to ABC News, Hunt also co-founded a secretive networking group for the Religious Right and right-wing billionaires called the Council for National Policy (CNP) to which Ahmanson belonged as well.
Based on the CNP’s 2014 directory (published by the Southern Poverty Law Center) and reporting in the New Yorker, recent CNP members include Kelly Anne Conway, Steve Bannon, and the Mercers, all alumna of the now defunct data analytics firm called Cambridge Analytica, which infamously accessed voters’ personal Facebook data without their permission on behalf of the 2016 Trump campaign.
According to the CNP’s 2014 vision statement, the group’s goal is to “reestablish” what it calls “religious and economic liberty” under the US Constitution by 2020. I wrote an article about the CNP here: https://extranewsfeed.com/americas-tali ... 65f1754ca4.
From 1992 until 1996, ES&S’s chairman was Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who resigned from ES&S a few days before announcing his intent to run for the U.S. senate. During the campaign, Hagel courted the Religious Right by declaring that he opposed abortion even in the case of rape and incest. Polls from three days before the election called the race a “dead heat,” but Hagel “trounced” his opponent by “fifteen points.” His opponent did not seek a recount.
Hagel was the first Republican to win a Nebraska senate race since 1972. According to the Daily Kos, Hagel “miraculously won virtually every demographic group in the state, including large African American communities that had never previously voted Republican.” Nebraska officials reportedly told The Hill that “machines made by AIS [Hagel’s company] probably tallied 85 percent votes cast in the 1996 vote.”
To this day, ES&S is controlled in whole or part by the McCarthy Group, a private equity firm whose chairman, Mike McCarthy, was Hagel’s campaign treasurer. McCarthy is a also a member of ES&S’s board of directors.
In 2006, in Sarasota, Florida, touchscreen voting machines supplied by ES&S showed that “More than 18,000 voters…, or 13 percent of those who went to the polls,” had declined to vote in a hotly contested Congressional race...” By contrast, “only 2 percent of voters in one neighboring county within the same House district and 5 percent in another skipped the Congressional race…”
More than 100 voters told the campaign of Democrat Christine Jennings, who officially lost by just 373 votes, that “their votes for her did not show up on the summary screen at the end of the touchscreen voting process, and that they had to re-enter them.” Jennings’s attorneys said they “feared that not everyone had noticed the problem or realized that they could re-enter the vote.” The firestorm over these “vanishing votes” caused Florida to eventually ban touchscreen voting (except for voters with disabilities) and switch to paper ballots and scanners (although Florida still does not conduct or require manual election audits).
The same year, Debra Bowen, who was California’s Secretary of State at the time, sued ES&S for selling at least five California counties a version of its AutoMark ballot marking system that hadn’t yet been tested or certified for use in the state or the country. Bowen said at the time that ES&S had “ignored the law over and over again and it got caught…” ES&S later paid $3.25 million to settle the case.
Also in 2007, a team of researchers at the University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer Science found “numerous exploitable vulnerabilities in nearly every component” of ES&S’s optical scanners (for counting paper ballots) and direct record electronic (DRE, usually touchscreen) voting machines.
The same year, Jennifer Brunner, who was Ohio’s Secretary of State at the time, commissioned an analysis called the Everest report, which also found significant vulnerabilities in ES&S systems. The report concluded that those vulnerabilities “demonstrate the capability for attackers to execute arbitrary code on many of the components given access to them. Further, specific scenarios were identified where attackers who successfully gained access to the systems and exploited identified vulnerabilities could likely impact the results of elections.”
In 2008, during the Republican presidential primary in Cochise, Arizona, an ES&S “computer glitch” caused Mitt Romney to be erroneously declared victorious over John McCain (an error that was later corrected). After the election, Cochise county election officer, Tom Schelling, stated that “t was a cumulative (computer) error that just kept adding the results for five polling places every time new figures were added.”
Several days before the 2012 election, Ohio attorney Bob Fitrakis learned that Ohio Secretary of State John Husted had quietly allowed ES&S to install uncertified patches on ES&S machines in thirty-nine of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties. Although the court refused to grant relief so close to the election, she told Fitrakis she would be happy to revisit the case after the election if he returned. He apparently found it unnecessary when Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney.
Beginning in 2015, ES&S began quietly installing wireless modems in precinct ballot scanners in some counties in swing states such as Florida and Michigan. At some point, it added them in some counties in Wisconsin, Illinois, and beyond. As reported by Kim Zetter earlier this year, these modems connect both the scanners and the receiving end systems to the internet, but officials claimed otherwise. ES&S systems containing modems were never certified by the Election Assistance Commission, but ES&S falsely implied to its customers that they were, as further reported by Zetter this year.
It was on ES&S’s watch that 127,000 votes vanished from Diebold machines in predominantly African American precincts in Georgia during the 2018 midterm elections, as reported in the Root. (By then, the Department of Justice had forced ES&S to dissolve Diebold, its subsidiary, on anti-trust grounds, but ES&S had kept most of its contracts.) Likewise, votes from predominantly African American precincts in Memphis vanished from Diebold machines serviced and maintained by ES&S in 2015, as initially reported in Bloomberg. Neither situation was ever explained.
Since 2013, ES&S has donated $30,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee whose mission is to elect Republicans to state office. It may also have donated to the Democratic corollary of RSLC, but I’ve been unable to confirm this. A few years ago, ES&S donated to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), who then killed proposed election-security legislation.
ES&S has also provided secret donations and other gifts to state and county election officials who, in the past few years, have then chosen ES&S’s insecure new touchscreen systems for use by most in-person voters.
By choosing these new ES&S touchscreen systems, which are called ballot marking devices, officials ignored the advice of election-security experts who recommended hand marked paper ballots instead. In Northampton County, Pennsylvania, where an ES&S representative had assured election officials that “miscalibration” would not be an issue with its new touchscreens (“Scouts honor,” he said), dozens of the county’s new ES&S touchscreens were miscalibrated during an election in 2019. Similar problems occurred in neighboring Philadelphia, whose decision makers (which included a Democrat and a Republican) had each received donations from ES&S lobbyists before choosing the system. I compiled much of the national news regarding ES&S corruption and its new touchscreen voting machines here: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/12/1 ... democracy/.
This article by Greg Gordon at McClatchy exposed ES&S’s corrupt advisory board for county and state officials — including officials in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New York — which recently disbanded due to the media fallout from Gordon’s piece. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/ ... 58729.html. One former board member was South Carolina’s election director Marci Andino. In 2018, South Carolina reported that “Andino had accepted nearly $20,000 in expenses during her decade as an adviser for ... [ES&S].” The state went on to buy new ES&S systems for use throughout the state.
In 2018, as reported by Zetter, ES&S finally admitted, despite prior denials that it had installed remote access software in election management systems (which include county tabulators that compile precinct totals) sold between 2000 and 2006. ES&S later told NPR that it had 300 remote-access customers. It refused, however, to identify those customers. It claims the software has been removed but won’t say when it was removed.
The same year, “NBC News examined publicly available online shipping records for ES&S for the past five years and found that many parts, including electronics and tablets, were made in China and the Philippines, raising concerns about technology theft or sabotage.” Although ES&S often boasts that it is an American company, its central scanners are designed by a German company called Datawin.
Earlier this year, as first reported by Zetter and then by NBC News, a team of researchers led by Kevin Skoglund discovered that thirty-five of ES&S’s receiving-end systems had been left online for months and, in some cases, perhaps years. This included the swing states of Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin.
Most recently, a “bug” identified in a September 2020 Texas examiner’s report involving ES&S’s “hash verification script” could have allowed ES&S to install (without detection) unauthorized software in its DS200, DS850, DS450, ExpressVote & ExpressVote XL voting systems.
I do not know whether or not this occurred (installation of unauthorized software) or how many states and how many elections were potentially impacted by this bug. But the equipment listed in the Texas report is used throughout the U.S. There is no indication on the Texas Secretary of State’s website as to how, if at all, this bug was addressed. I have submitted a public records request seeking answers. If there was a certified update addressing this bug, I have been unable to find any reference to it on the Election Assistance Commission’s website.
Meanwhile, for many years, America’s second largest voting machine vendor was Global Election Systems (later called Diebold Election Systems and then Premier Election Systems). Global was related to ES&S in that Bob Urosevich, who co-founded ES&S with his brother Todd, joined Global in 1997 and was named president of the company in September 2000, while Todd remained at ES&S as a vice president.
In September 2000, with Bob Urosevich at the helm, Global bought an election company for $4 million from a convicted embezzler named Jeffrey Dean whose crimes involved sophisticated computer tampering, a discovery made by Black Box Voting author Bev Harris. An SEC filing obtained by Harris shows that, as a result of the acquisition, Dean became Global’s largest shareholder. Dean was also a Global vice president where he oversaw computer programming. A few months after he joined Global, a convicted cocaine trafficker who he met in prison, John Elder, joined the company to oversee the printing of paper ballots and punch cards for several states. This, too, was discovered and first reported by Harris.
It was a Global machine that inexplicably subtracted 16,000 votes from Al Gore’s vote total in 2000 in Volusia County, Florida, an election that Bush reportedly won by just 537 votes in Florida. A Republican whistle-blower named Clint Curtis later testified to the House Judiciary Committee that Representative Tom Feeney, a former running mate of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, had asked him to design a vote-flipping program for that election. He passed a polygraph. But although some House Democrats took him seriously, the media did not. His claim could not be independently corroborated because too much time had passed, and the software was proprietary anyway.
In 2002, Global was acquired by ATM manufacturer Diebold, Inc. and changed its name to Diebold Election Systems. Although Diebold claimed to have parted ways with Jeffrey Dean, Bev Harris obtained internal Diebold memos, which showed that Dean had maintained a consulting relationship with the company.
P1
by ti-amie P2
The first state to deploy touchscreens statewide was Georgia, which chose Diebold as its vendor. That election resulted in several poll-defying Republican wins, including Saxby Chambliss’s defeat of Max Cleland, who was a popular incumbent and war hero. I wrote extensively about that election here:
Diebold, Inc.’s chief executive officer, Walden O’Dell, was a member of Bush’s Rangers and Pioneers, which the New York Times described as “an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race.” In 2003, O’ Dell achieved infamy for sending a letter to other potential donors in which he stated that he was “‘committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year…’”
In 2004, a team of test hackers in Maryland from RABA Technologies “was able to remotely upload, download, and execute files with full system administrator privileges. Results could be modified at will, including changing votes from precincts.” The team was reportedly “able to change votes and exit the system without a trace of their visit.”
The same year, Diebold received negative publicity for installing uncertified software in seventeen California counties.
In May 2007, Florida State University’s Security and Assurance in Information Technology (SAIT) laboratory “released a scathing report in which they describe a glitch in Diebold’s optical-scan firmware that enabled a ‘type of vote manipulation if an adversary can introduce an unofficial memory card into an active terminal prior to an election. Such a card can be preprogrammed to essentially swap the electronically tabulated votes of two candidates or reroute all of one candidate’s votes to a different candidate.”
In 2009, ES&S acquired Diebold, making the relationship between the two companies official and giving ES&S control of approximately 70 percent of the market.
When Senator Chuck Schumer (D) caught wind of the acquisition, he asked the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division to investigate.
In 2010, the DOJ forced ES&S to dissolve Diebold and sell some of Diebold’s assets because the combined company had accounted for 70% of US election equipment. That year, a Canadian company called Dominion Voting bought Diebold’s intellectual property rights and warehoused equipment.
According to a 2017 analysis by the Wharton Business School, ES&S now accounts for about 44 percent of US election equipment, and Dominion 37 percent. But these numbers may mislead. The analysis placed all Diebold equipment in the Dominion column because Dominion purchased all of Diebold’s intellectual property rights. ES&S, however, retained most of Diebold’s servicing and maintenance contracts, which is where most of the control over elections comes from.
This Verified Voting map from a few years ago shows in orange all states that use ES&S election equipment in at least some counties — either precinct machines or central count scanners. (Georgia has since switched to Dominion, perhaps due to the vanishing black votes scandal with ES&S/Diebold in 2018.) As you can see, ES&S’s influence over U.S. elections is staggering. (I would provide an updated map but the last time I checked, Verified Voting’s tool no longer included this function. I believe the only major change is Georgia’s switch to Dominion from ES&S.)
Which raises the question again. Why are Republicans ignoring ES&S? Texas’s corrupt attorney general, Ken Paxton, recently went so far as to try (unsuccessfully) to overturn other states’ elections.Meanwhile, he has ignored that ES&S voting systems in his own state had a security “bug” as of September 2020 that could in theory have allowed the installation of unauthorized software.
As noted, the Texas Secretary of State’s website has thus far not reported on how, if at all, this “bug” was addressed. Perhaps this is something that deserves our attention.
You can identify what voting machine vendor is used in your county by using Verified Voting’s Verifier tool. Please note, however, that I believe the Verifier (like the Wharton report) puts all Diebold equipment in Dominion’s column because Dominion has the intellectual property rights, even though ES&S kept the servicing and maintenance contracts for most Diebold systems, and the contracts are what gives a vendor control.
This Brennan Center Voting System Failure Database is an excellent resource for more examples of voting-machine problems.
This report by Fair Fight Action regarding ES&S is very comprehensive and helpful as well. It appears that Fair Fight Action is continually updating it.
by ponchi101 Sweden can vote with machines. Canada. Germany. Japan. Maybe Switzerland.
Nobody else.
And my understanding is that Canada does it manually. As do the Netherlands and plenty of others.
And, of course: UBUNTU is open software. it is very, very good (I have never seen it fail) but still, it is open.
by ponchi101
Kirkus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:43 pm
It'll be fascinating to see how the GOP evolves following the rise of Trump. I think a split would see Democrats taking power at every level. It's simple math. If the GOP splits in half we have 50% Dem, 25% GOP1, 25% GOP2. Simplified, I understand. But I'll bet it's not far off.
Works for me.
Which is why they will not split. They understand it too. And you come back to a question of power.
And yes, it would probably be the salvation of your country.
by ti-amie Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Breaking: Lawyers representing Dominion Voting Systems have sent letters to conservative media personalities, the White House and Trump's personal attorney, warning that litigation related to their false claims about the company is "imminent."
Dominion CEO John Poulos confirmed that the company would be taking legal action against several individuals "promoting lies and amplifying those lies ... on various media platforms since Election Day."
by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports
INBOX:
Senator Ron Wyden statement—
“Jobless benefits for 12 million workers lapse today because Donald Trump is throwing a tantrum. Jobless workers will have no income to pay the rent due in five days. The stakes couldn’t be higher."
by ti-amie Thom Hartmann @Thom_Hartmann
It's time to bring paper-ballot voting - like in every other advanced democracy - back to America and kick out those who've privatized our vote. We've voted 100% on paper and by mail here in Oregon for 20+ years and it works very well.
@jennycohn1
It's time to bring paper-ballot voting - like in every other advanced democracy - back to America and kick out those who've privatized our vote. We've voted 100% on paper and by mail here in Oregon for 20+ years and it works very well.
@jennycohn1
Paper-ballot voting is absolutely the way to go, but it really needs better branding. Supporting something that uses more paper makes my brain spin a bit because of environmental messaging. Also, Politico updated their interactive map of which states use paper ballots recently:
There are essentially nine states which don't fully use paper ballots now: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. Oklahoma and Texas are the only ones where the vast majority of counties aren't in the process of switching.
by ti-amie I was today years old when I learned this.
Hijacking the electoral college: The plot to deny JFK the presidency 60 years ago
John F. Kennedy, right, is sworn in as the 35th president by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, left, on Jan. 20, 1961. Attending are, at the first row, former president Dwight D. Eisenhower, left, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, second from right, and former vice president Richard M. Nixon. (STF/AFP via Getty Images)
By Ronald G. Shafer
Dec. 13, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. EST
It was a bitter, close election, and there were furious allegations of fraud.
After Democrat John F. Kennedy barely beat Republican Richard M. Nixon in the 1960 election, a coalition of opponents plotted to deny him the presidency in the electoral college. Most were White, conservative electors from the south who opposed the young Massachusetts senator’s liberal policies, especially his support for civil rights for Black Americans.
If these electors had succeeded, segregationist Democratic Sen. Harry Byrd of Virginia would have been elected president. His vice president would have been Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Both men had nothing to do with the idea.
On Monday, the electoral college will meet to ratify the victory of Democrat Joe Biden over President Trump, who has refused to concede. Some Trump backers are pressing states to release electors pledged for Biden. At least 33 states prohibit such “faithless” electors, and most other states void switched votes.
The 1960 presidential election set off a political storm, much like this year’s contest. Kennedy wound up winning by only about 113,000 votes out of 69 million cast.
Republicans suspected voter fraud in 11 states and filed suit in two of them, Texas and Illinois, which Kennedy won by fewer than 9,000 votes. The suit in Illinois charged that the Democratic stronghold of Cook County had dug up Kennedy voters from the cemeteries of Chicago.
Judges threw out both suits. So the action moved to the electoral college. Nixon took no part in the vote challenges and told a reporter that “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.”
Immediately after the 1960 election, electors from Alabama and Mississippi agreed not to cast their votes for Kennedy, who had won both states. All of Mississippi’s eight electors and six of Alabama’s 11 electors were unpledged. The electors lobbied their counterparts in the electoral college to follow their lead.
Organizers of the movement came up with a three-point “Plan To Give the South a Partial Vote in the Affairs of the Nation.”
Plan A was for electors from 11 southern states to use their clout to persuade Kennedy to stop U.S. aid to Communist countries and to support “states’ rights,” a code for resisting racial integration.
If Kennedy refused, the electors would move to Plan B: a resolution calling for “reversing the position of candidates” in the election. That is, Vice President-elect Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas would be president, and Kennedy would be vice president.
Finally, there was Plan C: Republican electors from all 50 states would be invited to meet in Chicago to pick a president from a list of “outstanding southern men.” Among the choices were Byrd, segregationist governors Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi, and Georgia Sen. Richard Russell.
The goal was to have electors elect the president within the electoral college, said Lea Harris, a Democratic lawyer in Alabama. If that failed, as “a last resort” the electors would seek to switch enough votes to keep Kennedy from getting the 269 electoral votes needed for election and throw the race into the House of Representatives.
This had happened twice before in U.S. history. In 1800, the House picked Thomas Jefferson as president over Aaron Burr when the electoral college vote ended in a tie. In 1825, the House chose John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson, who had won the popular vote.
Over the years, there have been only about 165 “faithless” electors. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of states to reject the votes of such electors.
The rebel southern electors wrote Republican electors urging them to switch their votes from Nixon. Republican Henry Irwin of Oklahoma, a pledged Nixon elector opposed to what he called Kennedy’s “socialist-labor” views, was receptive. It soon “became apparent to a shrewd observer that a possibility existed to deny the presidency to Kennedy,” he said later.
Irwin sent telegrams to 218 Republican electors urging them to switch from Nixon to Byrd. He also wrote all the GOP state chairmen. He got about 40 replies, but no commitments. “Feel obligated to Nixon,” one Kansas elector responded.
Oklahoma’s Republican Party chairman blasted Irwin’s scheme. “He apparently feels his opinion is superior to the judgment of one-half million Oklahoma voters who chose Richard Nixon,” the chairman said.
The rebellion spread in the South. Mississippi Gov. Barnett wrote electors in southern states urging them to cast their votes for Byrd and Goldwater. In Alabama, the Mobile Press declared in an editorial that “Southerners deeply concerned over racial mixing should lift their voices in an appeal to all their presidential electors.”
Efforts to release electors to vote for whomever they wished sprung up in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Virginia and South Carolina. “This had been a real threat,” JFK biographer Theodore Sorensen wrote later.
Two weeks before the electoral college vote, organizer Harris predicted that Kennedy wouldn’t receive enough votes to be elected. The White Citizens Council newspaper in Mississippi assured its readers that a southerner would win the presidency.
The rebel yells of revolt ended in a whimper, however. No part of the southern “plan” was ever carried out. Most electors felt morally obligated to cast their votes based on their state’s election results.
One South Carolina elector for Kennedy said he ignored numerous “crackpot” requests to change his vote, including an offer from the “Flying Tigers Rights Party” to give him stock in a company in the Philippines.
Kennedy won 303 electoral college votes to Nixon’s 219. Byrd got only 15 votes, one from Oklahoma’s Irwin and 14 from the Alabama and Mississippi electors. All 14 electors voted for South Carolina Democratic Sen. Strom Thurmond for vice president.
After the overwhelming defeat, the Alabama electors complained that Southerners could have controlled the election, but “their sycophantic political leaders failed them miserably.”
Ironically, as vice president, it fell to Nixon to announce the electoral college vote and his own defeat in early January in the House chamber. After starting alphabetically with the first votes from Alabama for Byrd, Nixon dryly remarked, “The gentleman from Virginia is now in the lead.”
Later that year, the Senate conducted hearings into proposals to revamp the electoral college. The system needed to be “brought out of the horse and buggy era and into the jet age,” said Sen. Mike Mansfield (D-Montana).
Sixty years later, the horse and buggy version is still up and running.
by ponchi101 Indeed, never heard of that before.
But how surprising that it was the GOP that could not accept the popular vote. The party of integrity and decency. Who would have thought.
by ti-amie Alex Isenstadt @politicoalex
McConnell held a conference call with Senate Republicans this morning in which he pressed Hawley multiple times to explain his plans to object to the Electoral College. McConnell was met with silence, per multiple people familiar with the call. Turns out Hawley wasn’t present
McConnell has expressed concern that GOP senators up for re-election in ‘22 will be forced to take a vote on a seemingly pointless endeavor that will imperil them either in a general or primary election
Hawley has launched a small dollar fundraising push around his move. He sent out an email this afternoon asking donors to “stand” with him. Contributions go to Hawley’s campaign account
Jonathan Swan @jonathanvswan
Sources with direct knowledge tell me Hawley sent an email to Republican Senators after this call, explaining himself and sharing his press release from the day before. Lots of angst inside the conference.
by ti-amie Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur
McConnell blasts the CASH Act as "socialism for rich people," citing the fact that some of the aid covers families with kids who make around $300K. Schumer says that's a fabricated "excuse" because McConnell had no problem with non-targeted tax cuts that went to the rich.
Schumer makes McConnell an offer: Allow a vote on the House-passed CASH Act and he'll support a vote on Section 230, a voter fraud commission and "whatever right-wing conspiracy you'd like," even one that looks into whether Brad Raffensperger "has a brother named Ron."
Trump & GOP murdered 350,000+ Flag of United States Water wave
@KatCapps
Deployed military ships maintain strict quarantine while away. If Trump orders USS #Nimitz back to homeport, and 6000+ personnel onboard break quarantine by seeing family members, seems that it would be difficult to quickly redeploy this asset. Is Trump sabotaging Biden?
by ponchi101 Day 2: Release the Mueller report in full, sans the corrections and blackouts.
Day 3: Get a copy of his tax returns. Deliver to CIA/FBI/NSA for analysis. Send back to IRS after recommendations.
Day 4: Go after Ivanka. Don Jr and the other idiot he could not care less.
Day 5: have a picture of you, taken as if by coincidence, reading a document that reads something like "What amounts to treason in the USA". Make sure the title is visible and the shot is taken in like super HD.
You can do it, Joe. And remember: appeasement never works. Remember Chamberlain.
by ti-amie
You can do it, Joe. And remember: appeasement never works. Remember Chamberlain.
Say it again for the folks in the back. This is not a time for politics as usual.
by skatingfan Biden won't do it - he may not pardon Trump, but he's not going to waste his 4 years investigating him.
by ti-amieThe Daily 202: Conservatives fear Trump’s plot to overturn loss will ‘imperil the electoral college’
By
James Hohmann
Jan. 5, 2021 at 11:20 a.m. EST
with Mariana Alfaro
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) was Sen. Ted Cruz’s chief of staff before winning a House seat in 2018. This week, he has emerged as a leader of the conservatives who are fighting back against an effort to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory – spearheaded in the Senate by his former boss – that they see as a radical, cynical and myopic.
Roy, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, persuaded six of the most committed conservatives in the House to sign onto a statement he drafted Sunday that makes a blunt case for counting all the electors submitted by the states. The centerpiece of his argument is that failing to do so will create dangerous precedents and open a Pandora’s box that would eventually doom the electoral college.
“From a purely partisan perspective, Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years,” Roy wrote in his statement. “They have therefore depended on the electoral college for nearly all presidential victories in the last generation. If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes — based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election — we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024.”
The other signatories are Reps. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), Ken Buck (R-Colo.), Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has also emphasized the imperative for Republicans to safeguard the sanctity of the electoral college in opposing Cruz and Co. “Congress would imperil the Electoral College, which gives small states like Arkansas a voice in presidential elections,” he said in a statement. “Democrats could achieve their long-standing goal of eliminating the Electoral College in effect by refusing to count electoral votes in the future for a Republican president-elect.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) forwarded Roy’s statement to the Senate Republican Conference. “With respect to presidential elections, there is no authority for Congress to make value judgments in the abstract regarding any state’s election laws or the manner in which they have been implemented,” Lee emailed his colleagues on Monday.
This message was seen as giving cover to other Republicans because Lee, whose father was President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general, helped devise President Trump’s impeachment defense strategy in the Senate last year. Lee even appeared at Trump’s rally in Georgia on Monday night, where he was chastised by the president for not trying to overturn the election results.
Speaking at Trump’s Georgia rally, Kelly Loeffler – whose name appears on the ballot in today’s runoff – became the 13th GOP senator to publicly announce that she will oppose certifying Biden’s victory. She declared that she is going to try to get the legally certified electoral votes from her own state thrown out, as opposed to letting them be counted for Biden. The effort will fail. But it is notable that Loeffler is willing to effectively disenfranchise the 10.62 million people she is supposed to represent – since she has tied her political fortunes entirely to the lame-duck Trump.
In this vein, Roy did something else clever on Sunday evening as the new Congress was sworn in. To make a point, he objected to the swearing-in of all members from the six states where Trump falsely claims the vote was rigged. This forced the House to vote on whether the lawmakers who were on the same ballot with the president – and won their races – should be allowed to take the oath. Naturally, Republicans wanted to seat their members from Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The vote was 371 to 2 to say that all of their elections were legitimate.
“It would confound reason if the presidential results of these states were to face objection while the congressional results of the same process escaped public scrutiny,” Roy said. “Those representatives were elected through the very same systems – with the same ballot procedures, with the same signature validations, with the same broadly applied decisions of executive and judicial branch officials – as were the electors chosen for the president of the United States under the laws of those states.”
“On a conference call last Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his caucus that, in his 36 Senate years, he has twice cast votes to take the nation to war and once to remove a president, but that the vote he will cast this Wednesday to certify [Biden’s victory] will be the most important of his career,” legendary conservative columnist George Will reports. “The day before McConnell’s somber statement, Missouri’s freshman Republican senator, Josh Hawley, announced that on Wednesday, 14 days before Biden will be inaugurated, he will challenge the validity of Biden’s election. Hawley’s conscience regarding electoral proprieties compels him to stroke this erogenous zone of the GOP’s 2024 presidential nominating electorate. …
“Hawley — has there ever been such a high ratio of ambition to accomplishment? — and Cruz have already nimbly begun to monetize their high-mindedness through fundraising appeals,” Will continues. “On Wednesday, the members of the Hawley-Cruz cohort will violate the oath of office in which they swore to defend the Constitution from enemies ‘foreign and domestic.’ They are its most dangerous domestic enemies.”
by ti-amiePro-Trump forums erupt with violent threats ahead of Wednesday’s rally against the 2020 election
Posters respond to Trump’s prediction of “wild" day with discussion of potential bloodshed and advice on sneaking guns into D.C.
Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, center, gathers with demonstrators during a rally in D.C. on Dec. 12. He was arrested Jan. 4 for vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner in December. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg News)
By
Craig Timberg and
Drew Harwell
Jan. 5, 2021 at 12:57 p.m. EST
Far-right online forums are seething with references to potential violence and urging supporters of President Trump to bring guns to Wednesday’s protests in Washington — in violation of local laws — as Congress meets to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Many of the posts appear to be direct responses to Trump’s demands that his supporters pack the nation’s capital in support of his bogus claims that November’s national vote for Biden resulted from election fraud. Congress’s largely ceremonial role in confirming Biden’s victory has emerged as a catalyst for expected unrest that has D.C. police and the National Guard deploying on city streets to quell potential trouble.
Talk of guns and potential violence is rife on the encrypted messaging app Telegram, the conservative social media site Parler and on thedonald.win, an online forum that previously operated on Reddit before the company banned it in June after years of racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and calls for violence.
Trump’s tweet last month pushing baseless fraud claims and promoting the “big protest” on Jan. 6 — “Be there, will be wild!” — has become a central rallying cry. It was the top post on thedonald.win Tuesday morning, and anonymous commenters saw it as a call to action: “We’ve got marching orders,” the top reply said.
Discussion in the thread followed about how most effectively to sneak guns into Washington, laced with occasional references to using them. D.C. has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws: Openly carrying guns is banned, concealed-carry licenses from other states aren’t recognized, and all firearms in the District must be registered with local police.
Of carrying guns in D.C., one poster in the thread wrote, “Yes, it’s illegal, but this is war and we’re clearly in a post-legal phase of our society.” Wrote another: “LIVE AS A FREE AMERICAN AND BRING YOUR ARMS!”
More than half of the top 50 posts on thedonald.win’s homepage Monday related to Wednesday’s certification featured calls of violence within the top five comments, according to research by Advance Democracy, a group headed by former FBI analyst and Senate investigator Daniel J. Jones, who lead the review of the CIA’s torture program.
The group said thedonald.win had more than 18 million visits in November, and the recent posts with calls for violence had more than 40,000 engagements. One particularly troubling post said protesters should travel in groups that should “not let [anyone] disarm someone without stacking bodies.” It added that protesters should be “ARMED WITH RIFLE, HANDGUN, 2 KNIVES AND AS MUCH AMMO AS YOU CAN CARRY.”
In one thread promoted by moderators Tuesday morning, titled “GOOD LUCK PATRIOTS, THE EYES OF THE WORLD LOOK UPON YOU NOW!!!,” posters shared tactical guides on how to avoid police blockades and D.C. gun laws, including: “If you plan on carrying concealed, don’t tell anyone you have a gun.” One commenter responded, “We The People, will not tolerate a Steal. No retreat, No Surrender. Restore to my President what you stole or reap the consequences!!!”
Moderators for thedonald.win did not respond to requests for comment.
Researchers expressed concern that the roiling political atmosphere is being fueled by Trump’s unfounded claims about the integrity of the election that have swirled on far-right online forums for two months.
“You have what disinformation researchers have worried about for years, which is people becoming motivated to action by lies,” said Joan Donovan, the research director at Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
References to guns and potential violence also have become routine on Telegram and Parler, according to the Coalition for a Safer Web, a nonprofit group that advocates for technologies and policies to remove extreme content from social media. It cited a Parler post from last week, by an account touting the QAnon conspiracy theory, that said, “To all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed....”
A number of posts on Parler and thedonald.win voiced anti-police messages and slammed “Coptifa” — a combination of “cop” and “antifa,” the far-left protest movement. “WE THE PEOPLE … are through with you,” said one expletive-filled post on Parler. “To all our enemies high and low you want a war? Well your asking for one. … To the American people on the ground in DC today and all over this great nation, be prepared for anything. … Now we are here. Now they get what they want.”
Parler’s chief operating officer, Jeffrey Wernick, declined to comment.
The arrest of Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio on Monday, for charges related to the burning of a historically Black church’s Black Lives Matter flag in a protest last month, has further inflamed far-right conversations online, said Eric Feinberg, vice president for content moderation for the Coalition for a Safer Web.
“You don’t know who’s going to get radicalized by this,” Feinberg said. “The next three days, I’m really worried about what could happen.”
by ti-amie Mayor Bowser has advised residents of DC to stay in and not mount any counter protests.
by ti-amie There is major drama going on in the Pennsylvania state senate as GOP'ers are refusing or have refused to swear in a newly elected Democrat. I'm going to start here but things may be out of sequence.
Abraham Gutman @abgutman
Welp.
Republican majority of the Pennsylvania State Senate just removed @JohnFetterman from the chamber. President Pro Temp Corman is presiding instead. Fetterman refused to recognize a motion that would have prevented a duly elected Democratic senator from being sworn in.
Jake Corman is sworn in as President Pro Temp of the Pennsylvania State Senate after kicking out of the chamber the President of the Senate Lt. Gov. Fetterman and refusing to seat Jim Brewster who won his elections. "Quite a first day," he jokes.
For those of you who aren’t super familiar with what’s going on in PA that makes all of this so much more mind bending: before covid the *Republican* majority enacted a major election reform bill that expanded vote by mail. *They* set the rules. Now *they* are crying foul.
Minority Leader Jay Acosta rises in opposition to Corman as President Pro Temp. He is talking about what just happened to Senator Brewster. Acosta makes a good point: Brewster's swearing in wasn't delayed but denied. There is no future date. The result was *certified*.
I don't have the most experience in watching the Pennsylvania state senate but I can't say that I've *ever* seen something like what just happened. To be clear: the 45th district seat is *empty* as they are reading roll call now despite a certified election winner in the chamber.
Under Corman's presiding, all results but in the 45th district were read. The election of Jim Brewster was not recognized.
@SenTonyWilliams shouted the results in that race, showing Brewster's win, to the chamber as Corman moved to start the Republican senators' swearing in.
Corman is moving to administer the oath of office to Democratic senators. Brewster is on the floor.
Corman asking the judge to wait until Corman leaves.
Fetterman: Senator Brewster is the certified winner of his district!
Corman: he was not read
Williams: I read the results!
Jim Brewster, mensch, asked that all other Democratic senators be sworn in. He didn't want the issue around his election to take away from the celebratory nature of the day for others, according to Williams. They are sworn in, including @NikilSaval of Philadelphia.
The Republican State Senator in Pennsylvania just set a very dangerous precedent: as long as your opponent refuses to concede, you will not be sworn in. No matter that the *highest court in the state* already said the election is Kosher.
by ti-amie Meanwhile...
Pamela King @pamelalauren
EPA today announced a new rule to limit the agency's use of science, which critics say aims to weaken future air pollution & water regs by limiting the use of research that relies on medical records or other private data @kelseybrugger
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:14 pmPro-Trump forums erupt with violent threats ahead of Wednesday’s rally against the 2020 election
Posters respond to Trump’s prediction of “wild" day with discussion of potential bloodshed and advice on sneaking guns into D.C.
...
Trump’s tweet last month pushing baseless fraud claims and promoting the “big protest” on Jan. 6 ... by Trump’s unfounded claims ...
Baseless fraud claims...
unfounded claims...
There must be a word for that, right? I don't know, lies?
Why can't the press just say it?
The major of DC better have the National Guard ready.
by mmmm8 Wait, the leader of the Proud Boys is Afro-Latino? Is this real life?
by JazzNU We've got a ****show in PA today.
Republican senators refuse to seat Democratic Senator Jim Brewster, who won re-election in November
On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Republicans refused to seat Brewster, who won re-election in November. Republicans also forcefully seized control of the proceedings by removing the Democratic lieutenant governor John Fetterman from presiding over the session after Fetterman insisted on swearing in Brewster for a new term.
by ti-amie No matter what we think of her politics this woman was a full partner in a white shoe law firm. She's now a pariah in her profession. #ETTD
Cleta Mitchell, who advised Trump on Saturday phone call, resigns from law firm
Cleta Mitchell testifies before a House subcommittee in 2014. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
By
Michael Kranish
Jan. 5, 2021 at 6:17 p.m. EST
Republican lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who advised President Trump during his Saturday phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state in an effort to overturn the election, resigned on Tuesday as a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Foley & Lardner.
Mitchell’s resignation came after the law firm on Monday issued a statement saying it was “concerned by” her role in the call. The firm noted that as a matter of policy, its attorneys do not represent “any parties seeking to contest the results of the election.”
The Washington Post on Sunday published audio and a transcript of the hour-long call in which Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the election results. During the call, Mitchell complained that she had not been given access to certain information from Raffensperger’s office, and Trump relied on her to an extraordinary degree during the call.
The Post on Monday published a story https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html detailing Mitchell’s transition from being a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican, culminating in her role advising Trump during the call.
In its statement on Tuesday, the law firm said: “Cleta Mitchell has informed firm management of her decision to resign from Foley & Lardner effective immediately. Ms. Mitchell concluded that her departure was in the firm’s best interests, as well as in her own personal best interests. We thank her for her contributions to the firm and wish her well.”
Mitchell declined to comment. In a letter obtained by The Post that she sent Tuesday to friends and clients, she did not make any reference to whether her actions violated the law firm’s policies, or whether the firm was right to say that it was concerned about her actions.
Instead, she blamed what she called “a massive pressure campaign in the last several days mounted by leftist groups . . . because of my personal involvement with President Trump” and the Georgia election.
She wrote that she resigned because she did not want to be a distraction for the firm, but she vowed to continue her practice related to election law.
“Those who deny the existence of voter and election fraud are not in touch with facts and reality,” she wrote.
Mitchell, 70, is a onetime Democratic member of the Oklahoma legislature who became a Republican and has made a Washington career representing GOP candidates, committees and causes, culminating with her work after the election advising Trump.
In the Saturday call, Trump told Raffensperger that he risked facing criminal consequences if he didn’t “find” enough votes to declare that the president had won the state. Raffensperger responded that “the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.”
Trump then asked Mitchell, “Well, Cleta, how do you respond to that? Maybe you tell me?”
Mitchell complained to Raffensperger that “we have asked from your office for records that only you have” but that they had not received them.
Mitchell raised her claim that around 4,500 people voted after having moved out of Georgia. Trump interjected that the number was “in the 20s,” apparently meaning in the 20,000s, but Raffensperger’s general counsel, Ryan Germany, said those numbers were not accurate: “Every one we’ve been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately.”
Mitchell concluded her contribution by saying that she hadn’t even addressed the claim that voting machines were rigged, which Georgia officials denied. Trump interjected that “we don’t need” to prove that machines were rigged.
Trump said, “All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes.”
by ti-amie I guess she and Lin Wood, who thinks he's the Christ incarnate in an imperfect human being and create their own law firm? I'm not clever enough to think of a name for it.
by ti-amie Uh Lin Wood may be in a bit of trouble...
Alan Feuer @alanfeuer
NEW: The city of Detroit has just asked a federal judge to refer Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and the rest of Team Kraken for disbarment proceedings.
Powell & her colleagues filed 4 Kraken suits alleging a baseless conspiracy about foreign powers & Dominion voting machines. Judge Linda Parker in Detroit swatted it down.
Detroit's lawyers note that decision & say now it's time for the lawyers "to answer for that misconduct."
The filing notes the by-now repeated sins of Powell's filings: fake numbers, unverified claims, experts w/no expertise.
It also notes that Trump has continued to use the Kraken suits in his "desperate campaign to thwart the will of the voters" even up to his call w/GA's SOS.
by ti-amie Naveed Jamali@NaveedAJamali
#BreakingNews ahead of protests in DC, intelligence and law enforcement are investigating a radio transmission heard by a JetBlue plane threatening a 9/11 style attack in the nations capital on Weds.
The transmission said "We are going to fly a plane into the capital on Wednesday to avenge Soleimani's death," but intelligence, law enforcement, and military pilots I said the transmission is likely to not be Iranian, and instead investigators should focus on domestic targets.
Intelligence experts familiar with Iranian intel and its proxies tell me they do not believe Iran would broadcast an attack like this. Instead they believe this more likely an individual focused on the pro-Trump protests tomorrow.
Malcolm Nance
@MalcolmNance
Now that I’ve heard the audio its likely an American false flagging this. I hope they learn when you F*ck Around ... you Find Out.
by JazzNU This guy is with the NY Times, in charge of their "Election Needle"
by mmmm8 Decision HQ projected Warnock to win.
Ossoff is only 1200 behind.
Color me surprised (pleasantly)
by dryrunguy If this is actually what transpires in Georgia, this is astounding. I would not have expected it. Ossoff appears to be in delightful shape with most outstanding votes left in heavily Democratic districts.
I'd be curious to read your opinions.... To what degree are Trump's shenanigans in recent weeks responsible for this? I'd vote for "very high"...
by skatingfan It seems to have motivated turnout, particularly African American turnout in rural areas, that didn't turnout for the General Election.
by mmmm8 Decision Desk HQ have projected Ossoff to win and he's declared victory.
It seems tying his ticket to Warnock really helped (thanks as always to Black people).
Phew.
by mmmm8
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:08 am
If this is actually what transpires in Georgia, this is astounding. I would not have expected it. Ossoff appears to be in delightful shape with most outstanding votes left in heavily Democratic districts.
I'd be curious to read your opinions.... To what degree are Trump's shenanigans in recent weeks responsible for this? I'd vote for "very high"...
Agree with Skatingfan, it seems to have motivated Democratic turnout. But it'll be difficult to measure how much of it was Trump and how much was the campaigns, local organizers, and Democratic fundraising.
by MJ2004 I think this tweet put it well:
@RameshPonnuru
My sense is Perdue and Loeffler could have survived any 2 of these 3: being unimpressive candidates, GA shifting purple, and Trump being a maniac.
The day McConnell stops being majority leader we should all celebrate with champagne. More momentous even than dumping Trump.
by Suliso
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:59 pm
It seems tying his ticket to Warnock really helped (thanks as always to Black people).
Didn't hurt for sure, however black electorate was 29% (same as in general). Can't win statewide offices by that alone, lots of white suburbanites must have voted for both candidates as well.
by ponchi101 In a state that suppresses voting so much, the results are very good news. If Stacey Abrams wins the governorship in a couple of years, and they are able to put serious people in charge of voting, Georgia may become blue for a long time.
And yes, Tiny's shenanigans must have been a huge factor in this. A reminder that he lost the state, and he lost it again.
by ti-amieTrump’s devastation of the Republican Party is nearly complete
Opinion by
Karen Tumulty
Columnist
Jan. 6, 2021 at 10:23 a.m. EST
It is time for Republicans to face an uncomfortable but increasingly obvious truth.
President Trump is just not that into you.
He never has been.
To Trump, the party of Lincoln was a rental vehicle, one that he took for a joyride and is getting ready to turn back in, with trash jammed under the seats and stains covering the upholstery. Also, the tank is empty, and there’s a crack in the windshield.
Democrat Raphael Warnock has won his Senate race in Georgia, defeating Republican Kelly Loeffler, a billionaire who had reinvented herself as a Trumpist, right down to the trucker cap that she started wearing atop her expensively styled blond locks.
If Democrat Jon Ossoff’s lead over David Perdue, whose Senate term expired Sunday, holds up in the remaining Georgia Senate race, Republicans will have managed to lose the presidency, the House and the Senate during Trump’s four years in office.
Quite the trifecta.
What is even worse, both for democracy and for the long-term well-being of the party itself, is that Republicans have lost any legitimate claim that they stand for constitutional principles and conservative values.
We will see the most incontrovertible evidence of this on Wednesday, as GOP members of the House and Senate, at Trump’s bidding, wage a futile and deeply undemocratic effort to overturn the results of a presidential election that wasn’t even close. What is normally a rote procedure to certify the results of the electoral college will be challenged by a shockingly large number of GOP foot soldiers, with Vice President Pence in the hot seat.
And why are Republicans doing this? The more weak-kneed among them might be afraid of an unkind tweet from the president; others, of a possible primary challenge.
And still others — I’m looking at you, Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) — because of craven opportunism. As my colleague David Von Drehle pointed out, they are positioning themselves for 2024 presidential bids and are betting on the dubious proposition that Trumpism is “a philosophical torch that can be passed from one runner to the next.”
As a large number of Republicans vote to undermine democracy inside the Capitol, the streets of Washington will be thronged with Trump supporters. The MAGA crowds might or might not actually believe their leader’s claims that the election was stolen, but they are willing to do whatever he asks of them. Trump has not been subtle in his suggestion that violence might be in order. “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” he tweeted last month. “Be there, will be wild!”
Watching Trump’s performance since his election loss — and especially the chaos he has sown in the past few weeks, as things went down to the wire in Georgia — it seems fair to ask whether he even wanted Republicans to win there. Because if Perdue and Loeffler had carried the state and he had lost it, that would have exposed exactly how hollow were his claims of election fraud.
Trump’s obsession with Georgia is such that the president placed no fewer than 18 calls to its secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, before finally reaching him. (His incompetence is such that he was dialing the press office, where interns answered and hung up, assuming that it was a prank.)
The transcript of his hour-long diatribe on the phone with Raffensperger, as reported in a blockbuster story by The Post’s Amy Gardner, underscored another fixation on Trump’s part: Stacey Abrams, who after being narrowly defeated in Georgia’s gubernatorial race in 2018 took the lessons from the loss and built a Democratic voter-mobilization program that will be studied — and emulated — for years to come.
“Stacey Abrams is laughing about you,” Trump fumed. “She’s going around saying these guys are dumber than a rock. What she’s done to this party is unbelievable, I tell you.”
When the president says things like that to other people, we have learned, he is projecting what he knows to be the case about himself. And if there is anything that he cannot abide, it is the idea that a woman — or an African American, and Abrams is both — might be mocking him.
It parallels the narrative, embraced by many close to Trump, that his decision to run for president in the first place was set in motion after then-President Barack Obama made fun of him at the 2011 White House correspondents’ dinner. Since he has been president, nothing has unsettled him more than the contempt of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Republicans knew what he was when they made the bargain they did, transforming themselves from a party that claimed to stand for conservative values to one that was willing to become whatever Trump demanded it to be. It got some judges and some tax cuts along the way.
But this fealty was never going to be a mutual one. The GOP is of no use to Trump anymore — except as a target for blame and recrimination.
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:49 pm
The day McConnell stops being majority leader we should all celebrate with champagne. More momentous even than dumping Trump.
My bottle is chilling in the fridge just waiting for the official announcement.
by the Moz Well done voters of Georgia!!
by ti-amie
Olivia Beavers @Olivia_Beavers
>> Hill source tells me "Looks like they’re trying to tear down what they’ve set up for the inauguration."
by ti-amie
No rubber bullets, tear gas or pepper spray are in evidence.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by mmmm8 They are trying to overthrow the government. They probably feel righteous and like martyrs, like the actual protesters for freedom and democracy, in Belarus, Hong Kong, Turkey, Ukraine, etc. Ugh.
by ti-amie Daniel Marans
@danielmarans
Wow, they just cut off the Senate debate to evacuate everyone. An aide picked up on a mic says, "Protesters are in the building."
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Matt Fuller @MEPFuller
House is now back in session.
You know, the chamber is supposedly hermetically sealed for exactly these types of situations. Members aren't supposed to be able to tell what's going on outside, or even what time of day it is.
by ti-amie
Donald Trump Jr.
@DonaldJTrumpJr
This is wrong and not who we are. Be peaceful and use your 1st Amendment rights, but don’t start acting like the other side. We have a country to save and this doesn’t help anyone.
Irony is indeed dead.
by ti-amie Clint Watts
@selectedwisdom
Let's compare this to the federal response to protests at a federal courthouse in Portland. Why are there not legions of national guard, pepper spray, guys beating people with sticks at the U.S. Capital as property is damaged, violence is threatened?
by ti-amie
Garrett M. Graff @vermontgmg
In antiwar protests during Nixon era, hundreds of 82nd Airborne troops were kept in the White House cafeteria as a final line of defense. How is the Capitol so undefended and so unprepared for this totally expected and anticipated violence?
Clint Watts @selectedwisdom
Absolutely baffling, we had helicopters buzzing during protests this summer...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Zeke Miller @ZekeJMiller
WASHINGTON (AP) — Members of Congress inside House chamber told by police to put on gas masks after tear gas dispersed in Capitol Rotunda.
by ti-amie They just now asked for the National Guard?!
And the request has to go up the chain of command at the DoD?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie I never, ever, in my life thought I would see something like this.
by ti-amie @IngrahamAngle
Security beach at Capitol is disgraceful. The president needs to tell everyone to leave the building. Now.
Alyssa Farah
@Alyssafarah
Condemn this now, @realDonaldTrump - you are the only one they will listen to. For our country!
Katherine Faulders @KFaulders
Law enforcement in combat gear now heading into the U.S. Capitol.
Carl Quintanilla @carlquintanilla
* POOL REPORT CITES ARMED STANDOFF AT DOOR OF U.S. HOUSE CHAMBER, GUNS ARE DRAWN
by MJ2004 Republican party has shot itself in the head. Fools.
by ti-amie Aaron C. Davis @byaaroncdavis
BREAKING: A source tells me The Defense Department has just denied a request by DC officials to deploy the National Guard to the US Capitol.
Unconfirmed
by ti-amie
by ti-amie NOW Chuck Todd is calling for impeachment.
Katie Tur is talking about how ppl ignored his words effect and the death threats people received because of them.
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:02 pm
Aaron C. Davis @byaaroncdavis
BREAKING: A source tells me The Defense Department has just denied a request by DC officials to deploy the National Guard to the US Capitol.
Unconfirmed
BLM protests? helicopters on the air.
Proud Boys take over congress? Nah, nothing happening.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:00 pm
@IngrahamAngle
Security beach at Capitol is disgraceful. The president needs to tell everyone to leave the building. Now.
Alyssa Farah
@Alyssafarah
Condemn this now, @realDonaldTrump - you are the only one they will listen to. For our country!
Oh, NOW it's disgraceful? Laura and Alyssa need to stop. They've been calling for seditious acts for weeks and now they're surprised and outraged?!? Give me a damn break. Glad they aren't cheering this on, but they have been for weeks and weeks now.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:01 pm
Republican party has shot itself in the head. Fools.
Ingraham et al see their careers ending. I agree the GOP as we knew it is over.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU Amazing how unprepared they appear to be for this large group of white people trying to stage a coup. They're always ultra prepared, armed and ready when it's black and brown people protesting peacefully.
by ti-amie
by MJ2004 The Washington Post is now reporting that the defense department has denied a request from DC officials to deploy the National Guard to the US Capitol.
The defense department is currently led by acting secretary Christopher Miller, who was appointed in November, after Donald Trump abruptly fired Mark Esper.
by ponchi101 And this was so foreseeable that I TOLD MY GF YESTERDAY, and since Saturday, that this would happen. These people would march up to congress and do something.
And as you say, nobody was prepared. For something right there, in plain view.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by MJ2004
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:19 pm
And this was so foreseeable that I TOLD MY GF YESTERDAY, and since Saturday, that this would happen. These people would march up to congress and do something.
And as you say, nobody was prepared. For something right there, in plain view.
Agree we knew this would happen. It's not that nobody was prepared, in fact, just the opposite. The commander in chief who controls National Guard was prepared to let them into congress.
by ti-amie Words fail me.
Robert Farley
@drfarls
I am told that the reluctance of DOD to call out the DC guard is because they would come under the command of POTUS, which would obviously be a problem.
by ti-amie
by MJ2004 A woman is in critical condition after being shot in the chest at the US Capitol as Trump supporters stormed the building, according to multiple reports.
by ti-amie
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:34 pm
A woman is in critical condition after being shot in the chest at the US Capitol as Trump supporters stormed the building, according to multiple reports.
They showed her being wheeled out of the Capital on MSNBC.
by JazzNU I kid you not, Ted Cruz, who is sponsoring the objection to the Arizona results, and Jim Jordan, who wrote a 41-page memo in support of objecting to Biden, have said to "stop the violence". In what world did they think that this (expletive) was going to be peaceful after using relentless incendiary language?!?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Amy Gardner @AmyEGardner
Militia members have gathered outside the Georgia Capitol. Brad Raffensperger and senior staff have been escorted out to safety.
by ponchi101
JazzNU wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:40 pm
I kid you not, Ted Cruz, who is sponsoring the objection to the Arizona results, and Jim Jordan, who wrote a 41-page memo in support of objecting to Biden, have said to "stop the violence". In what world did they think that this (expletive) was going to be peaceful after using relentless incendiary language?!?
Maybe we can hope that Ted Cruz is also done. Doubt it, but one has to start looking at the silver linings. It will take a while because his election is so far away, but this has to be remembered.
by ponchi101 BBC is talking about what happened in the Michigan Capitol not too long ago. So, more on the same subject: everybody knew this was the way the response would go.
But of course, that feels like 50 years ago.
by ti-amie Jamison Foser @jamisonfoser
It has been obvious since the moment Trump won in 2016 that this was coming. I said it in November 2016. Feckless elites refused to take the threat seriously; even elevated people who contributed to it.
Every Republican Senator who voted to acquit owns this, because it was obvious this would happen if Trump was allowed to remain in office. And because they fanned the flames every step of the way.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:48 pm
BBC is talking about what happened in the Michigan Capitol not too long ago. So, more on the same subject: everybody knew this was the way the response would go.
But of course, that feels like 50 years ago.
What about those thugs who wanted to kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan? No one took that seriously either.
by ti-amie Steve Inskeep @NPRinskeep
Dean Phillips, D-Minn., who yelled to Republicans, "This is because of you" on the House floor, later told reporters: "I said what I was feeling. This has been brewing for four years. And the collective dereliction of duty manifested itself in that moment for me.”
by ti-amie Michael McFaul @McFaul
The organizers of this horrific assault on Capitol Hill, including those members of congress who initiated this stunt to contest Biden’s election , have just handed every autocrat in the world a giant gift that will last for years. Shame on you.
by patrick
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:55 pm
I never, ever, in my life thought I would see something like this.
Me neither. Someone needs to be impeached now
by ti-amie
by shtexas This is hard to believe.
I read Erdogan is lecturing us. Imagine that.
by ti-amie BBC News Africa
@BBCAfrica
·
4m
The National Guard has been called, at President Trump's request, says the White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
The president previously tweeted at his supporters to remain peaceful after riling up the same crowd in a rally this morning.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:53 pm
What about those thugs who wanted to kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan? No one took that seriously either.
And almost every mention of it refers to it as a "kidnapping plot" and to the people as militia members. It was an assassination plot with an Al-Qaeda style trial and they are domestic terrorists. Every mention of kidnapping and militia downplayed what almost occurred.
by Suliso Wow, "interesting" times in Washington DC. Who would have thought?
by ponchi101 How much money on: Ted Cruz will say that this actually VALIDATES his request to check the election, because see what happened.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU It's not too early to start drinking
by MJ2004 Finishing my first glass of red wine right now.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:55 pm
I never, ever, in my life thought I would see something like this.
Me neither. Someone needs to be impeached now
Is this something Trump could be held accountable for post-presidency? (I'm thinking it's just wishful thinking on my part, but...)
by JazzNU
Oploskoffie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:30 pm
Is this something Trump could be held accountable for post-presidency? (I'm thinking it's just wishful thinking on my part, but...)
Technically yes. What he did today and leading up to today is a crime. Acting as if this wasn't foreseeable is a joke, he's been throwing matches for days, but arguably weeks. Federal crime though. Will he pardon himself before he gets himself impeached in the next 2 weeks? We'll see. And pardons don't cover impeachments. Doesn't seem like it'll happen given GOP inaction for 4 years, but to say GOP is scrambling at this hour is a crazy understatement. They are going to try to figure out the best way to save their enabling asses.
by ponchi101 But I keep asking the same question: can he pardon himself, first, and can he pardon himself for something that he has not even been accused of?
That would be lunacy. He could pardon himself for any and all tax violations he could think of.
by shtexas This does not give me comfort that the police and security will be ready for inauguration day.
Oploskoffie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:30 pm
Is this something Trump could be held accountable for post-presidency? (I'm thinking it's just wishful thinking on my part, but...)
Technically yes. What he did today and leading up to today is a crime. Acting as if this wasn't foreseeable is a joke, he's been throwing matches for days, but arguably weeks. Federal crime though. Will he pardon himself before he gets himself impeached in the next 2 weeks? We'll see. And pardons don't cover impeachments. Doesn't seem like it'll happen given GOP inaction for 4 years, but to say GOP is scrambling at this hour is a crazy understatement. They are going to try to figure out the best way to save their enabling asses.
Oh, weeks of matches at the very least. Didn't he start delegitimizing the 2020 election back in 2019 already? Anyways.... With so little time left in office, is an impeachment procedure a realistic scenario? Or can those kinds of proceedings continue beyond a person's time in office? Am I right in assuming that if he were to be impeached, he cannot pardon himself while proceedings are ongoing? (I've been trying to do some homework on this, but the internet doesn't always agree depending on where you read stuff.... (duh, I know...))
by ti-amie Apologists like Chuck Todd on MSNBC are calling for his immediate impeachment and removal from office.
I'm not sure what other apologists are saying.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:43 pm
But I keep asking the same question: can he pardon himself, first, and can he pardon himself for something that he has not even been accused of?
That would be lunacy. He could pardon himself for any and all tax violations he could think of.
This is all untested. If he pardons himself, that is very suspect. But if as many think, he resigns and Pence pardons him, then yes, likely he gets away with it. That's what happened with Ford and Nixon. Nixon wasn't charged with anything, he was pardoned for possible future crimes that would've been charged. However, many forget to mention, that this sort of blanket pardon of even crimes that haven't been charged has never been legally challenged. So it's thought that that kind of pardon would likely stand using Nixon as an example, but no one really knows. Because though Nixon is an example of the action, it's not a legal precedent in any way.
This applies to federal crimes and only federal crimes. He's got 99 problems in the state of New York, tax violations included.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Ed O'Keefe @edokeefe
JUST NOW:
@SenDuckworth tells us on @CBSNews that a "Quick-thinking" Senate aide seized copies of the Electoral College certificates before they all evacuated the chamber.
Duckworth says Democratic senators are on a group text pushing their leaders to meet w/ Republican leadership to reconvene and continue their work tonight.
"This is Donald Trump's fault," @SenDuckworth tells @cbsnews. Adds later: "Never would I have imagined that this could possibly happen. ... But you know what? Democracy will prevail."
by ti-amie 5:01 p.m.
Ivanka Trump deletes tweet calling mob ‘American Patriots’ after pushback
By Meryl Kornfield
Soon after facing backlash, Ivanka Trump deleted her tweet describing the mob that violently stormed the Capitol as “American Patriots” and condemned the violence.
In the now-deleted tweet, the president’s eldest daughter wrote, “American Patriots — any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful.”
Critics responded to the tweet, questioning whether the intruders who disrupted and threatened lawmakers could be considered “patriots.”
CNN’s chief political analyst, Gloria Borger, compared the mob to “domestic terrorists,” disputing Trump’s assertion that the protesters were patriots.
“That’s not what I would call them,” Borger said. “These are people who march there to do damage.”
Around the time she deleted her tweet, Trump also clarified that she did not view the violent mob as patriotic.
“Clarifying, @IvankaTrump, you’re saying these people are ‘patriots’ ??” asked CNN’s Kate Bennett.
“No,” Trump answered. “Peaceful protest is patriotic. Violence is unacceptable and must be condemned in the strongest terms.”
by mmmm8 what are the chances nothing classified is lying around in those Congresspeople's offices?
by ti-amie
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:12 pm
what are the chances nothing classified is lying around in those Congresspeople's offices?
Slim and none.
by JazzNU
Oploskoffie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:50 pm
Oh, weeks of matches at the very least. Didn't he start delegitimizing the 2020 election back in 2019 already? Anyways.... With so little time left in office, is an impeachment procedure a realistic scenario? Or can those kinds of proceedings continue beyond a person's time in office? Am I right in assuming that if he were to be impeached, he cannot pardon himself while proceedings are ongoing? (I've been trying to do some homework on this, but the internet doesn't always agree depending on where you read stuff.... (duh, I know...))
He definitely can't pardon himself if he's impeached, and he if impeachment articles are passed to initiate fairy quickly, unlikely to be able to do much before then for anyone that isn't in the works. Are we dreaming this will come to pass? Yes. But like i said, GOP is scrambling big time at this hour.
If Senate impeaches him, he can't hold future federal office, so it'll cut off the possibility of 2024. Someone in Congress is surely drawing up articles as I write this.
Incitement of violence is always a crime. That's what I meant by at the very least days of match throwing. But even without the days and days of it, today's rally and subsequently telling the mob to storm the Capitol is plenty. There are obvious orange handprints all over today's insurrection and there's just no getting around that.
by mmmm8 Am I wrong to think impeaching him now would incite more violence and lead to Pence issuing him a pardon? I know it would cut off 2024 (if it passes), but could it also make him a martyr?
by ti-amie I'm torn about it too mmmm8. I don't know what the best way to proceed is.
by ti-amie
by mmmm8 Ilhan Omar says she's writing up articles of impeachment.
by mmmm8 DC police said they arrested 13 people
by ti-amie So can you be arrested and not indicted until after January 20?
by ponchi101
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:35 pm
DC police said they arrested 13 people
An accomplishment. Truly an accomplishment.
by ti-amie
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:35 pm
DC police said they arrested 13 people
WOW. A whole 13? There's video of one helping this woman down the steps of the capital.
by JazzNU
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:27 pm
Am I wrong to think impeaching him now would incite more violence and lead to Pence issuing him a pardon? I know it would cut off 2024 (if it passes), but could it also make him a martyr?
Think for sure you're correct about it inciting violence, but given the scene at the Capitol, not sure we're gonna have peace right now one way or another. And though I'm sure they'll give it the old college try, Pence can't pardon Trump out of impeachment. The US Constitution states that limitation of the Pardon Power very clearly, so any attempt is likely to fail very, very quickly in court.
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:27 pm
Am I wrong to think impeaching him now would incite more violence and lead to Pence issuing him a pardon? I know it would cut off 2024 (if it passes), but could it also make him a martyr?
Think for sure you're correct about it inciting violence, but given the scene at the Capitol, not sure we're gonna have peace right now one way or another. And though I'm sure they'll give it the old college try, Pence can't pardon Trump out of impeachment. The US Constitution states that limitation of the Pardon Power very clearly, so any attempt is likely to fail very, very quickly in court.
I meant he could issue him a blanket pardon for criminal acts while Trump is undergoing impeachment. Or he can't?
by ti-amie Jake Tapper @jaketapper
THIS MORNING at the rally Giuliani called for "trial by combat."
Don Jr. told Congressmen who weren't going to vote to overturn the election: "We're coming for you."
by ti-amie So there's supposed to be a curfew going into effect at 6p Eastern?
Has anyone seen evidence of the National Guard?
by JazzNU
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:46 pm
I meant he could issue him a blanket pardon for criminal acts while Trump is undergoing impeachment. Or he can't?
Yes, he can probably do that for OTHER criminal acts, like tax evasion or campaign violations, etc. But a pardon can't involve impeachment, it also can't prevent it or undo it. If he's impeached, that's it. Pence can't help him come back from that one.
THIS MORNING at the rally Giuliani called for "trial by combat."
Don Jr. told Congressmen who weren't going to vote to overturn the election: "We're coming for you."
Eric was on Fox News last night fairly unhinged telling any Senator or Congressman that doesn't stand up for his father today, that they were getting "primaryed" and they would be done, career over.
I think Eric is becoming increasingly more unhinged and rivaling his brother because he knows his hand was caught in the cookie jar and he's going to prison real soon.
by ti-amieTrump supporters storm U.S. Capitol, with one woman shot and tear gas fired
Security officers point weapons at the House chamber door, which has had its windows broken from the outside by pro-Trump rioters Wednesday during congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)
By
Rebecca Tan,
Peter Jamison,
Rachel Chason,
Marissa J. Lang and
John Woodrow Cox
Jan. 6, 2021 at 5:13 p.m. EST
As President Trump told a sprawling crowd outside the White House that they should never accept defeat, hundreds of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup that they hoped would overturn the election he lost.
The chaotic, violent scene — much of it incited by the president’s incendiary language — was like none other in modern American history, bringing to a sudden halt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
With poles bearing blue Trump flags, the mob bashed through Capitol doors and windows, forcing their way past police officers unprepared for the onslaught. Lawmakers were evacuated shortly before an armed standoff at the House doors. At least one person, a woman, was shot and rushed to an ambulance outside the building. Cannisters of tear gas were fired across the rotunda’s white marble floor, and on the steps outside the building, rioters flew Confederate flags.
“USA! USA!” chanted the would-be saboteurs of a 244-year-old democracy.
The Senate halted its proceedings, and the House doors were closed. In a notification, U.S. Capitol Police said no entry or exit was permitted in the buildings as they struggled to regain control. “Stay away from exterior windows, doors. If outside, seek cover,” police warned.
All 1,100 members of the D.C. National Guard were activated, and Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) imposed a citywide curfew. From 6 p.m. Wednesday to 6 a.m. Thursday, Bowser said no one other than essential personnel would be allowed outdoors in the city.
D.C. police stand between protestors and a counter protester as thousands of Trump supporters march in Washington, District of Columbia on January 6, 2020. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
The mob had arrived hours earlier, charging past the metal barricades on the property’s outer edge. Hundreds, then thousands followed them. Some scaled the Capitol’s walls to reach the entrances; others climbed over one another.
On the building’s east side, police initially pushed the pro-Trump demonstrators back, but were soon overpowered and fell back to the foot of the main steps. Within a half hour, fights broke out again, and police retreated to the top of the steps as screaming Trump supporters surged closer. After the police perimeters were breached, the elated crowd began to sing the National Anthem.
For an hour, they banged on the doors, chanting “Let us in! Let us in!” Police inside fired pepper balls and smoke bombs into the crowd but failed to turn them away. After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution.
Dozens soon broke inside, where they smashed windows and vandalized offices.
“MURDER THE MEDIA,” read a message written on one door.
“WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN,” read another left in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.
Just before 3 p.m., a group of Trump supporters began running out of the southeast entrance.
“They shot a girl!” someone yelled.
A team of paramedics with a gurney soon arrived and a Capitol Police officer stepped aside to let them pass. “White female, shot in the shoulder,” the officer said as they hurried past. They emerged minutes later.
On the gurney was a woman in jeans, gazing vacantly to one side, her torso and face covered in blood. As the gurney was loaded into the back of the ambulance, pro-Trump protesters swarmed around it, screaming, “Murderers!”
Capitol Police officers with long guns pushed them back, and the ambulance drove off.
At 3:30 p.m., more law enforcement in riot gear arrived at the Capitol.
“Traitors,” Trump supporters shouted. “What’s your oath?”
Biden condemned what he called an “unprecedented assault” on American Democracy, “unlike anything we’ve seen in modern times.”
“This is not dissent. It’s disorder. It’s chaos,” he said. “It borders on sedition, and it must end now.”
For hours, the president made little effort to quell the violence he had instigated, finally sharing a video at 4:17 p.m. in which he told people to “go home” — while continuing to promote the lie that he had won the election.
For hours, Trump made little effort to quell the violence he had helped instigate, finally sharing a video at 4:17 p.m. in which he told people to “go home” — while continuing to promote the lie that he had won the election.
“We love you,” he told them. “You’re very special.”
Those who made it inside the Capitol took on a celebrity status when they came back out. A woman who said she had footage on her phone of Capitol police pointing guns at rioters was circled by dozens who wanted to see it. People traded what information they had about the woman who was shot inside. Some called her a “martyr.”
After she was taken away, the mood soured, though many remained joyous. “We’re making history,” one woman said as she strolled down Independence Avenue with friends.
Beneath streaming flags, including some that read “F--- Biden” and that depicted President Trump as the movie character Rambo, people loudly exhorted Jesus and chanted “USA.”
Many called friends and family and took videos.
“We weren’t violent before, but we are now,” a middle-aged White man said, talking into his cell phone. “There’s no going back.”
by ponchi101 Jack Tapper was talking to one of his correspondents. He closes with: "I feel like I am talking to a correspondent in...in...in... Bogota".
No dude. That crap has never happened here.
(When the FARC took over the Palace of Justice, it was a war. No politician was involved).
Jerk.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU The woman who was shot has died.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Ana Cabrera
@AnaCabrera
A law enforcement source has confirmed to CNN that pipe bombs were found at the headquarters for the DNC, RNC and grounds of the United States Capitol. All of the devices were safely detonated by the police, the source tells
@evanperez
.
by ti-amie BTW Comey opened his mouth to say that the incoming Administration shouldn't waste time investigating Tiny and his crimes.
I wonder what he's got to say now?
by dmforever
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:06 pm
Jack Tapper was talking to one of his correspondents. He closes with: "I feel like I am talking to a correspondent in...in...in... Bogota".
No dude. That crap has never happened here.
(When the FARC took over the Palace of Justice, it was a war. No politician was involved).
Jerk.
Most Americans know woefully little about their own country, let alone what goes on in other countries. I was channel surfing decades ago and saw the first five minutes of Rambo. It starts out with a guy in a jungle, with a title saying "Bogota, Colombia".
And yes, I agree. He needs to educate himself. Jerk.
Kevin
by ponchi101 And now somebody else just said: "These are images that we are used to seeing from the Middle East, or... Venezuela".
No wonder I boycott CNN, just out of principle
by JazzNU
by JazzNU ^^^ Maryland called in their National Guard as well.
DC was likely getting statehood following Lafayette Square. I see it getting a fast track after this display of why it needs to be a state of it's own. I'll be shocked if it's not one by 2022, but think much sooner is very possible after today.
by MJ2004 Puerto Rico should be added to make it an even 52.
by ti-amie Intriguing that it was Pence who ordered the National Guard to be deployed.
Lots of things that were on the regular burner are now going to be fast tracked and probably passed.
That picture of the terrorist sitting at the Speakers desk seems to have upset a lot of folks.
#ETTD
by ti-amie
by mmmm8
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:31 am
Intriguing that it was Pence who ordered the National Guard to be deployed.
Lots of things that were on the regular burner are now going to be fast tracked and probably passed.
That picture of the terrorist sitting at the Speakers desk seems to have upset a lot of folks.
#ETTD
Per CNN, his office just issued a statement that talks about how he's been coordinating with law enforcement and lawmakers and makes no mention of the President.
Melania's Chief of Staff has resigned.
by ti-amie Jake Sherman @JakeSherman
Rand Paul, per hill pool, says he does not think there will be any more objections to Joe Biden’s electoral college victory
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:31 am
Intriguing that it was Pence who ordered the National Guard to be deployed.
Lots of things that were on the regular burner are now going to be fast tracked and probably passed.
That picture of the terrorist sitting at the Speakers desk seems to have upset a lot of folks.
#ETTD
Per CNN, his office just issued a statement that talks about how he's been coordinating with law enforcement and lawmakers and makes no mention of the President.
Melania's Chief of Staff has resigned.
by JazzNU
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:18 am
Puerto Rico should be added to make it an even 52.
If that's what they want, then I agree. I know there's some push-pull on statehood, independence, or stay a territory.
by ti-amie Melania hasn't been seen in public for awhile now. The woman he's been seen with is holding his hand and appearing affectionate is not Melania. Completely different facial structure and body type.
by ponchi101 Dreaming: Dc and PR become states. The Dakotas fuse, Colorado swallows Wyoming (why does Wyoming exist?) and you still have an even 50.
Agree with JazzNu. My understanding is that DC has a larger population than Wyoming or N. Dakota. More reasons to dream this.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:31 am
Intriguing that it was Pence who ordered the National Guard to be deployed.
Lots of things that were on the regular burner are now going to be fast tracked and probably passed.
That picture of the terrorist sitting at the Speakers desk seems to have upset a lot of folks.
#ETTD
Oh yeah, they are VERY mad about that. I'm mad about all of it like most are, but I've definitely noticed that the Speaker's desk plus the Confederate flag being in the Capitol seem to be upsetting people the most in terms of specific actions.
by Togtdyalttai
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:38 am
Dreaming: Dc and PR become states. The Dakotas fuse, Colorado swallows Wyoming (why does Wyoming exist?) and you still have an even 50.
Agree with JazzNu. My understanding is that DC has a larger population than Wyoming or N. Dakota. More reasons to dream this.
Unfortunately, it's quite difficult to make new states out of existing states or fuse existing states together. Wyoming and the Dakotas would never agree.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:38 am
Dreaming: Dc and PR become states. The Dakotas fuse, Colorado swallows Wyoming (why does Wyoming exist?) and you still have an even 50.
Agree with JazzNu. My understanding is that DC has a larger population than Wyoming or N. Dakota. More reasons to dream this.
The radius within a short walk from my apartment has a larger population than Wyoming (I'm not even exaggerating)
by ponchi101 PR. They voted for STATEHOOD, meaning a full fledge state within the union. Not the same as independence.
And next time, let me dream for at least 2 minutes, before you splat those thoughts with facts
(thanks for the correction)
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:38 am
Dreaming: Dc and PR become states. The Dakotas fuse, Colorado swallows Wyoming (why does Wyoming exist?) and you still have an even 50.
Agree with JazzNu. My understanding is that DC has a larger population than Wyoming or N. Dakota. More reasons to dream this.
Unfortunately, it's quite difficult to make new states or fuse them out of existing states.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Article IV Section 3, Clause 1 makes it pretty impossible for The Dakotas to merge or Wyoming and Colorado to combine.
Population of Wyoming: 571,960 inhabitants
Population of Washington, DC. 5,322,000
Population of Bronx, NY 1,404,330
by JazzNU Breaking this back out because how very appropriate today. These violent, armed insurgents are hardly protestors, stopped calling them that.
by Togtdyalttai
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:44 am
PR. They voted for STATEHOOD, meaning a full fledge state within the union. Not the same as independence.
And next time, let me dream for at least 2 minutes, before you splat those thoughts with facts
(thanks for the correction)
Bah, that's what I meant to say, but for some reason I wrote independence.
by mmmm8 Is the GOP waking up now and trying to save face?
McConnell just called them thugs and Pence sounded downright presidential.
by ti-amie
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:11 am
Is the GOP waking up now and trying to save face?
McConnell just called them thugs and Pence sounded downright presidential.
If I didn't know better I'd say Moscow Mitch is shook.
Pence was, as you said, presidential.
by MJ2004 Pence is already running for 2024.
by mmmm8
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:14 am
Pence is already running for 2024.
What I was thinking. Banking on enough people being scared by this to turn away from Trumpism.
by ti-amie Steve Schmidt
@SteveSchmidtSES
It appears to me on the basis of video evidence that the US Capitol Police have been infiltrated and compromised. There is a fifth column within their ranks. They have surrendered the US Capitol to insurrectionists without a shot fired. It may be the greatest law enforcement
Failure in American history. The US Capitol Police abs their leadership have disgraced and dishonored themselves. There need to be a full accounting of their cowardice. Incompetence, malfeasance and complicity. #totaldisgrace
by ti-amie Malcolm Nance @MalcolmNance
WARNING: This massive national security failure at the Capitol could have led to massive hostage situation ending in executions and/or deaths. THESE STORMINGS WILL LIKELY OCCUR IN DEM STATEHOUSES IN NEXT 24-48 hours.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 To see if there is a connection? Well, they may look into whether the owner of the truck is the brother of the guy that planted the bombs, but to see if there is a connection is like checking to see if there is a connection between day and night.
Better write "how they are connected". Not if.
by JazzNU
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:11 am
Is the GOP waking up now and trying to save face?
McConnell just called them thugs and Pence sounded downright presidential.
Oh absolutely. The GOP is trying to figure out on the fly the way to revive their comatose body. It's been dying, but it flatlined today and they need quick work to revive. You've got Pence doing presidential stuff so it looks like there's a leader in this administration, the National Security Advisor praising him for bravery or courage or something. A Rep already said she'd no longer support the objection to the election earlier. Rand Paul is saying no one is going to give a real objection anymore. Loeffler just rescinded her objection. Hawley's hometown paper is saying he's got blood on his hands. There will be more, this is definitely just the beginning. As the dust settles and blame is being heaped on the GOP and Fox News and everyone else involved, the GOP is trying to figure out a way to survive this.
by JazzNU
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by JazzNU A powerful manufacturing union is calling for this as well, FYI
by ponchi101 From around the world. Italy:
“This is the widely anticipated outcome of Trumpism,” tweeted a retired Italian center-left politician, Pierluigi Castagnetti. “And unfortunately it won’t end today. When politics is replaced by deception and fanaticism of the people the drift is inevitable.”
by JazzNU
by JazzNU Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
WASHINGTON (AP) -- DC Police: 4 people died as Trump supporters occupied Capitol; 1 woman shot by police, 3 in medical emergencies.
by JazzNU Definitely starting to think that Pence and the Cabinet will come together to enforce the 25th Amendment in the next 72 hours and not even wait for a possible impeachment. Calls are growing about the danger he poses to leave him in for another 2 weeks. According to sources inside the WH, It seems that even on a crazy scale, he's taken a deeper dip into the unhinged pool.
Pence has ambitions to be president in the future. He and the people around him would have to be the dumbest village idiots to ever exist to not know that Gerald Ford didn't have a shot in hell at reelection because of the Nixon pardon. He'll promise the pardon and then not hand it out to him or his children once he is sworn in and be done with him.
by ponchi101 I don't know. He has been so spineless throughout his tenure. He has been insulted, defiled, abused, and yet he still sits there, like a little choir boy.
I hope you are right and he has a bit more of an elaborate plan, but he also understands something: take the president out, and he is a marked man for the rest of his life. He goes down in history, either for good or for bad, but he immediately gains 75 MM deranged enemies. And that is no small issue.
by the Moz After the events of yesterday I don't know what to say except what I've said before...I hurt for your republic right now America
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 2:07 pm
I don't know. He has been so spineless throughout his tenure. He has been insulted, defiled, abused, and yet he still sits there, like a little choir boy.
I hope you are right and he has a bit more of an elaborate plan, but he also understands something: take the president out, and he is a marked man for the rest of his life. He goes down in history, either for good or for bad, but he immediately gains 75 MM deranged enemies. And that is no small issue.
So I can't articulate on here how I really feel about Pence because I think the most apt description of him requires profanity, but safe to say I agree completely about him being a spineless and creepy little man. So If this does happen, I think it will have more to do with the wary cabinet members and the sudden business lobby coming out in support of the idea, because some of the names attached are powerful in conservative circles. I'll post an article that mentions some of it.
But also, Pence is kind of already a marked man, and him and the GOP are looking for a way out. With his I think it's Chief of Staff, it's definitely someone very high up on his staff, now banned from the White House and with Instigator-in-Chief already marking him for death, he may not have as much to lose. When he didn't do whatever imaginary thing that was never going to change the outcome that he was expected to do to turn the Senate yesterday. the threats ramped up, not that the threats made to do what I say or else made at the rallies should be ignored.
And the other thing - it's not 75 million. Who knows the number, but let's call it 40 million are deranged. No one, and I mean no one with legitimate aspirations for 2024 hasn't already run the numbers on how to win. If the data shows that there's a moderate Republican group that would appeal to Independents that can overcome that rabid Trumpist base, then that's another thing at play here. And that is the thinking, and why Ben Sasse is out here two stepping all of a sudden.
by JazzNU Here's an "article" from Axios with some details. The CNN article is more complete, but this one mentions a few things that the other doesn't.
National Association of Manufacturers suggests Pence invoke the 25th Amendment
by Ursula Perano
Leading business groups condemned President Trump following the violence at the Capitol, with the National Association of Manufacturers urging Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump and "preserve democracy."
Why it matters: Big business is usually friendly territory for President Trump, who falsely claims the election was "stolen" from him and encouraged protestors to march to the Capitol building. But folks are speaking out ahead of President-elect Joe Biden's tenure and insisting the violence cease.
NAM last year awarded Ivanka Trump with its Alexander Hamilton Award for Extraordinary Support of Manufacturing in America.
It now writes that the president has been "cheered on by members of his own party, adding fuel to the distrust that has enflamed violent anger."
Pence on Wednesday broke ranks with Trump by stating that he would not exercise unilateral authority over certifying the election results.
What they're saying: Other business leaders are making known their disgust with the scene on Capitol Hill.
Citi CEO Michael Corbat wrote that he's "disgusted by the actions of those who have stormed the U.S. Capitol" and that he "[prays] this situation can be resolved without further conflict."
Business Roundtable wrote: "The chaos unfolding in the nation's capital is the result of unlawful efforts to overturn the legitimate results of a democratic election. The country deserves better. Business Roundtable calls on the President and all relevant officials to put an end to the chaos and to facilitate the peaceful transition of power."
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff wrote: "Our leaders must call for peace and unity now. There is no room for violence in our democracy. May the One who brings peace bring peace to our country."
Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman: "The insurrection that followed the President’s remarks today is appalling and an affront to the democratic values we hold dear as Americans. I am shocked and horrified by this mob’s attempt to undermine our constitution. As I said in November, the outcome of the election is very clear and there must be a peaceful transition of power."
Goldman Sachs CEO David Soloman: "For years, our democracy has built a reservoir of goodwill around the world that brings important benefits for our citizens. Recently, we have squandered that goodwill at an alarming pace, and today’s attack on the U.S. Capitol does further damage. It’s time for all Americans to come together and move forward with a peaceful transition of power. We have to begin reinvesting in our democracy and rebuilding the institutions that have made America an exceptional nation."
by JazzNUDonald Trump should be removed from office to preserve democracy, business leaders say
By Matt Egan
New York (CNN Business)The National Association of Manufacturers, one of the most influential business groups in the US, called on Vice President Mike Pence Wednesday to consider removing President Donald Trump from office.
The statement from Republican-leaning NAM, the nation's largest manufacturing association, marks perhaps the strongest political statement by a major business group in modern history. And it puts an exclamation point on the breakup between the business community and the self-styled CEO president.
Pence "should seriously consider working with the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to preserve democracy," NAM CEO Jay Timmons, a former Republican political operative, said in the statement.
The comments show just how appalled Corporate America is over the ongoing attack on democracy. NAM, founded in 1895, is one of the oldest and most powerful business groups in the nation, representing small and large manufacturers in all 50 states.
The call comes after Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol, interrupting the joint session of Congress counting Electoral College votes. Pence was evacuated during the chaos.
"The outgoing president incited violence in an attempt to retain power, and any elected leader defending him is violating their oath to the Constitution and rejecting democracy in favor of anarchy," Timmons said. He added, "This is not law and order. This is chaos. It is mob rule. It is dangerous. This is sedition and it should be treated as such."
Business community is 'horrified'
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of America's top business leaders, also condemned the violence in Washington.
"This is not who we are as a people or a country. We are better than this," Dimon said in a statement. "Our elected leaders have a responsibility to call for an end to the violence, accept the results, and, as our democracy has for hundreds of years, support the peaceful transition of power. Now is the time to come together to strengthen our exceptional union."
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, founder of Yale University's Chief Executive Leadership Institute, said the condemnation from NAM is unprecedented.
"Everyone in the business community is horrified," Sonnenfeld told CNN Business.
Sonnenfeld agreed with NAM's call for Pence and the Cabinet to consider the 25th Amendment. "The business community will give them back-up," he said.
Manufacturing group championed the Trump agenda
The call by NAM is even more startling because the advocacy group is staunchly pro-business and was a vocal supporter of Trump, cheering the president's tax cuts, deregulation and efforts to revive manufacturing.
In September 2017, Trump even delivered remarks at NAM's annual meeting in Washington where he championed his economic vision.
In 2018, Republican Congressman Kevin Brady, then chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the Trump tax cuts wouldn't have been possible without the support of NAM and Timmons, who has been CEO since 2011.
Before joining NAM, Timmons served as the chief of staff to Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia, and executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, according to his bio.
During the 2020 election cycle, NAM contributed $165,000 to Republican Congressional candidates, according to OpenSecrets. That marked 72% of the group's contributions.
Chamber of Commerce: Congress must meet tonight
In a similar vein, the Business Roundtable, whose CEO members lead companies that employ nearly 19 million people, called on Trump and other officials to "put an end to the chaos and to facilitate the peaceful transition of power."
"The chaos unfolding in the nation's capital is the result of unlawful efforts to overturn the legitimate results of a democratic election," the Business Roundtable said in a statement.
The US Chamber of Commerce CEO Thomas Donohue called on Congress to gather "this evening to conclude their Constitutional responsibility to accept the report of the Electoral College."
Other leaders across Wall Street and Corporate America similarly condemned the violence in Washington and offered hope for calm ahead.
GM CEO Mary Barra called for unity and said the violence at the US Capitol "does not reflect who we are as a nation."
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink decried the storming of the Capitol as an "assault on our nation, our democracy and the will of the American people." Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf called for an "immediate end to this violence" and for a peaceful transition of power to President-elect Biden.
IBM CEO Arvind Krishna said in a tweet that the company "condemns today's unprecedented lawlessness and we call for it to end immediately." The condemnation comes a day after IBM announced the hiring of Gary Cohn, Trump's former senior economic adviser.
Michael Corbat, the CEO of Citigroup, said in a statement that he is "disgusted" by those who stormed the US Capitol.
"While these scenes are very difficult to watch," Corbat said, "I have faith in our democratic process and know that the important work of Congress will continue and that people will be held accountable for their actions."
Additional statements...
- American Bankers Association: "This is a dark day for our democracy. The violence playing out on Capitol Hill and in the streets of Washington is reprehensible and should shock and sadden all of us. Our nation is better than this."
- Tim Cook, CEO of Apple: "Today marks a sad and shameful chapter in our nation's history. Those responsible for this insurrection should be held to account, and we must complete the transition to President-elect Biden's administration. It's especially when they are challenged that our ideals matter most."
- Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America: "Today's appalling events in our nation's capital underscore the urgent need for all American's to unite behind one of our most cherished principles: the peaceful transfer of power that has happened without interruption since our country's founding. We must move forward together peacefully, respectfully and with a singular, shared focus on our American ideals."
- Chuck Robbins, CEO of Cisco: "What is happening in our nation's capital is appalling and saddening. The United States has long served as a beacon of democracy, and today we are reminded of both its importance and fragility. @Cisco condemns the violence we have witnessed today & call for it to end immediately.
"It's time to recognize the legitimate democratic process, ensure a peaceful transition of power and come back together as one nation."
- Guy Rosen, Facebook VP, Integrity, and Monika Bickert, Facebook VP, Global Policy Management: "Let us speak for the leadership team in saying what so many of us are feeling. We are appalled by the violence at the Capitol today. We are treating these events as an emergency. Our Elections Operations Center has already been active in anticipation of the Georgia elections and the vote by Congress to certify the election, and we are monitoring activity on our platform in real time."
- Jim Farley, CEO of Ford: "The Ford Motor Company condemns the violent and antidemocratic actions today. These were destructive acts against our shared principles and beliefs of a peaceful transition of power. We commit to working together, with respect and empathy, to uphold core American values..."
- David M. Solomon, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs: "For years, our democracy has built a reservoir of goodwill around the world that brings important benefits for our citizens. Recently, we have squandered that goodwill at an alarming pace, and today's attack on the U.S. Capitol does further damage. It's time for all Americans to come together and move forward with a peaceful transition of power. We have to begin reinvesting in our democracy and rebuilding the institutions that have made America an exceptional nation."
- Alfred Kelly, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Visa: "I am shocked and saddened by what I've seen today. We at Visa stand 100% behind the results of the election and the collective voices of the citizens of this country. We are fully supportive of a smooth transition of power which has been the case for almost two and a half centuries. In this time of intense anxiety for our country and the world, I continue to have tremendous faith in the resilience of our United States institutions."
by ti-amie I'm watching MSNBC because I want to hear what people are saying, people who normalized every action of Tiny by either ignoring it or shrugging their shoulders and saying "he's the President".
At the same time there were those who kept screaming from the sidelines that this man was dangerous, one of whom he "defeated" in 2016. These were not random folks but people who have known him and his antics for years. These people were ignored and in some cases demeaned.
And here we are.
All of the MSM, in my opinion, is guilty but I single out the New York Times where a prominent reporter's mother has direct ties to Tiny as one of his publicists.
There were major security failures yesterday and maybe they need to swap out certain officers like the Secret Service just had to do in order to safely protect the President elect but the coddling and outright lying began years ago. And the MSM has shown no inclination to look at itself.
by ti-amie MSNBC is reporting Elaine Chao, Mitch's wife and Transportation Secretary, has resigned.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
BREAKING: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls on VP Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office
by ti-amie Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
! PELOSI says the acting Secretary of Defense "has to answer for where the National Guard was yesterday."
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:16 pm
Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
BREAKING: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls on VP Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office
Just lost a mini bet with my GF. I did not Pelosi would go there.
by ti-amie Jack Turman III
@jackturmanIII
At a presser in NY, Sen. Schumer said he and Speaker Pelosi tried to call VP Pence this morning to tell him to invoke the 25th Amendment. "They kept us on hold for 25 minutes and then said the vice president wouldn’t come on the phone," Schumer said.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:16 pm
Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
BREAKING: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls on VP Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office
Just lost a mini bet with my GF. I did not Pelosi would go there.
by ti-amie Dan Rather
@DanRather
How many people now calling for Trump to leave office immediately, or are resigning from his administration, or decrying his dangerous conduct, endorsed him, voted for him, or just remained silent in the last election? Asking for America.
by ponchi101 I don't know if I am living in a different reality but:
I have heard way too many times by now the variation of "This is not who we are". "This does not happen in America". "This is what we see in third world countries". So, who was doing this? Russians? Where was this happening? France? Where did we see this? Burkina-faso?
I am sorry. AITA?
by mmmm8 Hey, you leave Burkina Faso alone. My friend went home to there for the quarantine because they're doing a much better job containing COVID
by ponchi101
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:43 pm
Hey, you leave Burkina Faso alone. My friend went home to there for the quarantine because they're doing a much better job containing COVID
The long way to confirm that, indeed, IATA
by ti-amie Okay I did not realize that "Gloria" was playing while Tiny and his family watched the riot he incited. Also the above clip is not the full version. It's below. Also, have they ever listened to the words of that song?
Gloria
Laura Branigan
Gloria
You're always on the run now
Runnin' after somebody
You've gotta get him somehow
I think you've got to slow down
Before you start to blow it
I think you're headin' for a breakdown
So be careful not to show it
You really don't remember
Was it somethin' that he said?
All the voices in your head
Calling Gloria
Gloria
Don't you think you're fallin'?
If everybody wants you
Why isn't anybody callin'?
You don't have to answer
Leave 'em hangin' on the line, ohh
Calling Gloria
Gloria
(Gloria)
I think they got your number
(Gloria)
I think they got the alias
(Gloria)
That you've been livin' under
(Gloria)
But you really don't remember
Was it something that they said?
All the voices in your head
Calling Gloria
Gloria
How's it gonna go down?
Will you meet him on the main line?
Or…
by ti-amie Michael Marshall Smith
@ememess
What gets me is that Trump KNEW that Pence and his wife, daughter and brother were trapped in a building being invaded by armed rioters — and did nothing to help. If I was Pence, I’d 25th the motherf**ker for that alone.
by MJ2004 There are questions about how the terrorists knew exactly how to navigate the halls to reach the Democrat offices and specific areas they ransacked. They planned it and had inside help.
Isn't Trump expected to go to Camp David for the weekend? Are they going to hide from each other?
by ti-amie
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:28 pm
There are questions about how the terrorists knew exactly how to navigate the halls to reach the Democrat offices and specific areas they ransacked. They planned it and had inside help.
There are much darker scenarios on Twitter about what the aim of the riot was. I wonder what role Erik Prince played in this? Some of the folks breaking into second floor windows were said to be speaking a language other than English. I have to see if I can find that post now.
by ti-amie mmmm8 I don't understand the Camp David thing. I read both.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie There was also this. I'm sorry if I posted it already.
Joe Lockhart @joelockhart
Something very strange is happening at the White House. @VP doesn't have the authority to call out the national guard. The Nat'l Security Adviser in a public way breaks w/ the President and sides with Pence. In effect, the 25th may be being implemented piecemeal.
by ti-amie And don't forget zip tie guy.
by mmmm8
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:28 pm
There are questions about how the terrorists knew exactly how to navigate the halls to reach the Democrat offices and specific areas they ransacked. They planned it and had inside help.
Resignation comes after Wednesday’s response to riot in the US Capitol, and a call from Speaker Pelosi for him to resign. -
@frankthorp
by ti-amie NBC Politics @NBCPolitics
·51s
JUST IN: House Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Nadler statement:
"I support the immediate impeachment of the President and his removal from office ... We have a limited period of time in which to act."
Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
·
1h
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, chair of the House Democratic caucus, calls for Trump to be impeached and removed from office.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by MJ2004 Really? Using up 440 hours of sick time? In what world? I hope the first thing Biden does is fire his ass effective immediately.
by martini4me Trump just made a statement on video that's wholly out of sync with everything else he's said: deploring the violence, condemning the protestors/invaders. Cabinet members/family must have been holding a gun to his head.
by ponchi101 Some lawyer got through the calcifications in his brain, and told him that a guy he does not know, called Merrick Garland, will be the next AG. And after what happened on Wednesday, he is basically a cockroach in a henhouse.
So he better stand real still, and look for the exit. Because his chances are very, very slim.
by ponchi101 And BTW. Nobody is paying attention to what is happening in Georgia. Which is the same (expletive) as yesterday at DC, by the local theatre group.
by MJ2004 A capitol police officer who was attacked yesterday by the terrorists has died.
by ti-amie This might have a lot to do with Tiny's pretend contrition tonight. He's lost Rupert Murdoch. GSM as we tennisheads would say.
by ti-amie
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:40 am
A capitol police officer who was attacked yesterday by the terrorists has died.
by ti-amie Max Burns @themaxburns
With Betsy DeVos joining a growing list of Trump administration protest resignations, Trump seems poised to end his presidency the way he's lived his life: entirely alone, having alienated everyone but his grifting kids.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Night all.
by MJ2004 Re. the resignations, rats off a sinking ship. And they are rats.
by skatingfan
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:40 am
A capitol police officer who was attacked yesterday by the terrorists has died.
The officer is apparently on life support awaiting family to visit - the report of their death was premature.
by Deuce In related news, president Trump and twenty-one other 13 year old children with a history of inappropriate behaviour were suspended from twitter, facebook and instagram. In a rare instance of performing a correct action, Mark Zuckerberg stated that the latter two suspensions are for an indefinite period.
by MJ2004 Sadly, the officer in question has now officially passed away:
The officer, identified as Brian D. Sicknick, died at 9:30 p.m. Thursday evening, police said.
"Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters," USCP said in a statement. "He returned to his division office and collapsed. He was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries."
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:06 am
Max Burns @themaxburns
With Betsy DeVos joining a growing list of Trump administration protest resignations, Trump seems poised to end his presidency the way he's lived his life: entirely alone, having alienated everyone but his grifting kids.
Give me a damn break with this chick. I'm so sure Betsy's clutching her pearls at all that's gone on in the last 48 hours. Is she resigning from her family too? Peal back all the layers and people are pretty damn suspicious about Erik Prince's handprints being all over this failed coup attempt. She should've never been in this position so it's not like it's any great loss, but miss me with this ish.
by MJ2004 So this happened. I guess it's supposed to be a good thing the oil companies didn't bid? Except as far as I see it, the land can still now be developed by the state. So, not a win at all?
US holds first oil lease sale for Alaska’s Arctic refuge
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — The U.S. government held its first-ever oil and gas lease sale Wednesday for Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an event critics labeled as a bust with major oil companies staying on the sidelines and a state corporation emerging as the main bidder.
The sale, held as scheduled after a judge Tuesday rejected requests by Indigenous and conservation groups to halt the event, garnered bids on half the 22 tracts that were listed as available in the refuge’s coastal plain. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which held the sale, said the bids were under review.
The rugged remote area off the Beaufort Sea is considered sacred by the Indigenous Gwich’in. Critics of the lease sale say the region is special, providing habitat for wildlife including caribou, polar bears, wolves and birds, and should be off limits to drilling.
Supporters of drilling have viewed development as a way to bolster oil production, generate revenue and create or sustain jobs.
A state corporation, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, was the sale’s main bidder. Its executive director, Alan Weitzner, in a statement, said in winning nine tracts, “Alaska preserves the right to responsibly develop its natural resources.”
Members of the state’s congressional delegation, in a statement released by the land management agency, lauded the day as momentous. Gov. Mike Dunleavy, on Twitter, called the lease sale “historic for Alaska and tremendous for America.”
“Alaskans have waited two generations for this moment; I stand with them in support of this day,” he said.
Kate MacGregor, a deputy Interior Department secretary, said the sale marked, in part, the Trump administration’s commitment to working “to fulfill the goal of U.S. energy security for decades to come.”
“And when it comes to Arctic national security, today’s sale will further demonstrate the United States will have a long-term economic presence,” she added.
It was not clear heading into the sale what level of interest there would be among companies. A number of banks had announced plans to stop lending to projects in the Arctic, and President-elect Joe Biden has expressed opposition to drilling in the refuge.
While U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason on Tuesday refused to halt the sale, she has yet to rule on underlying lawsuits challenging the adequacy of the environmental review process undertaken by the federal government.
Chad Padgett, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Alaska state director, defended the review process Wednesday as rigorous and disputed critics’ claims that the sale had been rushed. He called the sale a success.
The land management agency has said under an “optimistic, aggressive hypothetical scenario” exploration could begin within two years after a lease sale, with production eight years after a sale.
Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said while the sale’s results “may not have been as robust as we might have expected, industry still supports future access to this area.”
“Today’s sale reflects the brutal economic realities the oil and gas industry continues to face after the unprecedented events of 2020, coupled with ongoing regulatory uncertainty,” she said in a statement.
Adam Kolton, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League, called the sale “a huge embarrassment” for Alaska’s congressional delegation, which supported the decades-long push to open the coastal plain to drilling, and to President Donald Trump’s administration.
“Essentially, the Trump administration had a party, hoped the oil industry would show up, and it didn’t,” he said. Kolton called the sale the “death knell for anybody who’s arguing that this is going to be an oil, jobs and revenue bonanza. I mean, they’ve just been unmasked.”
by ponchi101
Deuce wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:08 am
In related news, president Trump and twenty-one other 13 year old children with a history of inappropriate behaviour were suspended from twitter, facebook and instagram. In a rare instance of performing a correct action, Mark Zuckerberg stated that the latter two suspensions are for an indefinite period.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:06 am
Max Burns @themaxburns
With Betsy DeVos joining a growing list of Trump administration protest resignations, Trump seems poised to end his presidency the way he's lived his life: entirely alone, having alienated everyone but his grifting kids.
Give me a damn break with this chick. I'm so sure Betsy's clutching her pearls at all that's gone on in the last 48 hours. Is she resigning from her family too? Peal back all the layers and people are pretty damn suspicious about Erik Prince's handprints being all over this failed coup attempt. She should've never been in this position so it's not like it's any great loss, but miss me with this ish.
Two more weeks, there are no more deals to broker and no more money to make. So leave now and avoid having to talk to the incoming team, who will find out you knew nothing about the job you were supposed to do.
Your post = 100% correct.
by ponchi101
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:14 pm
So this happened. I guess it's supposed to be a good thing the oil companies didn't bid? Except as far as I see it, the land can still now be developed by the state. So, not a win at all?
US holds first oil lease sale for Alaska’s Arctic refuge
...
“Essentially, the Trump administration had a party, hoped the oil industry would show up, and it didn’t,” he said. Kolton called the sale the “death knell for anybody who’s arguing that this is going to be an oil, jobs and revenue bonanza. I mean, they’ve just been unmasked.”
If I may.
My dear evil masters did not show up because, right now, there is no need to develop that field or any field in the world, for that matter. Do not assume, for a second, that if there were any sort of real chance to make some profits, Shell/Exxon/BP/Total et al would have not showed up. They would have been there in a second.
For the next few years, exploration and development of NEW fields will be put on hold. We will be doing MAINTENANCE exploration (we call it 4D) just to see how the reservoirs are behaving. It will mean the death of many companies, and the final migration from the industry for many people (I hope I will be able to also leave).
Tiny's administration was stupid (like always) in believing that this would be a good moment for this. But do not assume that Big Oil did not show up for some moral reason. We simply have none (morals; reasons we do).
by Suliso Ponchi, how much smaller do you think the oil industry is going to be when the transition to fully electric transportation now in progress is complete? Oil will still be needed for the chemical industry, but volumes likely comparatively small.
Deuce wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:08 am
In related news, president Trump and twenty-one other 13 year old children with a history of inappropriate behaviour were suspended from twitter, facebook and instagram. In a rare instance of performing a correct action, Mark Zuckerberg stated that the latter two suspensions are for an indefinite period.
Trump's Twitter suspension was only for 12 or 24 hours and he's now back on. For example, he tweeted this morning that he won't attend Biden's inauguration.
by ti-amie Rick Scott is on his knees begging Tiny to go to the Inauguration.
by ti-amie Nancy saying it louder so the foks in the back can hear.
by ti-amie Jim Acosta
@Acosta
Outside lawyers are being sought for consultation by WH about prospect of last minute, rapid impeachment of Trump, we are told. So far Trump’s attorneys don’t believe there’s enough time left for him to be removed from office. But conversations underway.
by skatingfan White Privilege
by skatingfan Rep. Jim Clyburn on MSNBC right now talking about how his primary office was untouched, but his secondary office that he describes as difficult to find in the building, had rioters in the office, and his staff barricaded in the inner office while the rioters attempted to take the door.
by ti-amieHouse Democrats move rapidly toward impeaching Trump a second time
By
Mike DeBonis
Jan. 8, 2021 at 12:31 p.m. EST
A growing corps of House Democrats, furious over the invasion of the Capitol on Wednesday by a mob inspired and encouraged by President Trump, is pushing to rapidly impeach the president a second time — hoping to force Trump from office even a few days early rather than allow him to leave on his own terms.
Removing Trump by constitutional means is a tall order for the 12 days remaining in his presidency, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not made a formal determination to move forward with a second impeachment, even as she consulted Friday with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about curbing Trump’s ability to launch nuclear weapons.
Outrage over Wednesday’s events has grown to the point that it could be impossible for Pelosi to ignore, prompting a rapid vote as soon as early next week, according to interviews with House Democratic members and aides.
“We have a great sense of unity that we have a moral obligation to act,” said Rep. Daniel Kildee (Mich.), a Democratic deputy whip. “If we can shave any number of days of the threat this president represents off the calendar, we will have done public good, but there’s also another important aspect of this. . . . It would be a more accurate view of history if this president suffered the ultimate penalty for his crimes against his country, no matter how many days are removed from his tenure.”
Trump acknowledged Thursday that there will be a new administration Jan. 20 but has not shown any indication that he will resign before then.
Pelosi said Thursday that “Congress may be prepared to move forward with impeachment” if Vice President Pence did not act in concert with the Cabinet to remove Trump from office under the terms of the 25th Amendment. But she said she had no immediate plans to recall lawmakers to begin that process.
“If he wants to be unique and be doubly impeached, that’s kind of up to him and his Cabinet as to whether he should stay in office,” she said.
On Friday, she said in a letter to Democratic lawmakers: “If the President does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action.” She did not specify what that action would be.
In the letter, she also described speaking to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, “to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.” She further described Trump as “unhinged” and said lawmakers “must do everything that we can” to protect the nation from him.
One key Senate Democrat, however, warned against proceeding with impeachment — saying that he preferred that Trump resign or be removed through the 25th Amendment, out of concern that an impeachment trial could hamstring the administration of President-elect Joe Biden.
“We have to put our government together quickly — that’s the most important thing we should do,” said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). “We don’t need any more political theater.”
Pelosi is expected to lead a noon conference call of House lawmakers Friday to discuss next steps. Several Democrats said Friday that an impeachment vote could come together as soon as Monday or Tuesday if the decision is made to move forward.
“Donald Trump should be impeached, convicted and removed from office immediately,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a tweet Thursday.
More than 60 House Democrats signed a letter late Thursday asking the three top House Democratic leaders to reconvene the House as soon as possible to “show the American people that Congress is continuing to meet its responsibilities in the face of extraordinary threats” and take action, including a possible impeachment.
“We are the only branch of government that is capable of governing this country and led by sane and competent people,” reads the letter, led by Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). “Going home and staying home until the eve of President Biden’s inauguration should not be an option.”
Two draft articles of impeachment have been circulated among House Democrats that cite Trump’s incitement of the mob and his delayed decision to encourage it to disperse as high crimes and misdemeanors necessitating removal.
“We just suffered the most massive, violent invasion of the U.S. Capitol in American history since the War of 1812,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), author of one of the drafts. “It is unthinkable to me that we would allow this simply to be, you know, one more unfortunate faux pas by the president. He has counseled and invited an attack on the Congress of the United States itself.”
No Republican House members have indicated that they would back impeachment. One, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), has called on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump. Others have suggested that they would welcome Trump’s resignation or his removal under those circumstances.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) told “CBS This Morning” on Friday that he could “consider” any impeachment articles forwarded by the House.
“He swore an oath to the American people to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” Sasse said. “He acted against that. What he did was wicked.”
While House Democrats could impeach Trump in the House on their own, removing him would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate — meaning 17 Republicans would have to join with the 50 Democrats that will be seated once Sens.-elect Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are certified as the winners of last Tuesday’s Georgia runoffs.
Senate impeachment trials are governed by an intricate and lengthy set of procedures that could be difficult to waive. Trump’s first impeachment trial, which concluded in February, lasted 20 days.
Trump could still be impeached after he leaves office, most constitutional scholars say, which would have the effect of barring him from the presidency again. But there is a political barrier to proceeding with a Senate trial: the impending inauguration of Biden, and his need to rapidly confirm a Cabinet.
A lengthy impeachment trial could obstruct efforts to staff Biden’s administration and prepare to govern amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic as well as dire circumstances abroad, including a simmering threat from Iran.
Biden has not weighed in on a possible impeachment.
The House could have other options to take action in the coming days. Raskin has written a bill to create a commission on presidential disabilities to prepare for action under the 25th Amendment, and other House Democrats have called for censure of GOP lawmakers for inciting violence.
“We need every tool in our constitutional tool kit on the table to deal with the crisis,” Raskin said. “I believe we should work on parallel tracks to defend the government and the people of the United States.”
Pelosi on Thursday did not raise the disruption a Senate trial could cause but said that impeachment represented “the overwhelming sentiment of my caucus and the American people.”
“My phone is exploding with impeach, impeach, impeach,” she said. “The president must be held accountable again.”
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:40 am
A capitol police officer who was attacked yesterday by the terrorists has died.
Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick Dies After Suffering Injuries During U.S. Capitol Riot
By CBS Baltimore StaffJanuary 8, 2021 at 12:59 pm
WASHINGTON (AP/WJZ) — Capitol Police officer has died after he sustained injuries during the riot at the U.S. Capitol Thursday.
Officer Brian D. Sicknick, 42, passed away around 9:30 p.m. Thursday due to injuries sustained while on-duty.
According to a statement from Capitol Police, the 15-year veteran of the department was responding the the riots when he was struck in the head by insurrectionists. He returned to his office where he collapsed after suffering a stroke, according to reports. He was rushed to the hospital, but later died from his injuries.
He joined the Capitol Police Department in July 2008 and most recently served on its first responder unit.
“The entire USCP Department expresses its deepest sympathies to Officer Sicknick’s family and friends on their loss, and mourns the loss of a friend and colleague.”
There was some confusion around the officer’s death Thursday after two lawmakers, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Congressman Dean Phillips of Minnesota, tweeted earlier in the evening that he had died. But at the time he still remained on life support. The Capitol Police union corrected media outlets saying Sicknick had not died. But then about an hour later, he ultimately succumbed to his injuries.
“I’ve been advised a US Capitol Police officer has died of injuries sustained in yesterday’s assault on the Capitol. My heart goes out to the family of the officer and to all who risk their lives every day to protect and serve our communities with dignity and principle,” Phillips tweeted.
His death will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department.
Around midnight, officers lined the streets by the Capitol to honor the fallen officer.
More than 50 Capitol and D.C. police were injured, including several who were hospitalized, Capitol Police said.
Condolences poured in for the officer’s colleagues and family.
Washington DC officials identified Thursday the four people who died at the U.S. Capitol when a mob of pro-Trump supporters violently stormed the building.
Acting Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee identified the woman shot and killed by Capitol police as 35-year-old Ashli Babbit. CBS Los Angeles reported Babbit was from San Diego, but DC Police says she’s from Huntingtown, Maryland.
Three others, who died from medical emergencies, were identified as 50-year-old Benjamin Phillips of Ringtown, Pennsylvania, 55-year-old Kevin Greeson of Athens, Alabama and 34-year-old Roseanne Boleyn of Kennesaw, Georgia.
A total of 82 people were arrested so far for the riot at the Capitol — 68 by MPD, only one of whom was from the district, while Capitol police said 14 were arrested.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:06 pm
Rick Scott is on his knees begging Tiny to go to the Inauguration.
Why and what do my ex governor has to gain?
Not a clue
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:07 pm
Nancy saying it louder so the foks in the back can hear.
The certainty that some have that Pence won't move to invoke the 25th Amendment needs to be tempered with the fact that unhinged Trump attorney Lin Wood was on Parler on Wednesday cheering the Capitol break-in and said "Get the firing squards ready. Pence goes FIRST." Emphasis his not mine. He had 190k followers then. He's got 6 million now. And he's not letting up. Why the FBI hasn't arrested him for instigating an attempted assassination of the Vice President is beyond me, but people need to stop pretending like Pence's life isn't in mortal danger already and loyalty to Instigator-in-Chief has got to be dwindling by the minute.
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:41 pm
Ponchi, how much smaller do you think the oil industry is going to be when the transition to fully electric transportation now in progress is complete? Oil will still be needed for the chemical industry, but volumes likely comparatively small.
Zero. The oil AND GAS industry will be doing quite well in the near future, and in the medium term too.
If I may.
The idea that Solar and Wind will eventually replace O&G is not based on solid numbers. For example, to feed America's need for electricity with only wind power would need an area the size of California. This is also an idealized scenario, as it does not take into account the fact that wind needs to be located close to the areas of consumption or you lose the usual percentages due to transmission. The fact that people want wind-power but NOT close to their homes (real estate drops in value when wind farms are near) will influence future developments.
Solar and wind are also intermittent (obvious) which means that both systems need some sort of storage if we were to rely solely on them. The entire storage capacity of the world would feed us with power for 3 minutes. That's it. Tesla's powerwall stores about 13 KW/Hr. California, for example, consumes 9.6 TERAWATT/Hours. You are smart enough to see, at a glance, the huge number of powerwalls that would be needed to feed CA's requirements in a dark, quite night.
Another problem is the reluctance to use modern nuclear technology. After the Fukushima disaster, Germany decided to drop all of its nuclear power production, due to public pressure. The replacement of that energy output has been done with a little bit of solar, a bit of wind, and a lot of coal. it is the reason Europe as a whole has not been able to meet the goals set in the Paris agreement.
Gas is the "best" replacement for coal, which is still the main polluter in the world. It is still fossil fuel, but it burns way cleaner than coal (obviously). The problem with believing that a shift to electric transportation will reduce CC emissions is that your $120K Tesla S is as clean as the power plant that provides the power. The same for electric trains and massive transport systems, and all such things. Remember, oil consumption was at around 85 MM barrels/day in 2014, when the price dropped (therefore my unemployment issues). At the beginning of the C19 pandemic, we were about to break the 100MM Barrels/day mark. Sure, consumption has come down, but only because of this insane pandemic issue.
The SECOND most polluting industry, agriculture, will not change any time soon. Airlines cannot switch to electric planes not because the technology is not there (I hear that electrical planes are actually easier and safer to build, as they have far fewer parts) but because an airline cannot have a 6 hours long recharging time before that plane can fly again (and I am being generous).
The industry will be fine. We need more and more energy every day, and countries without the high tech options will always be able to pump out oil, by now a low-tech one.
The gist is that we do not use oil only to feed transportation, we use a lot of it to generate electricity. It is the reason coal refuses to go (in China, India, the EU and almost everywhere). Sure, we are oil-addicts. But it is to turn it into electricity. And at that, O&G is very, very good.
Last: it is easy for some people to say that we need to cut down on O&G and coal when you only need to flip a switch on the wall to have your lights go on. When you are in India and the government provides you with the same luxury by setting a coal-powered plant nearby, your disgust for fossil fuels goes down. Even if you and I know that it generates all the other problems.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Peter W. Singer
@peterwsinger
Army Sec Ryan McCarthy: we weren't ready as "[we] had no wildest imagination that you could end up breaching the Capitol Grounds."
As both a nat sec specialist and an expect in imagining, let me call 100% BS on this.
-The threat of violence at the event was repeatedly warned about that very week,
-The intel chatter of the Capitol in specific was out in the open all the way down to them talking about specific access points,
-The scenario had happened at multiple other national parliaments and several state legislatures in the US,
And, if you want to play "imagining," the scenario itself of an attack on the Capitol building features in countless books/movies. But, most importantly, is a key scene in a bible of right wing extremist literature ("Turner Diaries," the book which also motivated Timothy McVeigh)
Maybe what he and others just couldn't do is put the pieces together to imagine it happening to him or, even more so, it being done by his political "tribe."
This was no 9-11 style "failure of imagination" and do not let anyone get away with that crap.
From the specific event itself to the overall forces that enabled it, this was a failure of leadership and morals.
by ti-amie
Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Breaking on @MSNBC Hope Hicks is planning to leave the Trump admin next week — ahead of the inauguration.
Didn't we see this movie already?
by JazzNU Republicans right now:
by ti-amie
by JazzNU I haven't seen a video to post that captures the breakdown from Governor Larry Hogan about sending in the Maryland National Guard. I'll post when I find a good enough one. But I suspect that will start making the rounds more tonight. It was missed mostly yesterday and started circulating more widely last night after Maddow did a larger piece on it.
The more information comes out, the worse it is. I'm not taking any stock in the "not enough cabinet members" and "not enough Republicans" to proceed right now. We'll see where we stand at the beginning of next week because acting like Wednesday was okay and not taking action is not something any Republican in anything even close to approaching a purple district will be able to withstand. People are getting angrier about what happened, not more forgiving.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:06 pm
Rick Scott is on his knees begging Tiny to go to the Inauguration.
Why and what do my ex governor has to gain?
Not a clue
"Looks at me, everyone! MEEEEE! I'm a normal Republican, the last four years were just in your imagination! Look out for me on the campaign trail starting around 2023!"
JazzNU wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:28 pm
I haven't seen a video to post that captures the breakdown from Governor Larry Hogan about sending in the Maryland National Guard. I'll post when I find a good enough one. But I suspect that will start making the rounds more tonight. It was missed mostly yesterday and started circulating more widely last night after Maddow did a larger piece on it.
I watched it on MSNBC last night. The fact that the National Guard was blocked from helping, both in advance and during the event, is at the heart of this scandal and proves a very terrifying intent. This critical piece of the puzzle hasn't been explored enough by MSM. I hope it gets more coverage.
by ti-amie
Never fear. Gay Twitter is, uh, handling this? All over this? On the case?
by JazzNU
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:40 pm
"Looks at me, everyone! MEEEEE! I'm a normal Republican, the last four years were just in your imagination! Look out for me on the campaign trail starting around 2023!"
Exactly. HTF are you going to object to electors, of another state mind you, and then claim you give a ish about a peaceful transfer of power? Go away Rick Scott, no one will miss you.
And Florida. Jesus. Can you start making better decisions? I'll take just one at this point. Because why do your statewide election winners always suck so supremely?!!
by JazzNU
JazzNU wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:28 pm
I haven't seen a video to post that captures the breakdown from Governor Larry Hogan about sending in the Maryland National Guard. I'll post when I find a good enough one. But I suspect that will start making the rounds more tonight. It was missed mostly yesterday and started circulating more widely last night after Maddow did a larger piece on it.
Found a video, but sorry, can't post it here and not as straightforward as it should be.
Go to Maddow's videos at MSNBC at the link below. If you visit before tonight's show, click the second video in the list for the story on the Larry Hogan sending in the Maryland National Guard.
by ponchi101 They are looking too deeply into this. This guy was simply auditioning for a Jamiroquai video.
And got rejected.
by ti-amie Kim Kelly @GrimKim
The bad takes on “who the Trump rioters are” ignore the fact that most poor and working class people can’t even afford to take off work when their kids are sick, let alone load up on Trump merch and body armor, travel across the country, and spend all day playing fascist putsch
It costs a lot of money to fund this fascist bulls**t. Don’t lay the blame solely on the lazy avatar of the “blue collar Trump voter.” There were lawyers and CEOs and a judge’s son leading the charge. One of them took her private jet out to storm the Capitol!
If you’re going to spout this kind of toxic, uninformed rhetoric, just say you think the working classes is bad and rich people are good and go.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie So impeachment.
Teri Kanefield @Teri_Kanefield
I should have started with this. Impeachment Law 101.
Take out your notebooks. This will be on the Twitter Bar Exam.
Small blue diamondImpeachment requires a majority vote in the House.
Small blue diamondImpeachment is followed by a Senate Trial.
Small blue diamondConviction + Removal requires 2/3 of the Senate.
by ti-amie Brian Schatz
@brianschatz
The most essential aspect is the disqualification from holding any future office. And that’s why we should do this, even if the 25th is invoked, even if Trump calms down and flies to Florida and the threat wanes. It’s not just about the next 12 days. It’s about America’s future.
by JazzNU Tim Miller on Deadline White House today. Speaking the absolute truth on a few of these fools like Lindsey Graham acting like voting for impeachment for this is not the right move. You'll understand why I'm posting the link and not the direct Tweet after you click.
by ti-amieFBI focuses on whether some Capitol rioters intended to harm lawmakers or take hostages
By
Devlin Barrett,
Spencer S. Hsu and
Matt Zapotosky
Jan. 8, 2021 at 8:18 p.m. EST
FBI agents are trying to determine whether some who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday intended to do more than cause havoc and disrupt the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, and are sifting through evidence to see whether anyone wanted to kill or capture lawmakers or their staffers, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Dozens have been arrested, and Friday, officials announced charges against an Arkansas man photographed in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office chair with a foot on her desk. But investigators also are working to determine the motivations and larger goals, if any, of those who had weapons or other gear suggesting they planned to do physical harm.
Some rioters, for instance, were photographed carrying zip ties, a plastic version of handcuffs, and one man was arrested allegedly carrying a pistol on the Capitol grounds.
“We’re not looking at this as a grand conspiracy, but we are interested in learning what people would do with things like zip ties,” said a law enforcement official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.
No photos or videos that have surfaced so far suggest any of the individuals with zip ties tried to take hostages. One possibility being pursued by investigators is that some who burst into the building may be current or former law enforcement officers, or current and former military personnel, people familiar with the investigation said.
Some who participated in the larger pro-Trump protest this week do work in law enforcement.
Chris West, the sheriff of Canadian County in Oklahoma, for example, held a news conference Friday to dispute that he was the person pictured on social media who claimed he was inside the Capitol, according to a Fox affiliate there. West told reporters that though he did come to rally in D.C. as an “individual” and Trump supporter, he never set foot in the Capitol building and thought he was walking from Liberty Square in the direction of the Capitol when the violence began.
A sheriff in Bexar County, Tex., meanwhile, told reporters that one of his lieutenants — Roxanne Mathai — was under investigation after her Facebook posts appeared to show she was at the Capitol, according to a local ABC station. Mathai has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
Many of the initial charges have been for unlawful entry, but authorities also found suspected pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, and they arrested the owner of a truck they said was spotted nearby with 11 molotov cocktails inside. The FBI is still searching for the person who left the suspected pipe bombs.
Adding to the investigation’s urgency, Twitter on Friday noted that plans for future armed protests have begun circulating online, including a proposed second attack on the U.S. Capitol and assaults on other state government buildings Jan. 17. Officials cautioned that there may be a variety of motives among those who broke into Congress, and they said that a key part of their investigation is determining whether any individuals or groups had planned in advance or were coordinating in the moment to commit violence against individual politicians. Others may simply have been caught up in the moment and committed rash, unplanned crimes, officials said.
Fresh in investigators minds is the group of men charged last year in Michigan — self-styled militia members — who are accused of plotting to kidnap that state’s governor and allegedly discussed storming their state capitol and taking lawmakers hostage. That case, however, was investigated surreptitiously for months during the planning stages, and the men were arrested before they carried out any abduction or attack. They have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial. Now, the FBI is tasked with trying to discern the motives of people who have already stormed the halls of Congress.
Justice Department and FBI officials insisted Friday that they are throwing every available resource at the case, which involves hundreds of potential suspects, though the initial focus is on a smaller number of individuals who burst into the seat of the national legislature, interrupting a joint session of Congress, leaving lawmakers and staffers cowering in fear.
The attack on Congress, in which Capitol police were quickly overrun, has shaken officials throughout the federal government, and the FBI has agents in all 56 field offices nationwide pursuing leads.
“Just because you’ve left the D.C. region, you can still expect a knock on the door if we find out you were part of criminal activity in the Capitol,” said Steven M. D’Antuono, head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
Former law enforcement officials said investigators would spend the coming days and weeks combing through social media, searching the phones and email accounts of suspects and taking other steps to determine whether the attack was coordinated. There are numerous social media posts indicating that people had talked in advance about storming the building.
“This is why you do investigations before you charge anybody,” said Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney and FBI official. “Did some number of them, maybe not all, did some number of them have an agreement that the law forbids?”
Rosenberg said it will take time for investigators to determine whether there were broader conspiracies. “Even though people act in concert, it doesn’t necessarily mean they conspired,” he said. “You could have 300 people with 100 separate conspiratorial agreements of three people each, or you could have a single conspiracy with 300.”
One person was fatally shot by Capitol police during the violence. Three others suffered medical problems that day and died. And overnight Thursday into Friday, a Capitol police officer who collapsed shortly after confronting the invading crowd died of unspecified injuries.
Acting attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen extended condolences to the Capitol Police and the family of Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died of injuries sustained during the rioting, saying, “The Department of Justice will spare no resources in investigating and holding accountable those responsible.”
David Laufman, a former federal prosecutor who was a senior Justice Department official during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, said Wednesday’s mayhem was uniquely scarring for the country.
“This is the greatest threat to our national security since Sept. 11, and a more dangerous, insidious threat, because unlike the attack on Sept. 11, our very democracy is now at stake,” Laufman said. “And there can be no higher priority for the Department of Justice and the FBI than to surge investigative efforts to hold accountable everyone who was responsible for the attack on the U.S. Capitol, including any individuals who incited that attack.”
Laufman said that it was “fair to say that the intentions of every individual among the horde that invaded the Capitol like Visigoths were not uniform.”
“But it does appear, based on what’s in the public record now, that some held malignant intention to do harm to elected representatives, to the physical embodiment of our democracy, to derail the formalization of President-elect Biden’s election,” he said. “And it will take investigative work to parse out who was responsible for what and who held what intentions.”
Officials announced Friday that a recently elected state lawmaker from West Virginia, Derrick Evans, was charged with unlawfully entering restricted grounds after allegedly live-streaming a video of himself on his Facebook page.
“Bring the tear gas. We don’t care,” Evans is heard yelling. “We’re taking this country back, whether you like it or not. Today’s a test run. We’re taking this country back.”
A lawyer for Evans, John H. Bryan, has maintained that Evans is innocent, that he was not part of the violent mob that damaged the Capitol Building and that he had been exercising his First Amendment rights.
Prosecutors also announced that Lonnie Leroy Coffman, 70, of Falkville, Ala., was charged Thursday on one federal and one local count of possessing an unregistered or unlicensed firearm, and was the registered owner of a red GMC pickup truck with Alabama plates parked near the Capitol in which officers allegedly found 11 molotov cocktails and an M4 carbine assault rifle.
Prosecutor Kenneth C. Kohl said police also found Coffman carrying two handguns. Federal agents discovered the truck while investigating suspected pipe bombs near the Republican National Committee headquarters on Capitol Hill and its Democratic counterpart, Kohl said.
Kohl said that though the truck was investigated because of the suspected or “perceived pipe bombs,” Coffman was not charged in connection with those possible devices but with allegedly possessing the other weapons and destructive devices in his truck or on his person.
At an initial court appearance Thursday in Washington, Coffman did not enter a plea and was ordered held pending a hearing next week. In response to a U.S. magistrate’s questions over whether he wanted a court-appointed attorney, Coffman said he had earned a high school equivalency degree in the U.S. military after dropping out in the eighth grade to work on a farm.
The developments came as investigators described a sprawling inquiry that could take months. D.C. police said they have received about 17,000 tips from the public after posting images of people of interest in the rioting. The FBI also has been inundated with leads after posting more than 40 photographs asking for assistance identifying people.
But the Justice Department also appeared to step back from remarks Thursday by Michael R. Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who said President Trump’s own remarks before Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol could be investigated.
Asked about incendiary statements made by the president and other speakers at Trump’s rally shortly before a mob of his supporters breached security at the Capitol and wreaked havoc inside, Sherwin said: “Yes, we are looking at all actors here, not only the people that went into the building, but … were there others that maybe assisted or facilitated or played some ancillary role in this. We will look at every actor and all criminal charges.”
On Friday, asked about the possibility that Trump or other onstage speakers could face charges of inciting violence, Kohl clarified, “We don’t expect any charges of that nature.”
Afterward, Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi elaborated, “Our focus is on the events at the Capitol. As of now, we have not charged anyone with incitement or insurrection. This is an extremely complex and ongoing investigation, and we will continue to follow the facts and the law.”
I thought that one lesson learned from the XXth century was how to deal with Nazis. And the lesson came, in part, from America.
Time to deal with these groups as what they are.
Wish for the night:
Did anybody take a picture of Tiny when he went to his Twitter account and found out he was suspended? Worth a Pulitzer, at the very least.
No, RUSH! NOOOOOO! Don't leave us this way!!!!
(Alexa, play CELEBRATION, by Kool and the gang)
jerk.
by dmforever I don't have a Twitter account. Does anyone know if any tennis players, especially American tennis players, have posted anything on social media about this?
Kevin
by ponchi101 I were the manager of any player, right now, I would forbid posting anything about all this mess. On one direction or the other.
Talk about distraction prior to a Slam.
by Suliso I believe there is a silver lining to all the Trump actions from the last two weeks. Previously I was thinking he'd be a major force in the Republican party after leaving the office. Perhaps not running himself, but being a kingmaker in lots of races. This is no longer a case, now his brand is permanently damaged regardless of whether he'll be impeached again or not. As a bonus Cruz and Hawley have also shot their chances of 2024 nomination.
by ponchi101 I will agree with you 99%. But 4 years in politics is a long time. And people's memories are defective to the extreme.
I still say Tiny needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and his tax returns made public. Only then will you see a 5%-10% shift in people that will truly drop him.
by dmforever
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:00 pm
I were the manager of any player, right now, I would forbid posting anything about all this mess. On one direction or the other.
Talk about distraction prior to a Slam.
I think that's wise advice, but if I were a player, and if I had a Twitter account and regularly posted, there is no way I wouldn't post. Some things are bigger than tennis, right?
Kevin
by ponchi101 Certainly. This is way bigger than tennis, and if you are an American, right now the stakes are high.
But if you are dealing with a pandemic, arranging how to get ready for a slam, quarantine issues and such, John Isner, Tennys Sandgren, and all other right leaning players should stay off the platform, unless they want to spend a few hours a day for the next few months hooked on twitter.
by texasniteowl
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:50 pm
As a bonus Cruz and Hawley have also shot their chances of 2024 nomination.
I would love to believe this...but I don't. Delusional trumpists, 4 yrs away, short memories...I have my doubts. If Cruz doesn't run for President, he's also up for re-election in 2024 for Senate...
by texasniteowl By the way, the Editorial Board of the Houston Chronicle called for Cruz to resign. He won't of course and the way he was rewriting history the past 2 days was truly disgusting.
Editorial: Resign, Senator Cruz. Your lies cost lives.
In Texas, we have our share of politicians who peddle wild conspiracy theories and reckless rhetoric aiming to inflame.
Think U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert’s “terror baby” diatribes or his nonsensical vow not to wear a face mask until after he got COVID, which he promptly did.
This editorial board tries to hold such shameful specimens to account.
But we reserve special condemnation for the perpetrators among them who are of sound mind and considerable intellect — those who should damn well know better.
None more than U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.
A brilliant and frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court and a former Texas solicitor general, Cruz knew exactly what he was doing, what he was risking and who he was inciting as he stood on the Senate floor Wednesday and passionately fed the farce of election fraud even as a seething crowd of believers was being whipped up by President Trump a short distance away.
Cruz, it should also be noted, knew exactly whose presidency he was defending. That of a man he called in 2016 a “narcissist,” a “pathological liar” and “utterly amoral.”
Cruz told senators that since nearly 40 percent of Americans believed the November election “was rigged” that the only remedy was to form an emergency task force to review the results — and if warranted, allow states to overturn Joe Biden’s victory and put their electoral votes in Trump’s column.
Cruz deemed people’s distrust in the election “a profound threat to the country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future.”
What he didn’t acknowledge was how that distrust, which he overstated anyway, was fueled by Trump’s torrent of fantastical claims of voter fraud that were shown again and again not to exist.
Cruz had helped spin that web of deception and now he was feigning concern that millions of Americans had gotten caught up in it.
Even as he peddled his phony concern for the integrity of our elections, he argued that senators who voted to certify Biden’s victory would be telling tens of millions of Americans to “jump in a lake” and that their concerns don’t matter.
Actually, senators who voted to certify the facts delivered the truth — something Americans haven’t been getting from a political climber whose own insatiable hunger for power led him to ride Trump’s bus to Crazy Town through 59 losing court challenges, past state counts and recounts and audits, and finally taking the wheel to drive it to the point of no return: trying to bully the U.S. Congress into rejecting tens of millions of lawfully cast votes in an election that even Trump’s Department of Homeland Security called the most secure in American history.
The consequences of Cruz’s cynical gamble soon became clear and so did his true motivations. In the moments when enraged hordes of Trump supporters began storming the Capitol to stop a steal that never happened, desecrating the building, causing the evacuation of Congress and injuring dozens of police officers, including one who died, a fundraising message went out to Cruz supporters:
“Ted Cruz here,” it read. “I’m leading the fight to reject electors from key states unless there is an emergency audit of the election results. Will you stand with me?”
Cruz claims the message was automated. Even if that’s true, it’s revolting.
This is a man who lied, unflinchingly, on national television, claiming on Hannity’s show days after the election that Philadelphia votes were being counted under a “shroud of darkness” in an attempted Democratic coup. As he spoke, the process was being livestreamed on YouTube.
For two months, Cruz joined Trump in beating the drum of election fraud until Trump loyalists were deaf to anyone — Republican, Democrat or nonpartisan journalist, not to mention state and federal courts — telling them otherwise.
And yet, Cruz insists he bears no responsibility for the deadly terror attack.
“Not remotely,” he told KHOU Thursday. “What I was doing and what the other members were doing is what we were elected to do, which is debating matters of great import in the chamber of the United States Senate.”
Since the Capitol siege, Cruz has condemned the violence, tweeting after the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick that “Heidi and I are lifting up in prayer” the officer’s family and demanding the terrorists be prosecuted.
Well, senator, those terrorists wouldn’t have been at the Capitol if you hadn’t staged this absurd challenge to the 2020 results in the first place. You are unlikely to be prosecuted for inciting the riots, as President Trump may yet be, and there is no election to hold you accountable until 2024. So, we call for another consequence, one with growing support across Texas: Resign.
This editorial board did not endorse you in 2018. There’s no love lost — and not much lost for Texans needing a voice in Washington, either.
Public office isn’t a college debate performance. It requires representing the interests of Texans. In your first term, you once told reporters that you weren’t concerned about delivering legislation for your constituents. The more you throw gears in the workings of Washington, you said, the more people back home love you. Tell that to the constituents who complain that your office rarely even picks up the phone.
Serving as a U.S. senator requires working constructively with colleagues to get things done. Not angering them by voting against Hurricane Sandy relief, which jeopardized Congressional support for Texas’ relief after Harvey. Not staging a costly government shutdown to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2013 that cost the economy billions. Not collecting more enemies than friends in your own party, including the affable former House Speaker John Boehner who famously remarked: “I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
We’re done with the drama. Done with the opportunism. Done with the cynical scheming that has now cost American lives.
Resign, Mr. Cruz, and deliver Texas from the shame of calling you our senator.
The Editorial Board
by ponchi101 The problem of determining the most miserable SOB in Congress/Senate is that there are so many.
But he is surely in the run.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Sarcasm?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Because Tiny does not understand he is trash himself.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:51 pm
Because Tiny does not understand he is trash himself.
His obsession with golf came about because some exclusive cub in the NYC area wouldn't have him as a member.
There was also a Vanity Fair article that pretty much said they're all pariahs now, more than they were before. It came out before Wednesday.
by ponchi101 All the gold, gilded decorations at his properties. Having a plane with your name painted on it. Naming everything after you. His choice of food (burgers all the time). His fixation with his phony hair.
It is absolute trash behavior
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:51 pm
Because Tiny does not understand he is trash himself.
Old v new riche...gotta love the class warfare. Alive and well at every echelon of society
by ti-amie Fernando Espuelas
@EspuelasVox
Hugo Chavez’s first coup also failed. He was subsequently *pardoned* and elected as a populist, then transformed into dictator. To protect American democracy, prosecute Trump.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie I'm reading that a second police officer has died?
Horrifying
by ti-amie We saw this man running up the stairs. Here's the full video of what he really did. He deserves a medal.
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:30 pm
I'm reading that a second police officer has died?
Howard Liebengood committed suicide - I'm sure if that's what you're referring to.
Ah. I hadn't heard about this. I just saw some unattributed references to another Capital police death.
by ti-amie
Let's hope that he and his family are in a safe place.
by ponchi101 Yes. Putting his full name in this picture is not very smart. Might as well put down his address.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU Given the full text message being shared that he sent, the officer clearly gave permission to use his full name. If he's okay with it, I'm okay with it even if I don't think it's the safest thing.
The end is my favorite: "China or the Smithsonian"
by ponchi101 No funds for anything remotely related to culture, knowledge or education. No way.
They do love their ignorance.
by skatingfan So the NY Post has published an article stating that Democratic leadership will have difficulty because it's become public that Officer Sicknick was a Trump voter. In a tweet to promote the article the author spells his name as Sicknict, and now that spelling is trending on twitter. I feel sick to my stomach.
by mmmm8
skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:58 am
So the NY Post has published an article stating that Democratic leadership will have difficulty because it's become public that Officer Sicknick was a Trump voter. In a tweet to promote the article the author spells his name as Sicknict, and now that spelling is trending on twitter. I feel sick to my stomach.
The NY Post is a rag anyway, but I don't understand their point? Why does it matter that he was a Trump voter?
by ponchi101 It seems to me that the USA is falling into this trap that if you belong to either side (and most likely you will, as it is almost a dichotomy), then you "deserve" some things to happen to you. If you are a Trumpist and you catch covid, you deserve it. If you are a Dem and are unemployed, you "deserve" it.
I am seeing that in other countries. If you are for the Kirchner government and can't find work, you deserve it. The other side also sees it that way: if you were with Maccri (the recent former president) and something bad happens to you, well, you deserve it.
I tie this to the levels of hyperbole that are now used by everybody, the media included. The HuffPost and the Daily Beast use that lingo frequently: people no longer make a point about something, they "destroy" the person articulating the opposite view. You no longer made a point clear in a conversation, you "own" the other person. We are entering, I believe, an era of disproportionate response and evaluation, in which everything is expected to be a binary choice and in which one single act defines you completely. One single use of a slur, regardless of context, makes you a bigot. One positive comment about one tragic historical event makes you part of it. One criticism of one person makes you a "hater", with no other purpose in life but to hate people or things (the truly idiotic phrase "haters gonna hate" springs so easily to mind). On and on. Context loses meaning because the simple action or word defines you instantaneously.
So you are correct. Does it matter that he voted for Trump? No; 75 million people did. Bill Maher has been saying it now for two years: THEY are not going to leave the country, and neither are YOU (whichever side you are in). So better start dropping the volume. And the death of this police officer must be treated impartially, regardless of where he stood politically.
by ti-amie If the video and still images of the officer being dragged down the stairs and beaten with a flag pole are him then you do have to stop and ask yourself what he was thinking while that was happening to him.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amieHouse Democrats introduce article of impeachment, charging Trump with ‘incitement of insurrection’
By Paulina Firozi
House Democrats formally introduced an article of impeachment on Monday, charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”
The resolution cites the president’s false statements claiming widespread voter fraud during the presidential election — statements Trump repeated in the two months leading up to last week’s joint session of Congress.
The House could vote later this week on impeaching Trump an unprecedented second time, a consequence of events last Wednesday when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.
“He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol,” the resolution reads. It adds: “Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.”
Impeachment proceedings could have consequences for the initial weeks of the Biden administration, as a Senate trial could delay confirmations for Biden’s Cabinet picks and stall the new administration’s agenda.
In a sign of how Democrats have struggled with how to proceed with the push for impeachment, Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), a Biden ally, suggested Sunday that the House could vote this week to impeach the president but wait a few months before submitting the articles to the Senate for trial.
As of Sunday, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who drew up the resolution alongside Reps. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), said 210 members had signed on as co-sponsors.
“This was an attempted coup to overthrow the government, and we have a responsibility as Congress to respond to that,” Cicilline said. “We have a particular responsibility to hold everyone accountable who was involved in any way from the president on down. That’s what we intend to do.”
He said he expected some Republicans to support the resolution.
by ti-amie Kurt "Masks Save Lives" Eichenwald
@kurteichenwald
"Parler was banned" lie must end. It wasnt. Parler was told by Amazon/Apple/Google to comply with TOS by moderating, removing violence threats. Refused. A, A & G could be liable for violence if they allow Parler to violate TOS. Parler thought it deserved to break rules. It doesnt
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Dara Lind @DLind
So reading between the lines here, someone in the admin has the idea that they can retroactively render legal all the Wolf-signed, court-enjoined policies by having someone else (Gaynor?) sign off on them.
To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that this tactic wouldn’t succeed. The order of succession thing has been an utter hornet’s nest, and there really are a lot of policies that have been enjoined solely or near-solely on the basis of “Chad Wolf couldn’t legally sign off.”
John Mitnick @JohnMitnick
Keep in mind that Wolf will remain the
@DHSgov
Under Secretary for Policy, a position for which he was confirmed by the Senate.
His mommy showed up and asked for him to get better food? Organic?
Because the horns and fur must be made in China, right?
I suppose once he gets to prison he can be called "organic salad".
by ti-amie
by ti-amie You ever notice that guys like the brave Viking Warrior and his ilk are either separated or divorced with restraining orders against them, or literally living with mom?
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:45 pm
Dara Lind @DLind
So reading between the lines here, someone in the admin has the idea that they can retroactively render legal all the Wolf-signed, court-enjoined policies by having someone else (Gaynor?) sign off on them.
To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that this tactic wouldn’t succeed. The order of succession thing has been an utter hornet’s nest, and there really are a lot of policies that have been enjoined solely or near-solely on the basis of “Chad Wolf couldn’t legally sign off.”
She should mean that this tactic won't succeed. His decisions were enjoined by the court because he was taking significant actions in a role he wasn't confirmed for. Any replacement will have a similar problem.
by ti-amie
by ti-amieMaryland police officer suspended with pay as investigators look into possible involvement at U.S. Capitol
By
Ovetta Wiggins
Jan. 11, 2021 at 6:33 p.m. EST
The Anne Arundel County, Md., police department has suspended an officer with pay as the agency works with federal authorities to determine what involvement the officer may have had in the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.
The department said its Office of Professional Standards is reviewing whether the officer, whose name was not released, violated any agency policies or broke any laws. A statement issued by the department did not specify how the officer was involved, or whether he was among the mob of people who entered the building in hopes of overturning the results of the presidential election.
A number of police departments across the country have launched investigations into alleged involvement of their officers in storming past Capitol Police officers and unlawfully entering the building.
The Anne Arundel County officer is believed to be the first officer in Maryland who has been suspended while being investigated in connection with deadly riot. One officer, Brian D. Sicknick, died of injuries sustained while fighting off the mob. Four civilians also died, including one who was shot by a police officer and three others in medical emergencies.
“The Anne Arundel County Police Department is committed to the highest level of ethical standards by its sworn and civilian members, whether on or off duty,” a statement issued by the department reads. “The Anne Arundel County police Department also supports all lawful expressions of freedom of speech and assembly.”
A spokesman for the police department did not respond to a request for additional comment.
Chris Trumbauer, a spokesman for County Executive Stueart Pittman (D), said the county executive “supports a rigorous investigation of this and trusts that the police will be able do that.”
by JazzNUCorporate America faces reckoning on cost of silence, pauses political donations
By Martha C. White, Stephanie Ruhle and Charlie Herman
Corporate America knows money talks — and in the aftermath of last week’s Capitol Hill riot, business leaders are pledging to pay more attention to what it says.
Companies traditionally have sought to position themselves above the fray when it comes to divisive political and cultural conversations, but a widening chasm of polarization and an escalation of attacks not only on opposing political viewpoints but on the functions of democracy itself have raised alarms in corner offices.
“Conventional wisdom historically has been for brands and companies to stay out of politics at least as it relates to their public relations and marketing messaging, but over the past few years, we’ve really seen a shift,” said Lee Newman, CEO of MullenLowe U.S., part of public relations giant Interpublic Group of Companies. “Corporate America is starting to understand that silence is complicity,” he said.
A growing segment of corporate America’s biggest names have denounced last week’s storming of the Capitol by devotees of President Donald Trump seeking to overturn the election of Joe Biden as president, with many saying they will halt or suspend political donations.
The approaches taken by these companies vary, and experts in corporate reputation management said there are likely different motivations at play.
“Our clients go across the political spectrum and vary in their willingness to engage in conversations that have the potential to be polarizing,” Newman said. “Some of them are driven by the desire to show people their values and where they stand… others are somewhat operating out of fear to ensure that they’re saying the right thing and that they’re on the right side of history here.”
Companies including Dow Chemical, Marriott International, American Express, Blue Cross, Airbnb, Mastercard and Commerce Bank said they will not donate to lawmakers involved in the push to deny Biden the presidency.
”Dow is immediately suspending all corporate and employee political action committee (PAC) contributions to any member of Congress who voted to object to the certification of the presidential election,” Dow said in a statement, adding that the company “is committed to the principles of democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.”
Marriott said in a statement it “will be pausing political giving from our Political Action Committee to those who voted against certification of the election.”
“We have suspended all support for officials who have impeded the peaceful transfer of power,” Commerce Bank said in its statement.
Hallmark, which contributes to politicians via a PAC called HALLPAC, went a step further, saying in a statement, “The recent actions of Senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall do not reflect our company’s values. As a result, HALLPAC requested Sens. Hawley and Marshall to return all HALLPAC campaign contributions.”
Argenti also had a warning for companies, saying customers and employees alike are quick to pick up on messages that seem motivated by political expediency rather than principles. “If you decide suddenly to get involved in this fray, you better be in it to win it,” he said, adding that “woke-washing” could backfire. “People are very very attuned to these things right now.”
Many of the country’s biggest companies across industry sectors, from Ford Motor Co. to Airbnb to Boston Scientific, announced suspensions of all PAC donations. The list of companies pledging change, which grew throughout the day, included financial services companies JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and tech behemoths Microsoft, Facebook and Google. A host of other large firms, including Delta Air Lines, Wells Fargo, Walmart and Bank of America, said they would take the unprecedented events of last week into account when considering future political donations.
Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, which owns NBC News, said Monday it would be suspending contributions "to those elected officials who voted against certification of the electoral college votes."
“The peaceful transition of power is a foundation of America’s democracy. This year, that transition will take place among some of the most challenging conditions in modern history and against the backdrop of the appalling violence we witnessed at the U.S. Capitol last week. At this crucial time, our focus needs to be on working together for the good of the entire nation,” the company said in a statement.
The broader bans on donations to both parties angered Democratic lawmakers, with some arguing that it created a sense of false equivalency.
“This is not a time to say both sides did it. What the hell did the Democrats do this week except stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law?” said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., lambasting corporate leaders for “playing footsie” with the Trump administration in an MSNBC interview Monday.
“I think most CEOs wish they could specifically target the bad players in the Republican party… however, some of them feel constrained because of their boards, shareholder reprisals or [want] to think through the issue more carefully,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, associate dean at the Yale School of Management and CEO of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute. “They want to act quickly, but don't want to develop a permanent policy in a reactionary way.”
Reputation management experts cited a leadership vacuum forcing business leaders to defend behavioral and political norms that have been eroded or outright destroyed over the last four years. “Many really feel a civic duty and, in a lot of cases, they feel a certain void in standards that have been set by the very top of our government,” Newman said. “That's where the greater sense of urgency comes in."
In recent years, more companies have been willing to be outspoken on topics such as LGBTQ rights and climate change, and last summer’s widespread protests for racial justice prompted soul-searching among corporate chieftains regarding their own contributions to combatting systemic racism and its legacy of inequality in everything from wealth-building to healthcare to educational and professional opportunity.
“Given that government has become weaker, corporations have to play a more important role, given both their financial influence and their influence in society,” Argenti said.
Of course, corporate America is still looking out for itself, as well. There are always the optics of public relations to consider, and firms in highly competitive sectors like technology rely on their reputations for employee recruitment and retention.
“Most of these companies are desperate to appear to be on the right side of the culture wars,” said John Weber, president of Impromptu Strategies reputation management company. “I’m not sure it's an inflection point, per se, but I think it’s going to accelerate their need and desire to position themselves as being in opposition to the Trump forces.”
Meanwhile, outspoken pro-Trump CEOs have backed themselves into a corner, he added. “I think it’s a huge setback for those corporations and corporate leaders who openly aligned themselves with President Trump, because whatever good the president did for business now seems to have come at an unacceptable cost, and that cost is anarchy in the streets of Washington,” Weber said.
JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:16 pm
Given the full text message being shared that he sent, the officer clearly gave permission to use his full name. If he's okay with it, I'm okay with it even if I don't think it's the safest thing.
And now he realizes the problems with his name being used and the threat it poses to himself and his family and has asked the media to stop using his full name when showing the video or photos.
A damn shame. To a certain extent, I think there was a notion for him and others that it was safe to use their names, after all, this is the Blue Lives Matter crowd, why would they be in danger? But that's been exposed for what it really was about in the last week and it's clear they find police expendable.
by GlennHarman I don't remember which thread this was discussed in the old TAT, but I'll put it here. I apologize if this has already been brought back up in the last few days:
I saw a photo of Trump on the news last evening with a woman by his side. It was abundantly clear that we were meant to think she was Melania. But taking even a slightly up-close look at the face and it was clearly a fake Melania (again). The bone structure, both of the cheek bones and chin, was totally wrong.
Trump has done so many things that are so much worse than using a double for his wife that I know this barely merits mention. But this is one of the weirder things he has done that I can't understand on any level. Presidents travel without their wives all the time. So when she couldn't or wouldn't go along, I wonder why he felt compelled to use a fake. It's simply bizarre and without any reason.
On to impeachment...I'm hoping that this comes to a vote in both houses of Congress. He may not be convicted by the Senate, but I want every Senator to have to record his vote on this for posterity (and future elections). If this does not merit conviction, I'm not sure what ever would. And I especially want to remind Republicans that many of them voted to remove Clinton from office for lying under oath about where he put his thing. I'm not saying that Clinton was right to lie under oath, but if lying about a subject that harmed no one is reason to throw him out, then this vote on Trump should be automatic for all of them.
GH
by ponchi101 I was reading that one of the possible outcomes from any impeachment could be to ban him from public office forever. That would be a definite plus, as he may be insane enough to run for smaller offices until 2024, when he will again hijack the GOP.
(Which would be easy, and the GOP likes to be hijacked).
by mmmm8 The banning him from future office is not true, per the CNN article I posted above
by Togtdyalttai
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:49 pm
The banning him from future office is not true, per the CNN article I posted above
It's not true that him being impeached would ban him from future office. However, if he was tried and found guilty by the Senate (which probably won't happen), they can take a vote which would ban him from future office.
by ti-amieFBI report warned of ‘war’ at Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence
A man breaks a window as a mob of President Trump’s supporters storms the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6. (Leah Millis/Reuters)
By
Devlin Barrett and
Matt Zapotosky
Jan. 12, 2021 at 12:08 p.m. EST
A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit internal warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and “war,” according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official’s declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone at last week’s pro-Trump protest planned to do harm.
A situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex’s tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet up in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.
“As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington. D.C.,” the document says. “An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating ‘Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
BLM is likely a reference to the Black Lives Matter movement for racial justice. Pantifa is a derogatory term for antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement whose adherents sometimes engage in violent clashes with right-wing extremists.
Yet even with that information in hand, the report’s unidentified author expressed concern that the FBI might be encroaching on free speech rights.
The warning is the starkest evidence yet of the sizable intelligence failure that preceded the mayhem, which claimed the lives of five people, although one law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid disciplinary action, said the failure was not one of intelligence but of acting on the intelligence.
An FBI official familiar with the document said that within 45 minutes of learning about the alarming online conversation, the Norfolk FBI office wrote the report and shared it with others within the bureau. It was not immediately clear how many law enforcement agencies outside the FBI were told, but the information was briefed to FBI officials at the bureau’s Washington field office the day before the attack, this official said.
The official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations, added that the report was raw intelligence and that at the time it was written, the FBI did not know the identities of those making the online statements.
The FBI already faces tough questions about why it was not more attuned to what was being discussed in public Internet conversations in the days leading up to the attack, and why the bureau and other agencies seemed to do little to prepare for the possibility of mass violence.
The document notes that the information represents the view of the FBI’s Norfolk office, is not to be shared outside law enforcement circles, that it is not “finally evaluated intelligence,” and that agencies that receive it “are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.”
Multiple law enforcement officials have said privately in recent days that the level of violence exhibited at the Capitol has led to difficult discussions within the FBI and other agencies about race, terrorism, and whether investigators failed to register the degree of danger because the overwhelming majority of the participants at the rally were White conservatives fiercely loyal to the President Trump.
“Individuals/Organizations named in this [situational information report] have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the document says. “Their inclusion here is not intended to associate the protected activity with criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer that such protected activity itself violates federal law.
“However,” it continues, “based on known intelligence and/or specific historical observations, it is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individual or others in retaliation or with the goal of stopping the protected activity from occurring in the first instance. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI policy and federal law dictates that no further record to be made of the protected activity.”
The document notes that one online comment advised, “if Antifa or BLM get violent, leave them dead in the street,” while another said they need “people on standby to provide supplies, including water and medical, to the front lines. The individual also discussed the need to evacuate noncombatants and wounded to medical care.”
On Jan. 6, a large, angry crowd of people who had attended a nearby rally marched to the Capitol, smashing windows and breaking down doors to get inside. One woman in the mob was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer; officials said three others in the crowd died from medical emergencies. Another Capitol police officer died after suffering injuries.
On Friday, the head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, Steven D’Antuono, told reporters “there was no indication” of anything planned for the day of Trump’s rally “other than First Amendment-protected activity.” D’Antuono added, “we worked diligently with our partners on this.”
The FBI said in a statement that its “standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products,” but added that FBI field offices “routinely share information with their local law enforcement partners to assist in protecting the communities they serve.”
The FBI did not detail specifically who saw the document before the mob attack on Congress or what, if anything, was done in response.
For weeks leading up to the event, FBI officials discounted any suggestion that the protest of pro-Trump supporters upset about the scheduled certification of Joe Biden’s election could be a security threat on a scale with racial justice protests last summer in the wake of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody.
While the nation’s capital is one of the most heavily guarded cities on the planet, local and federal law enforcement agencies sought to take a low-key approach to last week’s event, publicly and privately expressing concerns that they did not want to repeat the ugly clashes between protesters and police last year.
Some law enforcement officials took the view that pro-Trump protesters are generally known for over-the-top rhetoric but not much violence, and therefore the event did not pose a particularly grave risk, according to people familiar with the security discussions leading up to Jan. 6.
Even so, there were warning signs, though none as stark as the one from the FBI’s Norfolk office.
FBI agents had in the weeks before the Trump rally visited suspected extremists hoping to glean whether they had violent intentions, a person familiar with the matter said, though it was not immediately clear who was visited or if the FBI was specifically tracking anyone who would later be charged criminally. These visits were first reported Sunday by NBC News.
In addition, in the days leading up to the demonstration, some Capitol Hill staffers were told by supervisors to not come into work that day, if possible, because it seemed the danger level would be higher than a lot of prior protests, according to a person familiar with the warning. Capitol Police did not take the kind of extra precautions, such as frozen zones and hardened barriers, that are typically used in major events around the Capitol.
Now, the Justice Department and federal agents are scrambling to identify and arrest those responsible for last week’s violence, in part because there is already significant online discussion of new potential clashes Sunday and again on Jan. 20 when Biden will be inaugurated.
Federal agents remain in a state of high-alert in the days leading up to the inauguration as authorities brace for possible violence not just in Washington, but around the country, officials said.
The FBI recently issued a different memo saying that “armed protests” were being planned “at all 50 state capitols” and in D.C. in the days leading up to the inauguration, according to an official familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law enforcement matter.
The memo — first reported on by ABC News and later confirmed by The Washington Post — is a raw intelligence product, compiling information gathered by the bureau and several other government agencies, an official said. Some of it is unverified, and the threat is likely to differ significantly from place to place, the official said.
But the data it highlights to law enforcement are nonetheless troubling — including that there was information suggesting people might storm government offices, or stage an uprising were Trump to be removed from office, the official said.
In a statement, the FBI declined to comment specifically on the memo about state capitols but said: “Our efforts are focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in criminal activity. As we do in the normal course of business, we are gathering information to identify any potential threats and are sharing that information with our partners.
“The FBI respects the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights,” it continues. “Our focus is not on peaceful protesters, but on those threatening their safety and the safety of other citizens with violence and destruction of property.”
BREAKING: FBI and DOJ to hold a presser at 3 p.m. ET today regarding 6 January 2021 armed insurrection of US Capitol.
by ti-amie
Kurt "Masks Save Lives" Eichenwald
@kurteichenwald
Who could have possibly imagined that allowing people to bring guns into a government building - in a state where lots of people spin conspiracy theories about the government - could possibly pose a problem?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
GlennHarman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:33 am
I don't remember which thread this was discussed in the old TAT, but I'll put it here. I apologize if this has already been brought back up in the last few days:
I saw a photo of Trump on the news last evening with a woman by his side. It was abundantly clear that we were meant to think she was Melania. But taking even a slightly up-close look at the face and it was clearly a fake Melania (again). The bone structure, both of the cheek bones and chin, was totally wrong.
Trump has done so many things that are so much worse than using a double for his wife that I know this barely merits mention. But this is one of the weirder things he has done that I can't understand on any level. Presidents travel without their wives all the time. So when she couldn't or wouldn't go along, I wonder why he felt compelled to use a fake. It's simply bizarre and without any reason.
On to impeachment...I'm hoping that this comes to a vote in both houses of Congress. He may not be convicted by the Senate, but I want every Senator to have to record his vote on this for posterity (and future elections). If this does not merit conviction, I'm not sure what ever would. And I especially want to remind Republicans that many of them voted to remove Clinton from office for lying under oath about where he put his thing. I'm not saying that Clinton was right to lie under oath, but if lying about a subject that harmed no one is reason to throw him out, then this vote on Trump should be automatic for all of them.
GH
It's one hour for minutes but if you want some more details on Fake Melania's and other stuff listen to this. I wonder how Hank's doing?
by ti-amie Barbara Starr @barbarastarrcnn
Just in: Joint Chiefs of Staff preparing rare message to entire force of reassurance: reminding them the job is to support & defend Constitution and reject extremism. Its a significant step. JCS have sought to stay out of politics. Statement due to gravity of events.
by ponchi101 The USA is also coming to another reckoning: if you believe your military can stay out of politics FOREVER, and remain at their bases and areas of command FOREVER, without getting involved in the civilian aspects of government, you are being naive.
Simple scenario: one of these looney militia groups in Michigan decides to go ballistic with all their fire power. Would it even be ethical for the Armed Forces to remain "neutral"?
by ti-amie Manu Raju @mkraju
House GOP leaders are not whipping their colleagues to tell them to vote against the impeachment resolution tomorrow, per aides. They will let members vote their conscience, a marked departure from the approach in 2019 when GOP leaders pushed their members to fall in line
by ti-amie
by MJ2004 Do any of them have a conscience?
by ponchi101 If Stanley Milgram were alive, he would be begging for the grant to study them and their acolytes.
The level of blind obedience is incredible and, as you say, the incapacity to even consider anything but themselves and the lack of conscience is off the scale.
One more week, but this is not over. He will do something. You guys better be ready.
(I am postponing my annual trip to Colorado until this thing is clear).
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Too late, too late, too late, but you must take it. Mitch created this monster and, as in Frankenstein, it is now really up to him to jump the ship and go chase him. He really must convey the Senate, convince all GOP'ers, and approve his impeachment and totally disable his return to politics.
Tiny gave them what they wanted: a SCOTUS that is incredibly biased and unqualified, four years of debauchery, and a situation in which Biden will be tied in many aspects, so they can come back in 2024, if they pretend to be serious.
Cash those chips, get a drink at the bar, come back tomorrow. If you start behaving seriously, you may have a future. If something even worse happens during this final week, then you may be completely out of the game.
1) Mitch said in that article that he thinks this is a good way to get rid of Instigator's power over the GOP. He hopes at least.
2) Corporate money disappearing has ROCKED the GOP. It has caused worry about winning competitive seats in 2022 and 2024 such as Rick Scott in FL. We saw an almost an immediate about-face from a few yesterday soon after that news broke.
3. They got a security briefing this morning. Reports are that it was horrifying. What they thought they knew about the attempted coup, they know more now and likely can't ignore it. And whatever is being planned for this weekend was briefed as well, so the possibility of future blood on their hands is very real.
You've got Kevin McCarthy, the #1 GOP in the House, saying this morning he wasn't going to drum up House Votes against impeachment after being blindsided yesterday with the news of loss of corporate money. You've got the one GOP congressman (Katko) saying he's voting for impeachment earlier in the afternoon. Now Liz Cheyney, the #3 in the GOP House, saying she'll vote yes and giving a scathing indictment of him as well. And now Mitch. This is coordinated. Sad it took this much, but this is them finally attempting to bail off this sinking ship at least 11 months too late.
by JazzNU There's a PA State Senator that was at the Insurrection. Almost positive he is either dry@'s state senator or represents the district right next to him.
Jackass went on the radio days before and said he was going to the "death match against the Democrats." And of course him and the retired state senator he was there with posted about it on social media while there, and subsequently took it down. Lovely.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU He was reportedly wearing his Olympic Team jacket. Not at all surprising his former coaches and teammates seem to be the ones that identified him.
by dryrunguy
JazzNU wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:27 am
There's a PA State Senator that was at the Insurrection. Almost positive he is either dry@'s state senator or represents the district right next to him.
Jackass went on the radio days before and said he was going to the "death match against the Democrats." And of course him and the retired state senator he was there with posted about it on social media while there, and subsequently took it down. Lovely.
Mastriano represents the area just east of me. He admits he and his wife were there to support Trump. He also "condemns" the violence... Blah, blah, blah.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:03 am
Mastriano represents the area just east of me. He admits he and his wife were there to support Trump. He also "condemns" the violence... Blah, blah, blah.
Full of ish on a nearly epic level with that statement. Sucks for him that the FBI and DOJ said they are tracing the money and travel that funded the event.
JazzNU wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:23 am
He was reportedly wearing his Olympic Team jacket. Not at all surprising his former coaches and teammates seem to be the ones that identified him.
I mean, his name is only one letter away from KKK
by ponchi101 In many scenarios and stories, a conundrum is frequently reached.
Hypothetical question:
Tiny took over the GOP in 2016. He has become so powerful, within the party, that he basically runs it. His support remains crucial for GOP members. But they now have the chance to slay him. If he is impeached he can no longer hold public office (if they vote on that). So, politically, how many of the GOP will see that taking him down can actually be a good political move?
If impeached and declared unfit to hold office, the GOP has 4 years to mend the fracture. Not menial, in view of how stupid most people are and how short their memory is.
by dmforever
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:15 pm
In many scenarios and stories, a conundrum is frequently reached.
Hypothetical question:
Tiny took over the GOP in 2016. He has become so powerful, within the party, that he basically runs it. His support remains crucial for GOP members. But they now have the chance to slay him. If he is impeached he can no longer hold public office (if they vote on that). So, politically, how many of the GOP will see that taking him down can actually be a good political move?
If impeached and declared unfit to hold office, the GOP has 4 years to mend the fracture. Not menial, in view of how stupid most people are and how short their memory is.
I think it comes down to whether they think people who support Trump (and that number is still really high) will see what they are doing in a positive light. And honestly, I don't think they will. If he can do what he has done and still garner their support, nothing GOP lawmakers are going to do in the next four years is going to change their minds. Unfortunately I don't have a good solution to offer. People identify so much with the false narrative (the election was stolen, the Democrats are anti-American baby killing Communists) that logic won't sway them. I actually think it's even more dire than the news media is saying.
Kevin
by ponchi101 Agree. I have said it before: he does not have voters. He has acolytes.
by ti-amie Things are going about as would be expected during the run up to the vote. As for the GOP being sincere about wanting "unity"...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
David Gilmore
@DavidFxa
Replying to @Yamiche
Released with 20 minutes left in the Article of Impeachment debate. Really rich.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Why are all those soldiers marching into the Capitol?
I know it might be a silly question, but I wonder why they are inside. They should be standing outside, if it is for protection.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dmforever
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:13 pm
Why are all those soldiers marching into the Capitol?
I know it might be a silly question, but I wonder why they are inside. They should be standing outside, if it is for protection.
I know this seems hyperbolic to write, but I can think of a few reasons.
1. Maybe they are planning just in case terrorists break through police lines like they did last Wednesday.
2. Maybe they are planning just in case there are people on the inside (Congress guards?) that are sympathetic to the terrorists or even terrorists themselves.
3. Maybe they are worried about violence from lawmakers and their staffs themselves. Many of them just stepped around the metal detectors, so they could have concealed weapons.
It's absolute total insanity.
Kevin
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:13 pm
Why are all those soldiers marching into the Capitol?
I know it might be a silly question, but I wonder why they are inside. They should be standing outside, if it is for protection.
There are many of troops outside. DC, and the Capitol area specifically, has been described as The Citadel right now. There's DC Guard, but also guards from surrounding states including MD, VA, DE, PA, NJ, and NY staying through the end of the month. That's in addition to physical safeguards put in place like fencing and barriers. Also doesn't count Capitol police, DC Police, and Park Police. i.e., what should've been there last week.
They are inside because they are needed there. You've got 3 House members implicated in coordinating the attack, a few who went around the metal detectors who profess to be carrying guns, one of which appears to have provided Pelosi's location to the insurrectionists last week. They are needed inside and outside. And we don't even know the intel like they do on the threats that have been made. Congress was briefed yesterday on them, they are apparently chilling.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Christine Pelosi @sfpelosi
#News: Madam Speaker got her lectern back. And she’s going to use it. Stay tuned.
by ponchi101 1,000 hollow point rounds.
You may think I am losing it. But I really believe these people are getting ready to assault the Capitol, fully armed. The level of lunacy from them is off the scale.
And it will be before the 20th, because, after all, once Biden is sworn in, he is president. And by now, nothing will stop them, not even Tiny conceding the election. Even if he does, they will say he is doing it in the name of peace. These people are no different from Jonestown.
It is scary.
by ti-amieInvestigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned
By Evan Perez, CNN Justice Correspondent
Updated 6:17 PM ET, Wed January 13, 2021
(CNN)Evidence uncovered so far, including weapons and tactics seen on surveillance video, suggests a level of planning that has led investigators to believe the attack on the US Capitol was not just a protest that spiraled out of control, a federal law enforcement official says.
Among the evidence the FBI is examining are indications that some participants at the Trump rally at the Ellipse, outside the White House, left the event early, perhaps to retrieve items to be used in the assault on the Capitol.
A team of investigators and prosecutors are also focused on the command and control aspect of the attack, looking at travel and communications records to determine if they can build a case that is similar to a counterterrorism investigation, the official said.
The belief, early in the probe, will demand significant investigation.
The presence of corruption prosecutors and agents is in part because of their expertise in financial investigations. "We are following the money," the official said.
By Wednesday morning, the FBI reported that it had received more than 126,000 digital tips from the public regarding the attack on the Capitol -- more than three times the number of tips received on Monday.
Among the thousands of tips the FBI received are some that appear to show members of Congress with people who later showed up at the Capitol riot, two law enforcement officials said. This doesn't mean members of Congress and staff are under investigation, but the FBI is checking the veracity of the claims, the officials said.
Counterterrorism strategy for arrests
At least some of the arrests already made are part of a strategy used in counterterrorism investigations, to find even a minimal charge and try to take a person of concern off the streets. That helps ease the possible threat amid concern about possible attacks on the inauguration, officials believe.
On January 4, for example, local police arrested the leader of the Proud Boys, Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, in Washington, DC.
Tarrio was taken into custody for allegedly burning a Black Lives Matter banner taken from a Black church last month during protests in the city after an earlier "Stop the Steal" rally. The Miami resident was charged with destruction of property related to the banner, however, federal authorities say they found Tarrio in possession of two high-capacity firearm magazines, prompting them to add a charge of Possession of High Capacity Feeding Device.
On Tuesday, federal authorities in New York City arrested Eduard Florea, 40, on at least one weapons charge after law enforcement, including the FBI and NYPD, responded to a Queens home in response to online postings about an armed caravan heading to the US Capitol, two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation tells CNN.
Law enforcement sources told CNN that the man claims to be a Proud Boy and was arrested with live ammunition in the home.
Already, the public efforts by prosecutors and the FBI to encourage people who participated In the riot to turn themselves in is yielding fruit. Some attorneys have reached out to arrange for safe surrender of their clients in order to gain a measure of leniency and lessen the chance of a police raid on their homes, two officials said.
For instance, a counterterrorism prosecutor even appeared in court for an early hearing for one of the defendants on Tuesday, signaling how integrated the Justice Department's effort already is between the typical criminal prosecutors who handle initial criminal hearings and with the units focused on more complex crimes.
"With this strike force that was established to focus strictly on sedition charges, we're looking at in treating this just like a significant international counterterrorism or counterintelligence operation," DC US Attorney Michael Sherwin said Tuesday.
"We're looking at everything: money, travel records. Looking at disposition, movement, communication records. So no resource related to the FBI, or the US Attorney's Office will be unchecked in terms of trying to determine exactly if there was a command and control how it operated and how they executed these, these activities."
Just so you know, this picture wasn't of the group that went on the tour. Obviously it's still really alarming that she is having pictures taken with white supremacists, and it's great that they are investigating that group.
the Moz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:40 am
Glad to see Pelosi opting to wear black today
It's the same outfit she wore for the first impeachment. It's not a day to celebrate. What makes it so sad is if what was known about Tiny wasn't ignored. Noel Casler's podcast makes so much of it clear. People tried to warn about who this man is.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:30 pm
1,000 hollow point rounds.
You may think I am losing it. But I really believe these people are getting ready to assault the Capitol, fully armed. The level of lunacy from them is off the scale.
And it will be before the 20th, because, after all, once Biden is sworn in, he is president. And by now, nothing will stop them, not even Tiny conceding the election. Even if he does, they will say he is doing it in the name of peace. These people are no different from Jonestown.
It is scary.
It's the 17th. 17 is important number in QAnon theory. It will crack your brain to read some of the stuff they twist and turn to reach a conclusion that something is a secret message because some way, some how, they will break down something to come up with a 17 in the message and therefore a signal.
That's why there's so much chatter about the 17th and why there's known planning for that date. It's like their reckoning day. There's still concern for Jan 17-20 for sure, but it sounds like it would like, mean more to them or something if it was on the 17th because it feeds into their crackpot theories.
They are a new kind of crazy. I've been saying this these minions are nothing more than a cult for some time and need to be treated and dealt with as such. The only other way IMO they can accurately be classified is a terrorist organization.
by JazzNU
by the Moz As if McConnell would have us believe he's open to convicting Trump. I'll go to jail for the Donald myself if Mitch votes to convict at IMPEACH2.0
by ponchi101
the Moz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:41 pm
As if McConnell would have us believe he's open to convicting Trump. I'll go to jail for the Donald myself if Mitch votes to convict at IMPEACH2.0
Not so sure. McConnell is a classical political scoundrel and he may see this opportunity to get rid of Tiny. Remember, Tiny has basically hijacked the GOP, and he could do that again in 2024. If he gets politically disabled (can't run for office anymore) his power becomes null, because he is not a political movement; he is a cult leader. Even if the Trumps start their own party, the children are not revered as daddy is. Don Jr running for president would be a totally different thing (and you know Tiny would not allow that).
McConnell may approve of Impeach 2.0, but not because of the righteousness of the cause. It would be just a political hit-job. And he is smart enough to know he owes nothing to Donald because Donald does not respect him either.
by the Moz Whichever way MM votes, it will be guided solely by what's best for MM. End of.
by ponchi101 Oh, no doubt. That is the one thing him and Tiny have in absolute common. It is hard to think of a politician around the world that is more in it solely for himself than Tiny and Mitch.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Yahoo News Exclusive: Large bitcoin payments to right-wing activists a month before Capitol riot linked to foreign account
Jenna McLaughlin·National Security and Investigations Reporter
Thu, January 14, 2021, 10:19 AM
WASHINGTON — On Dec. 8, someone made a simultaneous transfer of 28.15 bitcoins — worth more than $500,000 at the time — to 22 different virtual wallets, most of them belonging to prominent right-wing organizations and personalities.
Now cryptocurrency researchers believe they have identified who made the transfer, and suspect it was intended to bolster those far-right causes. U.S. law enforcement is investigating whether the donations were linked to the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.
While the motivation is difficult to prove, the transfer came just a month before the violent riot in the Capitol, which took place after President Trump invited supporters to “walk down Pennsylvania Avenue” and “take back our country.”
Right-wing figures and websites, including VDARE, the Daily Stormer and Nick Fuentes, received generous donations from a bitcoin account linked to a French cryptocurrency exchange, according to research done by software company Chainalysis, which maintains a repository of information about public cryptocurrency exchanges and whose tools aid in government, law enforcement and private sector investigations. Chainalysis investigated the donations after Yahoo News shared the data points about the transaction.
According to one source familiar with the matter, the suspicious Dec. 8 transaction, along with a number of other pieces of intelligence, has prompted law enforcement and intelligence agencies in recent days to actively investigate the sources of funding for the individuals who participated in the Capitol insurrection, as well as their networks. The government is hoping to prevent future attacks but also to uncover potential foreign involvement in or support of right-wing activities, the source said.
During a press conference on Tuesday on the investigation into the Capitol riot, acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said the “scope and scale of this investigation in these cases are really unprecedented.” At this time, Sherwin added, prosecutors are treating the matter as a “significant counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation” involving deeper dives into “money, travel records, disposition, movement, communication records.”
investigation” involving deeper dives into “money, travel records, disposition, movement, communication records.”
One of the ways extremist groups have made money in recent years is online through cryptocurrency and crowdfunding. Bitcoin, which was anonymously released online in 2009 as open-source software, exists only virtually. It does not utilize a central bank or administrator to disburse funds, nor does any government control or distribute it. While bitcoin has fluctuated in value in recent years, and continues to do so, it gained mainstream popularity around 2017, the same year prominent alt-right figure Richard Spencer tweeted, “Bitcoin is the currency of the alt right.”
A 2017 Washington Post investigation explored how far-right groups turned even more aggressively toward bitcoin following the deadly August 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va. The story cited research by the nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center that identified a large bitcoin donation to Andrew Anglin, the editor of the Daily Stormer, a prominent neo-Nazi website that accepts bitcoin donations. At the time, the donation was worth around $60,000.
A “newfound expertise in online messaging and recruitment, coupled with the fact that modern extremist groups are generally young and digitally savvy, means that these organizations and individuals have fundamentally altered the way that extremists raise money,” wrote Alex Newhouse, a data analyst at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, in a 2019 report that explored the links between white supremacists and digital currency.
Some prominent right-wing groups or sites display their bitcoin wallets prominently, the report noted. “The lack of regulation over Bitcoin has driven its adoption by white supremacists,” it said.
While cryptocurrency has been used by extremist groups and criminals to raise funds while shielding their identities, bitcoin is pseudonymous rather than anonymous. Bitcoin wallet addresses are permanent, and the digital ledger of transactions, called the blockchain, is public and can’t be changed. That means if people identify their bitcoin wallet addresses, as many right-wing groups do to raise funds, transactions can be traced, which is what allowed Chainalysis to uncover information about the source of the large December donations.
The source of the funding, according to research conducted by Chainanalysis, appears to be a computer programmer based in France who created an account in 2013 — and who maintained a personal blog, which was not updated between 2014 and Dec. 9, 2020, the day after the “donations.”
Chainalysis researchers discovered a blog post from the bitcoin user that reads like an apparent suicide note, bequeathing his money to “certain causes and people” in light of what he describes as “the decline of Western civilization,” though the researchers were unable to confirm that the user was in fact dead. Chainalysis declined to publish the user’s name, citing privacy concerns due to the inability to conclusively confirm his death and out of concerns over ongoing law enforcement investigations.
An email to the apparent French donor did not immediately receive a reply.
Chainalysis investigators relied on openly available information, or public bitcoin transactions, to investigate and map out the large transaction. The original donor was registered on NameID, an internet service that allows bitcoin users to tie their online pseudonym or email address with their bitcoin profile — information the original donor included. Investigators tracked that email address to the blog, and to several cryptocurrency forum posts going back to 2013.
According to their research, Fuentes, a popular right-wing commentator who was suspended from YouTube last winter for violating its policies on hate speech, received the largest chunk of funding on Dec. 8 — about $250,000 in bitcoin. The Daily Stormer and the anti-immigration website VDARE were among the other recipients.
Yahoo News reached out to the recipients named in this article to confirm whether they had received the funding, what information they had about the donor and what they planned on doing with the funds. None returned a request for comment, although Fuentes tweeted an obscene gesture, naming several journalists, including this reporter, shortly after the inquiry was sent.
While the Daily Stormer website openly requests cryptocurrency donations, it also includes a disclaimer that says it is “opposed to violence” and that “anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned.”
While there’s no evidence that Fuentes directly participated in the Capitol riot, something he has so far denied, the financial resources of prominent right-wing actors are of growing interest to law enforcement.
“I’d be stunned if both nation-state adversaries and terrorist organizations weren’t figuring out how to funnel money to these guys,” one former FBI official who reviewed the data for Yahoo News said. “Many of them use fundraising sites (often in Bitcoin) that are virtually unmonitored and unmonitorable. If they weren’t doing it, they’d be incompetent.”
Additionally, much like conversations that took place on social media in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot, the digital currency transactions are happening in plain sight. While cryptocurrency has the reputation of being anonymous and shadowy, that’s actually a common misconception, explained Maddie Kennedy, Chainalysis’s communications director. “With the right tools you can follow the money,” she said. “Cryptocurrency was designed to be transparent.”
While there are methods that cryptocurrency users can deploy to obfuscate their identities — including using “privacy coins” such as Monero, which are difficult to trace, or using a “mixer” that allows various users to combine their bitcoins and mix them together to disguise their origin — there’s no indication the French programmer utilized those tools, Kennedy said.
Though the donations are not a smoking gun or indicative of a crime, and it remains unclear to what extent the Capitol riot was coordinated in advance, the activity is nonetheless revealing, according to Kennedy.
“These extremist groups are probably more well organized and well funded than what was previously believed,” she said. Chainalysis maintains a database of “domestic extremists” who have cryptocurrency accounts, and while the company has traced donations to right-wing groups over the years, the December deposit was “the single biggest month we’ve ever observed” directed toward these causes, the researchers wrote.
“This is evidence to show they’re raising money,” Kennedy said. Additionally, the fact that the donor was outside the United States suggests “this has international scope,” she continued, a fact that “law enforcement should be paying attention to.”
by dmforever Hey once Trump is out of office his right to pardon people goes away, right? And sorry if this is a stupid question, but can he pardon people who are charged but haven't gone to trial yet?
Thanks.
Kevin
by ti-amie There's a lot of talk about this guy by folks in political Twitter and I have no idea why.
by ti-amie
by shtexas
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:03 pm
There's a lot of talk about this guy by folks in political Twitter and I have no idea why.
Cawthorn took Mark Meadows place. He is paraplegic after a car accident. He was accused of sexual harassment. Students at the college he attended for one year wrote a letter saying he was known for that behavior. I am sorry about his accident, but he sounds like a real gem.
by skatingfan
dmforever wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:56 pm
Hey once Trump is out of office his right to pardon people goes away, right? And sorry if this is a stupid question, but can he pardon people who are charged but haven't gone to trial yet?
Thanks.
Kevin
He completes his transformation into a pumpkin on Jan 20, 2021 at noon, with no power to grant anything to anyone.
dmforever wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:56 pm
Hey once Trump is out of office his right to pardon people goes away, right? And sorry if this is a stupid question, but can he pardon people who are charged but haven't gone to trial yet?
Thanks.
Kevin
He completes his transformation into a pumpkin on Jan 20, 2021 at noon, with no power to grant anything to anyone.
Thanks. But before he leaves office could he pardon people who have been arrested but not tried in connection to the terrorist attack at the Capitol? In other words, could he preemptively pardon people?
Kevin
by Suliso Yes, he definitely can. However, I have a feeling he won't. Those are "little people" and Donald doesn't give a crap about those.
by ponchi101 I am with Kevin. My understanding is that when you pardon somebody, they have already been sentenced. In this case, these people have not even gone to trial, and there is no verdict yet. Although I agree with Suliso, too. Tiny could not care less for the people that are facing these charges. They are indeed little people, precisely the kind that he despises and the kind that do not realize he despises them.
by Suliso I don't get this continuing idea of giving out government checks in US to everyone. It's such a gross mismanagement of resources. Most people are still employed full time and don't need extra help right now. It would make a lot more sense to direct all that money to people who actually have lost their jobs and/or had their businesses shuttered because of pandemic restrictions. That's how we approach it here...
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:31 pm
I am with Kevin. My understanding is that when you pardon somebody, they have already been sentenced. In this case, these people have not even gone to trial, and there is no verdict yet. Although I agree with Suliso, too. Tiny could not care less for the people that are facing these charges. They are indeed little people, precisely the kind that he despises and the kind that do not realize he despises them.
It's not true. Nixon got a blanket pardon for any federal crimes he might have committed without ever being charged with anything. The only restrictions to US presidential pardons are that they can't get you out of impeachment, don't apply to State crimes and most likely (albeit not tested in the court) you can't pardon yourself. Other than that it's a blank check, full get out of a jail card.
by skatingfan The extent of pardon power has never been tested by the courts, and so what would happen if the US President pardoned people who were involved in a matter for which he is being impeached is unknown. However, people who have been pardoned could then be compelled to testify in a court case against President Trump once he leaves office because they would have no 5th amendment protections. If Trump plans to pardon the people being arrested right now it will probably happen in the final hours of his administration on Wednesday morning, and if a staffer puts the paperwork together & puts it in front of the President it's anyone's guess as to whether he would sign it.
by Togtdyalttai
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:44 pm
I don't get this continuing idea of giving out government checks in US to everyone. It's such a gross mismanagement of resources. Most people are still employed full time and don't need extra help right now. It would make a lot more sense to direct all that money to people who actually have lost their jobs and/or had their businesses shuttered because of pandemic restrictions. That's how we approach it here...
I agree entirely, and that's Joe Manchin's position as well. He's going to be extremely influential once Biden's president, so maybe there's a chance that's what happens.
by Togtdyalttai Another restriction on pardons is that they cannot be for a crime which hasn't been committed yet. Ordinarily that wouldn't be an issue, but with Trump you never know.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 That would be fun. You go to prison for selling pardons that then you will not get yourself.
There would be some poetry there.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Tiny has minions to tell the Ghoul he isn't on the team.
And isn't getting paid.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie January 18, 2021 / by emptywheel
THE RECENT RADICALIZATION OF THE WOMAN WHO ALLEGEDLY STOLE THE PELOSI LAPTOP
A number of outlets (Politico may have been the first) are reporting on the story of Riley June Williams, who was charged (but not arrested) yesterday in crimes related to the January 6 insurrection. The paragraph of her arrest affidavit that has gotten the most attention describes how a witness (Witness 1) told the FBI that he or she had seen a video depicting Williams stealing a laptop or hard drive from Pelosi’s office with the intent of selling it, via a third person, to Russian intelligence.
W1 also claimed to have spoken to friends of WILLIAMS, who showed W1 a video of WILLIAMS taking a laptop computer or hard drive from Speaker Pelosi’s office. W1 stated that WILLIAMS intended to send the computer device to a friend in Russia, who then planned to sell the device to SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service. According to W1, the transfer of the computer device to Russia fell through for unknown reasons and WILLIAMS still has the computer device or destroyed it. This matter remains under investigation.
I wanted to look at the background to that story.
First, the investigation into Williams may have started when Witness 1 called into FBI tip lines “in the days following” the insurrection.
In the days following the January 6, 2021, events, a witness (“W1”) made several phone calls into the FBI’s telephone tip line related to the U.S. Capitol attacks.
Witness 1 presented as Williams’ former romantic partner, of unspecified sex.
In them, the caller stated that he/she was the former romantic partner of RILEY JUNE WILLIAMS (“WILLIAMS”), that he/she saw WILLIAMS depicted in video footage taken on January 6, 2021, from inside the U.S. Capitol Building
The affidavit doesn’t say, but it is possible that Witness 1 first saw Williams in videos posted of that day, and then started calling Williams’ friends, which led to the discovery of the Pelosi laptop story. There’s no mention in the affidavit of a more extensive interview with Witness 1– just multiple tips pointing to online videos and the claim that “friends” of Williams showed Witness 1 a video. The laptop video does not appear in the affidavit (nor is there any indication it has been posted publicly). Its existence, then, is all filtered through the credibility — or not — of Witness 1.
The affidavit also reveals that Williams’ mom made a suspicious persons report about Witness 1 on or before January 11, so probably after Witness 1 first called into tips about Williams. When Harrisburg-based FBI agents responded to that suspicious person report, Williams’ mom was still able to reach Williams by phone.
I have spoken with local law enforcement agents in Harrisburg about their recent interactions with WILLIAMS’ parents. According to those officers, on January 11, 2021, local law enforcement received a suspicious persons report filed by WILLIAMS’ mother. Officers arrived at the address that WILLIAMS shares with her mother and interviewed her mother. WILLIAMS was not present. According to WILLIAMS’ mother, the suspicious person was assumed to be W1. WILLIAMS’ mother, with officers present, used her cell phone to place a video-enabled phone call to WILLIAMS. Officers observed WILLIAMS on her mother’s cell phone screen and noted that WILLIAMS was wearing a brown-colored jacket, consistent with the screenshots above.
Williams’ mom told reporters — but not, apparently, the FBI — that her daughter had just recently gotten involved in “far right message boards.”
The reporter then interviewed a woman who identified herself as WILLIAMS’ mother and showed her some type of video footage. WILLIAMS’ mother then stated that she recognized her daughter inside the U.S. Capitol Building and that her daughter had taken a sudden interest in President Trump’s politics and “far right message boards.” She claimed that WILLIAMS “took off,” “is gone,” and is waiting for law enforcement to come to WILLIAMS and ask her about her activities in the Capitol .
Even though this affidavit suggests Williams’ mom called the FBI about former partner Witness 1, it seems that on some date not described in the affidavit, Williams skipped town and took precautionary measures.
It appears that WILLIAMS has fled. According to local law enforcement officers in Harrisburg, WILLIAMS’ mother stated that that WILLIAMS packed a bag and left her home and told her mother she would be gone for a couple of weeks. WILLIAMS did not provide her mother any information about her intended destination. Sometime after January 6, 2021, WILLIAMS changed her telephone number and deleted what I believe were her social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, Telegram, and Parler.
Williams’ dad, who doesn’t live with her mom (though he does live in the Harrisburg area), drove to and from the rally with her, but was not with her during the day.
According to the Harrisburg officers, on or about January 16, 2021, officers called WILLIAMS’ father who resides in Camp Hill, PA. He stated that he drove to Washington, D.C., with WILLIAMS for the protests on January 6, 2021. He stated that his daughter and he did not stay together throughout the day and that WILLIAMS was meeting up with other individuals she knew at the protests. WILLIAMS later met up with her father outside of the U.S. Capitol Building, and they returned home to Harrisburg together.
I raise all this to suggest that there are at least two narrators here — the mom, who called the FBI about the former partner and not the far right friends, knew where her daughter was but now says she’s gone, and the former partner, who claims to have known what friends Williams was with but who also might have been recently dumped — who should not be trusted unquestioningly. And the dad appears to have his own ties to this world.
All that’s particularly important background for what is likely the more important detail in the affidavit: Williams was directing traffic inside the Capitol, and directing mobs up a staircase to Pelosi’s office.
She has brown shoulder length hair and wears eyeglasses. She is wearing a black face mask below her chin, around her neck. She can be heard in the video repeatedly yelling, “Upstairs, upstairs, upstairs,” and can be seen physically directing other intruders to proceed up a staircase.
[snip]
I have also reviewed maps of the interior areas of the U.S. Capitol and confirmed the subject appears to have been in an area near “the crypt,” sometimes referred to as the “Small House Rotunda.” In the audio of the ITV News video, the reporter states that the recording took place near the U.S. Capitol Building area called “the crypt.” In the background of the top screenshot above, a bust of Winston Churchill is visible behind the subject, which is also consistent with the location in the “Small House Rotunda.” The maps confirm that there is a nearby staircase, which leads to the office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.
Here’s a video of a clip included in the affidavit. It shows her rushing out while others are still coming in, and gives a better view of her zebra striped back described in the affidavit.
The stolen laptop may or may not exist (though, as Peterr notes below, Pelosi told Lesly Stahl one was stolen). It may or may not be headed to Russian intelligence (though it did make me think of reports on a Russian tie to far right activists in Lancaster, PA leading up to the election).
But a far better documented part of this story is that this woman, whose mother claims is new to this scene, was already in a position to be briefed on and directing traffic the day of the attack.
Every time I see men dressed like that, that ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY, all I can think is: How small can your penis be?
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:25 pm
January 18, 2021 / by emptywheel
THE RECENT RADICALIZATION OF THE WOMAN WHO ALLEGEDLY STOLE THE PELOSI LAPTOP
A number of outlets (Politico may have been the first) are reporting on the story of Riley June Williams, who was charged (but not arrested) yesterday in crimes related to the January 6 insurrection. The paragraph of her arrest affidavit that has gotten the most attention describes how a witness (Witness 1) told the FBI that he or she had seen a video depicting Williams stealing a laptop or hard drive from Pelosi’s office with the intent of selling it, via a third person, to Russian intelligence.
...
Every time I see men dressed like that, that ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY, all I can think is: How small can your penis be?
Ponch!! From the dawning of time until the end of time, It has and will be about penis size.
by ponchi101 Sure. It reminds me too of those famous words, uttered by one truly great philosopher: "I have never seen a man in more dire need of a BJ".
(Robin Williams)
by Suliso So those guys in the photo from Twitter are or are not in US military/law enforcement? Confused...
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:48 pm
So those guys in the photo from Twitter are or are not in US military/law enforcement? Confused...
No, I think they are MAGA cosplayers
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
UPDATE: Riley June Williams — who told friends she had taken a laptop from Pelosi's office — has been arrested in Pennsylvania.
Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein
JUST IN: Williams is set to appear in federal court in Penn. at 4pm this afternoon for a video hearing....
Quote Tweet
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:48 pm
So those guys in the photo from Twitter are or are not in US military/law enforcement? Confused...
When folks have in the past posted articles about these "armed militias" across the U.S. that want to overthrow the U.S. government and like to go off to remote locations to play war with likeminded dingbats, THOSE two guys in the photo are who we're talking about.
Thanks for posting this. I'm in Indiana and I logged into my Kroger account. It's real. Also Amazon - verified that, too. Will stop patronizing both if it's not changed in 48 hours.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by mmmm8 So, in one of his last acts, for some reason Trump granted protective status to Venezuelans in the US. It's called "Deferred Enforced Departure" and is almost the same as Temporary Protective Status except it's issued by the President rather than Congress - it protects people from deportation and allows them to work legally in the US. The only other country this applies to is Liberia (GW Bush granted it and it's been extended and is still valid).
This actually affects my S.O. because other immigration processes have stalled due to COVID so he's been in legal limbo and it's been 3 years now that he's been in the US - legally - without being able to work.
But I also don't understand why he issued this as it doesn't seem to serve any obvious point to him now. He could have done it before the election to get votes? I wonder what rich Venezuelan exile is sponsoring Trump's next round at Mar-a-Lago.
by ponchi101 The vast majority of Venezuelans, mostly in FL, voted for him (those that have acquired citizenship, of course). I have had several conversations with some friends and they all say the same: Biden is a communist that will side with Maduro, while Tiny was going to be get Maduro out of the country (Venezuela). Asking for evidence on both claims, and pointing out that Tiny had been president for over 3 years (at the time these conversations took place) and yet Maduro was still in power, I was usually reminded of my condition as an a****le.
So, if he has plans for future political activity, pandering to the gullible Venezuelan crowd in the great state of Cubazuela, may be a start.
Plus what you said about some rich Venezuelan exile* offering some "monetary advice". And if he thinks that he can swindle a Venezuelan operative, man, is he ready for a surprise.
Off Topic
*who is really not an exile but just a Maduro operative that likes to live in a proper place
by ponchi101 In a few hours the transition will be complete.
One thing that I really wish upon all of the people of America is that for the next 4 years, you will not hear the name of the president 24 hours a day. I hope that in a few weeks, if somebody says "Did you see what Joe did?" you will think of cousin Joe, or your friend Joe, or will even get to the point in which you will ask "Which Joe?"
I know that this new forum was started during a time in which there was almost no tennis to talk about, which is what we should be doing. Yet, it is telling that our most visited topic is this one; it is almost 50% of the size of the forum. And I really would love for this to change. If this thread becomes one that gets pruned, I would actually not mind it at all.
It is the same thing that happened in my country. When Chavez took over, there was no other conversation. 22 years later, it is the sole thing Venezuelans talk about. And I hope that pretty soon, you guys will be talking about baseball. The NBA. Where you will be going on vacation, the great little restaurant you found last night.
I hope Joe and Kamala will be as un-intrusive in your lives as reasonably possible.
Thanks for posting this. I'm in Indiana and I logged into my Kroger account. It's real. Also Amazon - verified that, too. Will stop patronizing both if it's not changed in 48 hours.
I tagged Kroger on Twitter asking them to remove this and they said they did. It's gone as an option... for now. Who knows, it might come back when things settle down. I'm going to keep checking. Thanks for the head's up! I also tweeted to Amazon with the same message and hope I can convince my husband to ditch our Prime membership and never use Amazon again if they don't remove it.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:02 pm
In a few hours the transition will be complete.
One thing that I really wish upon all of the people of America is that for the next 4 years, you will not hear the name of the president 24 hours a day. I hope that in a few weeks, if somebody says "Did you see what Joe did?" you will think of cousin Joe, or your friend Joe, or will even get to the point in which you will ask "Which Joe?"
I know that this new forum was started during a time in which there was almost no tennis to talk about, which is what we should be doing. Yet, it is telling that our most visited topic is this one; it is almost 50% of the size of the forum. And I really would love for this to change. If this thread becomes one that gets pruned, I would actually not mind it at all.
It is the same thing that happened in my country. When Chavez took over, there was no other conversation. 22 years later, it is the sole thing Venezuelans talk about. And I hope that pretty soon, you guys will be talking about baseball. The NBA. Where you will be going on vacation, the great little restaurant you found last night.
I hope Joe and Kamala will be as un-intrusive in your lives as reasonably possible.
I really hate that we (Americans) talk about Trump nonstop, even those who hate him. He sucks all the oxygen out of the room. That's actually his gift and his power, and it's his favorite thing. I follow politics but I'm pretty sick of it. It's a gross game. Governance, I love. Politics is nauseating. I will follow Biden's administration.
by GlennHarman I know I may be wrong, but I think that was a Fake Melania by Trump's side this morning getting on Air Force One to go to Florida.
Whoever it was, good riddance to you and that miserable excuse for a man you call your husband!!!!!
At least one of our national nightmares is over. GH
by ponchi101 It was the reason why she was wearing the extra large sunglasses on a cloudy day. Or maybe this was Melanie.
by ti-amie Nope. If she was being even remotely affectionate to Tiny it was a Fake Melania. There are several.
by MJ2004 Sorry, but this is one I don’t buy. She looks like Melania to me.
by ti-amie
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:55 pm
Sorry, but this is one I don’t buy. She looks like Melania to me.
I replied in The Reset thread. Based on that reaction of the woman in Florida it may have been the real Melania.
by ti-amie This is another podcast that runs about an hour but is worth listening to in order to understand the rationale behind how they're treating Tiny.
by ti-amie I dunno. This still looks like one of the Fake Melania's unless real Melania has lost a lot of weight.
And I won't even talk about that...whatever it is she's wearing.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU They are putting the squeeze on Lady G big time. He was huddled with his gas mask for hours with other Senators on January 6th and went on the floor that night and said "I'm out." Since then, he's been the bootlicking sycophant he's been for 3+ years. What happened? He was scared and being real on the 6th realizing what the heck almost happened with the attempted coup and that's not really what he signed up for. And since then, once he became reachable, he's gotten relentless threats of blackmail and it's gotten him to heel.
He's such an embarrassment. He needs to resign since he has no backbone whatsoever to stand up to all this blackmail.
by ponchi101 Tiny remined him, during their golf match, of the skin he has on him. That usually makes people come back to their senses.
by Togtdyalttai Has anyone been following the election results in New York's 22nd Congressional District? It's been a total mess. Oneida County failed to register more than 2000 voters who showed up at the polls and were denied the right to vote. There have been prolonged court battles between the Democratic incumbent, Anthony Brindisi, and the Republican challenger, Claudia Tenney. Tenney currently leads by 29 votes, but a judge ruled just today that over 1000 ballots more must be counted. I think there's a real chance that no one occupies this seat for months yet.
by ponchi101 Something light:
Anthony Fauci just deadpanned (paraphrasing): "Starting yesterday, I am allowed to say when I don't know something".
Then, when somebody asked him, a little later, about the joke, he also deadpanned: "I was serious".
24 hours, and the whole joint is different.
by ti-amie
Zac Petkanas @Zac_Petkanas
900,000 American filed for unemployment last week.
900,000
This is an EMERGENCY
And it needs to be treated like an EMERGENCY by our leaders
by ti-amie The arrests and jailing's are continuing
by ti-amie
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:13 pm
The arrests and jailing's are continuing
Zac Petkanas @Zac_Petkanas
900,000 American filed for unemployment last week.
900,000
This is an EMERGENCY
And it needs to be treated like an EMERGENCY by our leaders
Why Collins is not surprising me with the no right now
by ti-amieJustice Department, FBI debate not charging some of the Capitol rioters
By
Devlin Barrett and
Spencer S. Hsu
Jan. 23, 2021 at 1:21 p.m. EST
Federal law enforcement officials are privately debating whether they should decline to charge some of the individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol this month — a politically loaded proposition but one alert to the practical concern that hundreds of such cases could swamp the local courthouse.
The internal discussions are in their early stages, and no decisions have been reached about whether to forgo charging some of those who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.
Justice Department officials have promised a relentless effort to identify and arrest those who stormed the Capitol that day, but internally there is robust back-and-forth about whether charging them all is the best course of action. That debate comes at a time when officials are keenly sensitive that the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI are at stake in such decisions, given the apparent security and intelligence failures that preceded the riot, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss legal deliberations.
Federal officials estimate that roughly 800 people surged into the building, though they caution that such numbers are imprecise, and the real figure could be 100 people or more in either direction.
Among those roughly 800 people, FBI agents and prosecutors have so far seen a broad mix of behavior — from people dressed for military battle, moving in formation, to wanton vandalism, to simply going with the crowd into the building.
Due to the wide variety of behavior, some federal officials have argued internally that those people who are known only to have committed unlawful entry — and were not engaged in violent, threatening or destructive behavior — should not be charged, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Other agents and prosecutors have pushed back against that suggestion, arguing that it is important to send a forceful message that the kind of political violence and mayhem on display Jan. 6 needs to be punished to the full extent of the law, so as to discourage similar conduct in the future.
There are a host of other factors complicating the discussions, many of which center not around the politics of the riot, but the real-world work of investigators and prosecutors, these people said.
The Justice Department has already charged more than 135 individuals with committing crimes in or around the Capitol building, and many more are expected to be charged in the coming weeks and months. By mid-January, the FBI had already received more than 200,000 tips from the public about the riot, in addition to news footage and police officer testimony.
The primary objective for authorities is to determine which individuals, if any, planned, orchestrated or directed the violence. To that end, the FBI has already found worrying linkages within such extremist groups as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters, and is looking to see if those groups coordinated with each other to storm the building, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Prosecutors have signaled they are looking to bring charges of seditious conspiracy against anyone who planned and carried out violence aimed at the government — a charge that carries a maximum possible prison sentence of 20 years.
But even as Justice Department officials look to bring those types of cases, they privately acknowledge those more determined and dangerous individuals may have operated within a broader sea of people who rushed through the doors but didn’t do much else, and prosecutors will ultimately have to decide if all of those lesser offenders should be charged.
Officials insisted they are not under pressure in regards to timing of decisions about how to handle those type of cases. For one thing, investigators are still gathering evidence, and agents could easily turn up additional photos or online postings that show a person they initially believed was harmless had, in fact, encouraged or engaged in other crimes.
Investigators also expect that some of those charged in the riot will eventually cooperate and provide evidence against others, and that could change their understanding of what certain people said or did that day, these people said.
Nevertheless, these people said, some in federal law enforcement are concerned that charging people solely with unlawful entry, when they are not known to have committed any other bad acts, could lead to losses if they go to trial.
“If an old man says all he did was walk in and no one tried to stop him, and he walked out and no one tried to stop him, and that’s all we know about what he did, that’s a case we may not win,” one official said.
Another official noted most of those arrested so far have no criminal records.
Meanwhile, defense lawyers for some of those charged are contemplating something akin to a “Trump defense” — that the president or other authority figures gave them permission or invited them to commit an otherwise illegal act.
“If you think of yourself as a soldier doing the bidding of the commander in chief, you don’t try to hide your actions. You assume you will be held up as a hero by the nation,” criminal defense lawyers Teri Kanefield and Mark Reichel wrote last week.
Such a defense might not forestall charges but could be effective at trial or sentencing. Trump’s looming impeachment trial in the Senate will also focus further attention on his actions and raise questions about the culpability of followers for the misinformation spread by leaders around bogus election-fraud claims rejected by courts and state voting officials.
“It’s not a like a bunch of people gathered on their own and decided to do this, it’s not like a mob. It’s people who were asked to come by the president, encouraged to come by the president, and encouraged to do what they did by the president and a number of others,” said one attorney representing defendants charged in the breach who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss legal strategy.
Prosecutors have other options. For rioters with no previous criminal records or convictions and whose known behavior inside the Capitol was not violent or destructive, the government could enter into deferred plea agreements, a diversion program akin to pretrial probation in which prosecutors agree to drop charges if a defendant commits no offenses over a certain time period.
Such a resolution would not result in even a misdemeanor conviction, and has been used before in some cases involving individuals with a history of mental illness who were arrested for jumping the White House fence. Criminal defense attorneys note there may be further distinctions between individuals who may have witnessed illegal activity or otherwise had reason to know they were entering a restricted area, and those for whom prosecutors can’t show such awareness.
There is also a question over whether charging all of the rioters could swamp the federal court system. In 2019, D.C. federal courts recorded only about 430 criminal cases, and fewer than 300 last year, when the legal system slowed significantly due to the pandemic. Many of those cases, however, had multiple defendants.
The workload of prosecuting the rioters could be eased if some of the cases were farmed out to other U.S. attorney offices around the country, but so far D.C. prosecutors have shown no interest in doing so. The law generally requires that individuals be prosecuted in the district in which a crime occurred.
“The crime happened here. Prosecutors and judges can see the crime scene from their office windows. I find it strange anyone would suggest it be done anywhere else,” a person familiar with the investigation said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an internal debate.
Beyond all the evidence-gathering and charging decisions left to do, federal officials concede there will likely be some number of people who were there that day and are simply never identified, due to some combination of luck, masks or lack of social media posts.
by Deuce.
As one comment stated - "Either way, it was an uprising"...
by Togtdyalttai I saw that post title and thought we had another spammer...
by Deuce
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:49 pm
I saw that post title and thought we had another spammer...
by ponchi101
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:49 pm
I saw that post title and thought we had another spammer...
Or our first banned person...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Seth Abramson via @sethabramson
WASHINGTON POST (1/19): Federal Law Enforcement Uncovers Massive Early-January Plot to Murder All of Congress; Plotters with Military Backgrounds, Who Had Trained to "Storm the Capitol," Planned to Gas Members of Congress in the Tunnels Beneath the Capitol washingtonpost.com/local/legal-is…
1/ While some members of the criminal conspiracy just uncovered wanted to execute "arrests" for "treason"—defined by the plotters as any meeting to certify Biden's victory—others clearly sought murder, planning to "seal" members of Congress underground and then "turn on the gas."
2/ "A ring of dozens coordinated their movements as they 'stormed the castle' to disrupt the confirmation of President-elect Joe Biden’s electoral college victory."
According to the Washington Post, as many as 30 or 40 plotters may have been involved in the January 6 operation.
3/ Don't be confused by these pro-Trump plotters' willingness to kill all of Congress—their goal was to ensure that Biden was not certified as president, and that the Trump presidency continued. Eliminating Congress would allegedly have given Trump grounds to enact martial law.
4/ It's articles like this one that remind me that we should be very, very wary when Republicans say we already know all we need to know to have a second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The truth is that every day we are learning more about what January 6 was really all about.
5/ Not only did these pro-Trump plotters claim that they'd specifically trained for their storming of the Capitol, but they were in touch with one another through radio communications during their assault on January 6.
These people had a very clear plan they intended to execute.
6/ Rep. Jason Crow made an absolutely critical point today, which is that while Trump's January 6 speech will be critical to his second impeachment trial, his and his agents' acts of incitement following the election were near-daily, and helped produce the January 6 insurrection.
7/ Arguably it might've benefited Trump to have a quick trial focused just on January 6. As it is, by mid-February House managers will be able to put together a historically damning case about everything Trump and his agents did after the November election he lost in a landslide.
8/ With each day, Trump and Giuliani's *coordinated effort* to ensure the attack on the Capitol could go on as long as possible without interruption by the Guard or a statement from the White House is looking more and more suspicious. It's hard to believe they didn't want mayhem.
9/ I understand why this story got buried; it came out hours before Biden became the nation's 46th president, and media—for that matter, America—understandably wanted to experience a moment of good cheer. But now we have to talk about the terrifying truth behind the insurrection.
10/ We must know why Boebert was giving tours to potential insurrectionists the day before the insurrection. We must know why the QAnon Shaman was at Trump's January 4 Georgia rally. And why Trump's political director spoke to Mo Brooks the day before Brooks incited insurrection.
11/ We have to know why "Stop the Steal" activist Ali Alexander says he has info on private Trump calls to Arizona GOP officials—and why the Arizona GOP asked Republicans if they were ready to "die" for Trump. We must know if Stone was in contact with Proud Boys pre-insurrection.
12/ We have to know why Michael Flynn's brother Charles—who is not in the chain of command on January 6—was in the room on that day when the Pentagon refused to send the National Guard to the Capitol to rescue Congress. We have to know who Michael Flynn spoke to pre-insurrection.
13/ We have to know why Rudy Giuliani told the mob on January 6 that he needed them to buy Trump time to gather evidence of election fraud—then called Senator Tuberville in mid-insurrection and asked him to fraudulently challenge *10* states as a strategy to cause a longer delay.
14/ We must know why, as he watched the Capitol be attacked on January 6—threatening Congress and his vice president—Donald Trump was, per various media reports, "pleased," "delighted," "excited," "a little bit happy" and "borderline enthusiastic." What did he think would happen?
15/ In England they still remember the Gunpowder Plot of November 5, 1605—415 years ago. A gang of insurrectionists planned to kill the King and every member of Parliament.
For how long should America remember a plot to kill all of Congress and the vice president at the Capitol?
by ti-amieMitch McConnell’s latest sabotage effort is a scam. He already showed us how.
Opinion by
Greg Sargent
Columnist
Jan. 25, 2021 at 10:54 a.m. EST
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is refusing to allow Democrats to take control of the Senate; in so doing, the minority leader is banking on a twisted convention of political reporting that he knows will play to his advantage.
Specifically, McConnell has calculated that the press will place the onus of achieving bipartisan cooperation on President Biden, while allowing Republicans to cast their own withholding of bipartisan cooperation as proof of Biden’s failure to achieve it.
We know this because we have already seen McConnell operate from this playbook. He has been quite open about how it works. And this fact should shift the way the entire public discussion about McConnell’s strategy proceeds.
McConnell is employing a simple but deceptive scam that has hoodwinked a lot of people for a long time. The central ruse is that McConnell piously holds up the filibuster as a tool for securing bipartisan cooperation.
In reality, however, McConnell himself uses the filibuster in precisely the opposite way: to facilitate the partisan withholding of cooperation to an extraordinary extent, for largely instrumental ends.
McConnell is now locked in a standoff with Senate Democrats. He is demanding that they commit in advance to keeping the legislative filibuster in place as his extortion price for allowing an agreement on the Senate’s operating rules.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has rejected this demand. While it’s unlikely Democrats will end the filibuster as long as moderates such as Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.V.) oppose it, they won’t commit to this up front: They want to preserve this option if McConnell obstructs everything on Biden’s agenda.
The result is that the Senate has largely ground to a halt. Committees remain in GOP control, and the Biden agenda remains to some degree in limbo, with the fate of more controversial nominees and his proposed new economic rescue package remaining uncertain.
The Post has some new reporting on McConnell’s thinking:
The calculations for McConnell, according to Republicans, are simple. Not only is preserving the filibuster a matter that Republicans can unify around, it is something that potentially divides Democrats, who are under enormous pressure to discard it to advance their governing agenda.
“Republicans very much appreciate the consistency and the rock-solid fidelity to the norms and rules that make the Senate a moderating force in policymaking,” said Scott Jennings, a former McConnell aide. “The legislative filibuster is the last rule driving bipartisanship in Washington.”
As it happens, this hasn’t yet “divided” Democrats, who appear united behind the idea that they cannot allow McConnell to bluff them into forgoing their main point of leverage over him.
But if Democrats do need fortifying in this regard, here’s a place to start. When McConnell’s spinners claim that he wants to keep the filibuster to facilitate bipartisanship and moderation, it’s knee-slappingly laughable. McConnell himself has shown us otherwise.
In an interview with journalist Joshua Green in 2011, McConnell explained exactly why he was expanding use of the filibuster and other procedural tactics against even noncontroversial aspects of President Barack Obama’s agenda. He said:
“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.”
This deserves renewed attention in the current context. McConnell’s core insight was that there would be a major downside for Republicans if even a handful of GOP senators reached compromises with a Democratic president — even if the Democratic president made meaningful concessions to them in the process.
That’s because it would bolster the notion that the Democratic president had successfully bridged disagreement with Republicans. McConnell wanted to avoid that outcome, regardless of whether the compromises reached were reasonable or salutary ones by the lights of the crossover Republicans themselves.
In McConnell’s wielding, then, the filibuster facilitated the prevention of outbreaks of bipartisanship. It isn’t just that in many cases it blocked Senate Democrats from governing despite having the majority. It also set up standoffs in which refusing to reach compromises with a Democratic president fulfilled the instrumental goal of casting him as a failed leader.
There is very little doubt that McConnell intends to do the same to Biden wherever possible. In fact, as Brian Beutler suggests, by holding Senate action hostage right now — all to leverage Democrats into unilateral disarmament in the face of future filibustering — McConnell is already doing this.
Indeed, you can see this reflected in the media coverage, which is already demonstrating the success of this strategy and the correctness of the McConnell calculation underlying it. Press accounts regularly describe the current standoff in the Senate as casting doubt solely on Biden’s ability to achieve bipartisan cooperation.
McConnell is not obliged to support a Democratic president’s agenda, of course. And to some degree, Republican opposition to Biden’s agenda will understandably reflect principled disagreement.
But we are not obliged to sugarcoat the full range of McConnell’s motives here, or to pretend that there’s any legitimacy to his saintly insistence that he only wants to keep the filibuster in order to facilitate bipartisanship. He demonstrated the contrary to us himself, in his own words.
by ponchi101 Excluding the obvious person, he is the most dangerous politician in the USA. He simply could not care less about the well being of the country.
by Togtdyalttai
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:43 pm
Excluding the obvious person, he is the most dangerous politician in the USA. He simply could not care less about the well being of the country.
But at least he's not entirely selfish. Everything he does is for the benefit of the Republican Party as opposed to himself and occasionally his family.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:43 pm
Excluding the obvious person, he is the most dangerous politician in the USA. He simply could not care less about the well being of the country.
But at least he's not entirely selfish. Everything he does is for the benefit of the Republican Party as opposed to himself and occasionally his family.
I think his wife and her family handle the grifting. They're into shipping and apparently her father gave Mitch a nice cash gift.
by ponchi101
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:11 pm
But at least he's not entirely selfish. Everything he does is for the benefit of the Republican Party as opposed to himself and occasionally his family.
That is an interesting take. Could you see that from the perspective that as long as he does all this, he remains in charge of the republican party, and the selfishness is recursive?
Splitting hairs, I know. You view is highly probable.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie More wolves in sheep's clothing.
by ponchi101 Who are the wolves here? There are three tweets imbedded.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:30 am
Who are the wolves here? There are three tweets imbedded.
These folks explain it better than I can.
NYU Primatology
@nyuprimatology
Replying to @CantlonLab
Life is a living hell for tenured Harvard full-professor heavily-published millionaire Steven Pinker.
Bryan Campen @bryancampen
I can’t get over the fact that they blame Black people in the very first sentence. Talk about not keeping your powder dry.
Dr. Gordon B Schmidt
@iopsychologyReplying to @CantlonLab and @Ivuoma
Worth noting is that he set that post to only "People he follows or mentioned can reply." So just the 64 he followed can even respond.
Xeni Jardin @xeni
Replying to
@CantlonLab
Jeffrey Epstein’s friend and defender.
by ponchi101 Wow. I find it hard to go against Pinker.
And, all the replies are about him being a Harvard Professor OR his lifestyle, not the subject.
Will look a bit more into it, before forming an opinion.
by ponchi101 I will stay out of this subject in particular. Way to biased to write a proper opinion. counterweight.
by dryrunguy Sidebar: We all knew this already, but Sarah Huckabee Sanders has officially announced her candidacy for the governor of Arkansas.
by dryrunguy Now, about Pinker.
No one is perfect. Including Pinker. Dawkins has his well-documented issues. Sam Harris is riddled with all sorts of problems. We can admire these big brains for what they get right while also raising our eyebrows when they say something like this. No one should be put on an unquestionable pedestal, and when they step far outside of their realm of expertise, such as this case, we most certainly should not greet their words with deference on a bended knee. They have earned our respect, but they haven't earned that.
by Suliso
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:13 am
Now, about Pinker.
No one is perfect. Including Pinker. Dawkins has his well-documented issues. Sam Harris is riddled with all sorts of problems. We can admire these big brains for what they get right while also raising our eyebrows when they say something like this. No one should be put on an unquestionable pedestal, and when they step far outside of their realm of expertise, such as this case, we most certainly should not greet their words with deference on a bended knee. They have earned our respect, but they haven't earned that.
Could I endorse that 2x?
by mmmm8
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:13 am
Now, about Pinker.
No one is perfect. Including Pinker. Dawkins has his well-documented issues. Sam Harris is riddled with all sorts of problems. We can admire these big brains for what they get right while also raising our eyebrows when they say something like this. No one should be put on an unquestionable pedestal, and when they step far outside of their realm of expertise, such as this case, we most certainly should not greet their words with deference on a bended knee. They have earned our respect, but they haven't earned that.
I completely agree with this high-level but I do think sometimes it undermines their actual work when they come out with not just a stupid thought but something THAT blatantly racist and then not only state the thought but position themselves to be an activist about it. It makes me question the efficacy of their work, particularly when their work has to do with the related issue (i.e. Pinker and psychology/sociology).
by ponchi101 Has anybody visited the website? Read their Mission and Values?
Like in so many occasions, the tweet is being taken as if nothing more has been said. And although it does come from Pinker (the tweet), he is not alone in that organization. There are other very interesting people there. And the statement is not his, it is the organization's statement.
And, sorry. Pinker is not stepping out of his realm of expertise. The Blank Slate deals very much in this subject, as does Enlightenment Now.
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:20 pm
Has anybody visited the website? Read their Mission and Values?
Like in so many occasions, the tweet is being taken as if nothing more has been said. And although it does come from Pinker (the tweet), he is not alone in that organization. There are other very interesting people there. And the statement is not his, it is the organization's statement.
And, sorry. Pinker is not stepping out of his realm of expertise. The Blank Slate deals very much in this subject, as does Enlightenment Now.
I have visited it now... I find the mission statement and their other philosophical musings contradictory and (inadvertently?) showing racism and some other isms, particularly in the suggestion that members of disadvantaged groups who fight for social justice don't know what's best for them. I also find the capitalization of "Critical Social Justice" really pretty frustrating because they're making it out to be some sort of organized movement that's the enemy of humanism....
Looks like Pinker isn't directly associated with them...
I was actually saying this IS in Pinker's realm of expertise which is why his other work can be judged more harshly because of this (whereas, say, Wagner's anti-semitism doesn't reflect on the quality of his music).
by ponchi101 In the WHO WE ARE section he is listed as an academic affiliate. He is not listed as part of the CW team.
by dryrunguy I'd like to point out that NOT ONE person of color is represented on the CW Team at their website. I see a few on their academic affiliates, but the paucity of people of color within the core organization itself pretty much tells me everything I need to know.
And for the record, just because a person is an academic with expertise in psychology and sociology does not by any stretch of the imagination suggest that a person is an expert in system racism or any of the other isms social justice is really about. Social justice grew out of many other social movements, including suffrage, civil rights, LGBT rights, feminism, etc. Each one of those movement encountered resistance, including resistance from those within the academic community. Each one of those movements was met with "I support equal rights for all, but now you've gone too far!" The best case in point... Feminism by and large rejected intersectional feminism (routinely beginning their statements with phrases like, "As a feminist scholar, I [finish with dismissive statement...]" to protect White Feminism. Acknowledging the lived experience and lived expertise of women of color (and transwomen) was too inconvenient and simply asking for too much.
And that is exactly what is happening here. The very fact that they lump social justice, political correctness, and cancel culture together--each one of those being dog whistles in and of themselves for certain audiences--is far too telling. Furthermore, the impetus for this group, according to their own words on their own website, was the aftermath of George Floyd's death.
Um, no thanks. I'll pass.
by ponchi101 If you look at the ACADEMIC AFFILIATEs, you find: 4 POC, both men and women. 1 person of Asian ascent. 5 more women. Lack of diversity this group does not have.
Let me ask you a serious question. I promise I am not putting you on. Assume I accuse you of being ANTI-Feminist because you ARE NOT supporting an organization in which 5 of the 6 main personnel (including the founder and leader) are women. Personally, we know that is ludicrous (we are well aware of where you stand there). We would make that call based simply in the statement you are making above, as opposed to looking at the entire story of your statements and the logic of your postings. Wouldn't that be unfair?
Look at the Tweets that started this conversation. None (there were very few) said anything about the STATEMENT that was posted; they all focused on Pinker's status and comfortable life. That is usually a clear sign of not having a real position: attack the person, not the statement.
One more. You claim: "just because a person is an academic with expertise in psychology and sociology does not by any stretch of the imagination suggest that a person is an expert in system racism or any of the other isms social justice is really about". Sure. And it does not discredit them from being an expert either. It cuts both ways. These are some of the credentials of this group:
"...With an academic background in late medieval/early modern women’s religious writing"
"...would like to discover alternative solutions to social justice issues to help individuals to build more compassionate, understanding, and unified workplaces"
"...is a licensed clinical social worker in private practice in the Washington D.C. area"
"...While in Parliament, she focused on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society, and on defending the rights of Muslim women."
"...Born in Pakistan, xxxxx spent her early youth as a practicing Muslim, leaving religion in her late teens. Since 2016, she has advocated for the acceptance of religious dissent as Executive Director of Ex-Muslims of North America"
"...Recent observations of contemporary social justice activism have taught xxx that much anti-racist activism is either the effect of pre-established disempowerment or the cause of further disempowerment of the very groups such activism is meant to benefit"
"...As a journalist, she writes about the science and politics of human sexuality and gender, free speech, and censorship in academia."
"...Her books include Modern Motherhood and Women’s Dual Identities: Rewriting the Sexual Contract "
"...urges the importance of compassion, curiosity, and honesty in order to understand not only those we disagree with better but ourselves."
These people do not sound like our enemy. At worst, they are simply presenting a different view. At best, they make sense and have a point.
by Suliso I find it difficult to disagree with ponchi here, albeit admittedly I can't be bothered to delve into qualifications and policy statements of this particular organization.
by Suliso Having written the post above I realized that I have heard of one of the people involved. Sarah Haider is a rather prominent atheist activist of Muslim descent.
But let me also post an answer to one question in full (because I like the answer obviously). Do note (in case it matters to you) that the answer is from a Pakistani woman not a white American man.
How do politicians react to your commitment to apostates?
Historically, godlessness has always been a left-wing issue in the US, and it still is today. But the concerns of ex-Muslims occupy a very strange place. Our concerns receive real attention from only two groups: atheists and xenophobes. 95% of our ex-Muslim supporters position themselves centre-left. But unfortunately we receive hardly any encouragement from this part of the political spectrum.
Part of the reticence may be due to the fact that the USA is still a very religious country. However, membership in religious communities is declining, and faithlessness is slowly becoming socially acceptable in politics as well. And the knowledge about the difficult situation for ex-Muslims is constantly increasing. On the other hand, identity politics is becoming increasingly important.
Representatives of identity politics often regard religiousness as an unchangeable characteristic. Yet by our mere existence we ex-Muslims prove that one’s world view is something dynamic and that you can pursue a whole bouquet of ideas. By the way, it will be exciting to see what influence the gender debate will have on identity politics, which in many respects starts out from the immutability of characteristics, but emphasises fluidity in gender.
A further challenge is the tendency in the West to see the West as being shaped by reason, while the East is seen as a place of cultural tradition and superstition. This is what people on both sides of the political spectrum do, but the left is hardly aware of it. Representatives of the Democrats hardly entertain the idea of defending the rigid dress code of Mormons. Anti-women customs were omnipresent in Victorian culture, but no one is demanding that we should continue to follow them. Regarding the hijab, on the other hand, many on the left argue that veiling is a legitimate element of Muslim culture, that it is part of the tradition and should therefore be considered important today.
Many activists on the left assume that the injustices in Muslim countries are primarily or even exclusively a consequence of Western intervention, which is regarded as a kind of original sin. This reductive explanation only holds if these countries are understood as being shaped by tradition, and not by reason and by inhabitants with their own individual will to act. This is ultimately just as racist as when Muslims on the political right are portrayed as uncivilised barbarians who are incapable of forming functioning societies.
The open racism from the right often leads to a further insinuation on the left: that ex-Muslims only give up their religion because it has such a bad reputation as a result of right-wing hatred. That is outrageously presumptuous, ex-Muslims are simply not perceived as autonomously acting people.
So, political work is extremely challenging, ex-Muslims often do not fit in with either the left or the right, and our two-party system makes it even more difficult to be heard.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:10 pm
These people do not sound like our enemy. At worst, they are simply presenting a different view. At best, they make sense and have a point.
Agree with this 100%.
As for the question you posed to me, I would, indeed, be anti-feminist if I dismissed this organization BECAUSE so much of its executive leadership consists of women. But this group's primary purpose is not to promote feminism (nor would I bet they are particularly interested in intersectional feminism, though I could be completely wrong about that). Instead, their primary purpose is to invalidate social justice activism that isn't done the way they like; to advance the myth of political correctness; and to lament the degree to which they have been "injured" by cancel culture. I just can't get on board with that.
But that is not to say that these people do not possess extraordinary academic credentials. Of course they do. But their only academic credentials in the field of social justice are writing paper after paper trying to dismiss and silence it. Essentially, they want to "cancel" social justice activism that inconveniences them or reduces their social or academic power.
::
M8 made a great point before that I don't want to get lost. This tiny group of white people leading this organization want me to believe they know what's best for people of color and ending systemic racism than people of color themselves. I am highly suspicious of any man who claims to know what's best for women--better than women. I'll be suspicious of any white person who claims to know more about racism than people of color. I'll be suspicious of any cisgender person who claims to know more about transgender issues than transpeople themselves. You can study something to death, and academic study has value. No question. But academic study cannot replace the value gained via lived experience. Empathy helps, but it only gets you so far.
::
I'll close with this. I'm sure I have used this phrase before in the TATosphere, but here it goes again. From the hand of Hanna Rosin who wrote an exceptional piece following that Catcalling video we discussed years ago: "Activism is never perfectly executed." That's true for social justice warriors; it's also true for those who oppose them and everyone in the middle. CW is probably yet another example of that principle in real-time practice. I don't think any of them are bad people. And we know they care about racial inequality and want to address it--that's noble.
But when they insist it be done on their terms? Again, no thanks. I'd rather send money to the Black Girl Dangerous blog.
by ponchi101 It is one area in which you and I disagree, and I once used myself as an example: I cannot be deemed the final judge about things Venezuelan simply because I am one. That same fact may stop me from completely being properly focused and seeing options in an unbiased way.
And reading their website I did not get the feeling that they "insist" things must be done on their terms.
I guess there is a lot to sleep over, and give it time to marinate.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:55 am
It is one area in which you and I disagree, and I once used myself as an example: I cannot be deemed the final judge about things Venezuelan simply because I am one. That same fact may stop me from completely being properly focused and seeing options in an unbiased way.
And reading their website I did not get the feeling that they "insist" things must be done on their terms.
I guess there is a lot to sleep over, and give it time to marinate.
Marinating is good.
I'll just add one ingredient to your marinade that I thought about getting into before--but held off... And that's about the inherent flaws/shortcomings of academia. They are profound, in large part because mainstream academia hasn't even bothered to study many of the issues of profound importance to people of color or other marginalized groups. Yes, academia has done a fine job with poverty, health disparities, and some issues. But things like institutional/systemic racism, the unique challenges facing women of color, the unique plight of LGBT people of color... Mainstream academia could not possibly care any less. The only people trying to study those issues are people of color who struggle to get funding, struggle to get published, and struggle to get heard. And White Academia has done virtually nothing to support this area of research.
That would be another reason why I am skeptical of academics who throw around terms like "scientific" and "evidence-based" when it comes to matters where they have never expressed an interest in increasing the body of evidence, supporting the increase in the body of evidence, and instead chose Fast Forward to dismiss it. That's a thing.
by ti-amieHomeland security bulletin warns Americans about violence by grievance-fueled domestic extremists
By
Nick Miroff
Jan. 27, 2021 at 12:54 p.m. EST
The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning Wednesday to alert the public about a growing risk of attacks by “ideologically-motivated violent extremists” agitated about President Biden’s inauguration and “perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”
DHS periodically issues such advisories through its National Terrorism Advisory System, but the warnings have typically been generated by elevated concerns about attacks by foreign governments or radical groups, not domestic extremists.
In a statement, the department said the purpose of the new bulletin was to warn the public about a “heightened threat environment” across the United States “that is likely to persist over the coming weeks.”
The bulletin is a lesser-status warning designed to alert the public about general risks, rather than an imminent attack linked to a specific threat.
“DHS does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot; however, violent riots have continued in recent days and we remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances and ideological causes fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence,” the statement read.
The most recent bulletins DHS has issued — both this month — warned the public about an elevated threat from Iran. No other bulletin in recent years has been issued to alert Americans about violence by domestic extremists.
“Throughout 2020, Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) targeted individuals with opposing views engaged in First Amendment-protected, nonviolent protest activity,” the bulletin states. “DVEs motivated by a range of issues, including anger over covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force have plotted and on occasion carried out attacks against government facilities.”
It added: “DHS is concerned these same drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some DVEs may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.”
The new bulletin will remain in place through April 30.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:49 am Marinating is good.
I'll just add one ingredient to your marinade that I thought about getting into before--but held off... And that's about the inherent flaws/shortcomings of academia. They are profound, in large part because mainstream academia hasn't even bothered to study many of the issues of profound importance to people of color or other marginalized groups. Yes, academia has done a fine job with poverty, health disparities, and some issues. But things like institutional/systemic racism, the unique challenges facing women of color, the unique plight of LGBT people of color... Mainstream academia could not possibly care any less. The only people trying to study those issues are people of color who struggle to get funding, struggle to get published, and struggle to get heard. And White Academia has done virtually nothing to support this area of research.
That would be another reason why I am skeptical of academics who throw around terms like "scientific" and "evidence-based" when it comes to matters where they have never expressed an interest in increasing the body of evidence, supporting the increase in the body of evidence, and instead chose Fast Forward to dismiss it. That's a thing.
Yes it is
I was very interested in your post. I find it, not an attack on academia, but certainly not supportive of the institution. So, I have two questions:
1. If we do not support "scientific and evidence based" analysis of the issues, and perhaps the reaching of conclusions based on those methods, what methods to use? Empirical? Non-evidence based? Assume that your assertion that "they have never expressed an interest" in these issues (bold above) is correct and true. If they are now expressing such interest, isn't that progress? Should we not, at least explore those venues?
2. What if this group is the one that is right? Or do we depart from the default mode that they are wrong, and CANNOT be correct? Wouldn't we be, in doing so, proving them right? The PC, CSJ position is so entrenched that we cannot even discuss (or they cannot offer) a position in which we question the actions innate to PC/CSJ? To me, it becomes borderline Gödelian: CW, an organization that questions Cancel Culture, has to be declared irrelevant a priori and their position must be cancelled and not heard of because they go against PC/CSJ/Cancel Culture as part of their platform.
I find academia to have something that very few other institutions can claim: a verifiable track record of progress over the time-span of its existence (universities since their foundations). If I were a betting man, I would not bet against our methods. So far, they have been very successful.
Off Topic
I left half the stew marinating some more. I am, to say the least, very interested in your position.
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:03 am
Here are the top states for gun sales in 2020
State Total gun sales in 2020
Illinois 7,455,065
Kentucky 3,330,462
Texas 2,235,281
Indiana 1,935,587
Florida 1,912,204
California 1,601,054
Pennsylvania 1,452,921
Utah 1,216,773
^ The only reason Texas is way down in 3rd place is because everyone there already has 5 guns, and so they buy less.
I think a survey of the number of gun owners per capita in each state would have Texas as the runaway winner.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:26 am
Illinois has a population of 12.74 MM. So, roughly, 6 out of every 10 people in Illinois bought a firearm in 2020.
No reason for concern, right?
^ 6 out of 10 people bought a gun legally in Illinois in 2020.
Factor in underground gun sales, and it probably goes up to 12 people out of every 10 bought a gun in 2020!
by the Moz If only US gun crazies were as enthusiastic in defending their Constitution's other 26 amendments they'd be getting somewhere
by ponchi101
the Moz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:36 am
If only US gun crazies were as enthusiastic in defending their Constitution's other 26 amendments they'd be getting somewhere
Illinois has a population of 12.74 MM. So, roughly, 6 out of every 10 people in Illinois bought a firearm in 2020.
No reason for concern, right?
More likely is that a few hundred thousand people bought 12+ guns.
by ti-amie I am not an AOC fan by any stretch of the imagination. In this I am in total agreement with her though.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Elon Musk has more than a passing interest in restrictions being put on trades. This is a long but very good history of what happened and his role in it. This is the format I received this in. I viewed it in my browser.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy [/quote]
Yes it is
I was very interested in your post. I find it, not an attack on academia, but certainly not supportive of the institution. So, I have two questions:
1. If we do not support "scientific and evidence based" analysis of the issues, and perhaps the reaching of conclusions based on those methods, what methods to use? Empirical? Non-evidence based? Assume that your assertion that "they have never expressed an interest" in these issues (bold above) is correct and true. If they are now expressing such interest, isn't that progress? Should we not, at least explore those venues?
2. What if this group is the one that is right? Or do we depart from the default mode that they are wrong, and CANNOT be correct? Wouldn't we be, in doing so, proving them right? The PC, CSJ position is so entrenched that we cannot even discuss (or they cannot offer) a position in which we question the actions innate to PC/CSJ? To me, it becomes borderline Gödelian: CW, an organization that questions Cancel Culture, has to be declared irrelevant a priori and their position must be cancelled and not heard of because they go against PC/CSJ/Cancel Culture as part of their platform.
I find academia to have something that very few other institutions can claim: a verifiable track record of progress over the time-span of its existence (universities since their foundations). If I were a betting man, I would not bet against our methods. So far, they have been very successful.
Off Topic
I left half the stew marinating some more. I am, to say the least, very interested in your position.
[/quote]
I apologize for not being around the last 24 hours or so. Work interfered.
I am still marinating myself and struggling to articulate a response that actually makes sense. My apologies. But I am not ignoring you.
by ti-amie
You can also get blackballed for taking a knee in silent protest but I digress...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie I've been retired for a few years but when I was working if anyone threatened harm to a co worker they'd be out of a job. The party doing business as the GOP has a problem. Instead of rushing down to Perv-a Lago to kiss Tiny's, uh, ring, McCarthy needs to handle the problems this woman is creating. Speaker Pelosi moved to protect her caucus member. It's all she can do.
by mmmm8
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:21 pm
I've been retired for a few years but when I was working if anyone threatened harm to a co worker they'd be out of a job. The party doing business as the GOP has a problem. Instead of rushing down to Perv-a Lago to kiss Tiny's, uh, ring, McCarthy needs to handle the problems this woman is creating. Speaker Pelosi moved to protect her caucus member. It's all she can do.
Right? Any organization wort its salt (including TAT) has some sort of Code of Conduct and this type of conduct is an immediately fireable offense.
I hope Cori Bush is getting a better and bigger office.
by ponchi101 Serious question again. What is the role of the famous SARGENT AT ARMS, and the CAPITOL POLICE? Are these people nothing more than glorified eunuchs?
by ti-amieTen Senate Republicans propose compromise covid relief package, posing challenge for Biden
Move by GOP senators led by Susan Collins comes as Democrats prepare to go forward quickly with Biden package without Republican support
By
Erica Werner,
Jeff Stein and
Seung Min Kim
Jan. 31, 2021 at 1:22 p.m. EST
Ten Republican senators announced plans Sunday to release an approximately $600 billion coronavirus relief package as a counterproposal to President Biden’s $1.9 trillion plan, posing a test for the new president who campaigned as a bipartisan dealmaker.
The senators, led by Susan Collins (R-Maine), said they would formally unveil the package on Monday. In a letter to Biden, they requested to meet with him and said they were offering their proposal in recognition of his “calls for unity.”
“We want to work in good faith with you and your administration to meet the health, economic and societal challenges of the covid crisis,” they wrote.
Their move comes as Democrats prepare to move forward on Monday to set up a partisan path forward for Biden’s relief bill, which Republicans have dismissed as overly costly given some $4 trillion Congress has already committed to fighting the pandemic, including $900 billion in December.
The GOP proposal jettisons certain elements that have drawn Republican opposition, such as increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
It would also reduce the size of a new round of checks Biden wants to send to Americans, from $1,400 per individual to $1,000 — while significantly reducing the income limits that determine eligibility for the stimulus payments.
A $600 billion plan that is a fraction of the size of Biden’s proposal is unlikely to draw much if any Democratic support. However, the GOP offer presents a challenge for Biden, who campaigned on promises to unify Congress and the country and must decide whether to ignore the GOP overture or make a genuine effort to find common ground across the aisle.
Top Biden economic adviser Brian Deese said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the White House had received the Republicans’ letter and would review it. But he emphasized that speed was of the essence, and refused to say whether Biden was open to entertaining a smaller overall price tag.
“The president is uncompromising when it comes to the speed that we need to act at to address this crisis,” Deese said.
“The provisions of the president’s plan, the American Rescue Plan, are calibrated to the economic crisis that we face,” Deese said.
The White House is pushing its plan amid signs of a broader economic slowdown and a continued wave of enormously high unemployment claims of close to 1 million a week. The emergence in the United States of highly transmissible coronavirus variants has also intensified fears that another wave of shutdowns will be necessary.
Because the Senate is split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, it is significant that Republicans assembled 10 lawmakers to get behind the proposal. That means that, if Democrats were to join them, they could reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to pass legislation under regular Senate procedures.
Democrats are planning to skirt the 60-vote requirement using special budget rules that would allow the Biden package to pass with a simple majority vote. Democrats control the Senate because Vice President Harris can cast tie-breaking votes.
Democratic aides said the GOP proposal would not change their plans to move forward with the budget bill this week that would set the stage for party-line passage of Biden’s plan.
“The key to getting robust job opportunities is to cease any delay, any inaction, any wait-and-see around this rescue plan,” Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The American people could not care less about budget process. … They need relief and they need it now,” Bernstein said.
Biden’s plan would send $1,400 payments to individuals with incomes up to $75,000 per year, and couples making up to $150,000.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), one of the signers of the letter, said the GOP plan would lower those thresholds to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples. Instead of $1,400 checks, the GOP plan would propose $1,000 checks, according to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), another member of the group.
The GOP plan would also reduce Biden’s proposal for extending emergency federal unemployment benefits, which are set at $300 a week and will expire in mid-March. The Biden plan would increase those benefits to $400 weekly and extend them through September. The GOP plan would keep the payments at $300 per week and extend them through June, according to three people with knowledge of the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity ahead of an official announcement.
Portman criticized Democrats for their plans to go it alone, saying this approach would “jam Republicans and really jam the country.”
The signers of the letter include eight Republican senators who are part of a bipartisan group that has conferred with Biden administration officials about the relief bill. In addition to Collins, Portman, and Cassidy, these are Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Todd C. Young (Ind.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Jerry Moran (Kan.). Also signing were Mike Rounds (S.D.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.).
Cassidy strongly criticized Biden for not soliciting broader input from senators in both parties. Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Cassidy said the Republican package amounted to $600 billion and was “targeted to the needs of the American people.”
Cassidy also said Biden’s push to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour would cost millions of jobs.
“You don’t want bipartisanship. You want the patina of bipartisanship. … The president’s team did not reach out to anybody in our group, either Democrat or Republican, when they fashioned their proposal,” Cassidy said. “They’ve never reached out to us — that’s the beginning of the bad faith.”
The $900 billion relief bill Congress passed in December included $600 stimulus payments to individuals. Biden’s plan to issue a new round of $1,400 checks would bring that figure to $2,000 — making good on promises he and other Democrats made that helped the party win two Senate seats in Georgia in early January. Those victories gave Democrats the majority in the Senate, and Democrats including the two new senators from Georgia have insisted they must make good on those promises.
“The entire Democratic Party came together behind the candidates in Georgia — we made promises to the American people,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on ABC. “If politics means anything — if you’re going to have any degree of credibility — you can’t campaign on a series of issues … and then change your mind. That’s not how it works. We made promises to the American people; we’re going to keep those promises.”
In addition to a new round of checks, a higher minimum wage and increased unemployment benefits, Biden’s plan includes rental assistance and eviction forbearance, an increased child tax credit, some $130 billion to help schools reopen, hundreds of billions of dollars for cities and states, and $160 billion for a national vaccination plan, more testing and public health jobs.
Money for vaccinations — which Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell said recently was key to helping the economy — has emerged as the one real area of bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill. The GOP plan would match Biden’s call to devote $160 billion to vaccines, testing and related health-care spending.
“With your support, we believe Congress can once again craft a relief package that will provide meaningful, effective assistance to the American people and set us on a path to recovery,” the GOP senators wrote.
by ti-amie I remember all the attempts made by the GOP to reach out to Democrats when they passed their tax cuts for the .01%. And of course SC justices.
/sarcasm
by ti-amieAfter Record Turnout, Republicans Are Trying to Make It Harder to Vote
The presidential election results are settled. But the battle over new voting rules, especially for mail-in ballots, has just begun.
By Michael Wines
Jan. 30, 2021
WASHINGTON — In Georgia, Arizona and other states won by President Biden, some leading Republicans stood up in November to make what, in any other year, would be an unremarkable statement: The race is over. And we lost, fair and square.
But that was then. Now, in statehouses nationwide, Republicans who echoed former President Donald J. Trump’s baseless claims of rampant fraud are proposing to make it harder to vote next time — ostensibly to convince the very voters who believed them that elections can be trusted again. And even some colleagues who defended the legitimacy of the November vote are joining them.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, state legislators have filed 106 bills to tighten election rules, generally making it harder to cast a ballot — triple the number at this time last year. In short, Republicans who for more than a decade have used wildly inflated allegations of voter fraud to justify making it harder to vote, are now doing so again, this time seizing on Mr. Trump’s thoroughly debunked charges of a stolen election to push back at Democratic-leaning voters who flocked to mail-in ballots last year.
In Georgia, where the State House of Representatives has set up a special committee on election integrity, legislators are pushing to roll back no-excuse absentee voting. Republicans in Pennsylvania plan 14 hearings to revisit complaints they raised last year about the election and to propose limitations on voting.
Arizona Republicans have subpoenaed November’s ballots and vote tabulation equipment in Maricopa County, a Democratic stronghold that includes Phoenix. Legislators are taking aim at an election system in which four in five ballots are mailed or delivered to drop boxes.
Those and other proposals underscore the continuing power of Mr. Trump’s campaign to delegitimize the November election, even as some of his administration’s top election experts call the vote the most secure in history. And they reflect longstanding Republican efforts to push back against efforts to expand the ability to vote.
Democrats have their own agenda: 406 bills in 35 states, according to the Brennan Center, that run the gamut from giving former felons the vote to automatically registering visitors to motor vehicle bureaus and other state offices. And Democrats in the Senate will soon unveil a large proposal to undergird much of the election process with what they call pro-democracy reforms, with lowering barriers to voting as the centerpiece. Near-identical legislation has been filed in the House.
“There’s going to be a rush in the next year to legislate certain types of election reforms,” said Nate Persily, a Stanford University law professor and co-director of the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project. “The jury is still out on whether the lesson from this election will be that we need to make voting as convenient as possible, or whether there will be a serious retrenchment that makes voting less accessible.”
In truth, who controls a given legislature will largely decide what chances a bill has.
In the 23 states wholly run by Republicans, Democratic bills expanding ballot access are largely dead on arrival. The same is true of Republican proposals to restrict ballot access in the 15 states completely controlled by Democrats.
But in some states where legislators’ control and interests align, the changes could be consequential.
In Arizona, where Democrats captured a second Senate seat and Mr. Biden eked out a 10,500-vote victory, lawmakers are taking aim at an election system in which absentee ballots have long been dominant.
One bill would repeal the state’s no-excuse absentee ballot law. Others would pare back automatic mailings of absentee ballots to the 3.2 million voters who have signed up for the service. One ardent advocate of the stolen-election conspiracy theory, State Representative Kevin Payne of Maricopa County, would require that signatures on all mail ballots be notarized, creating an impossibly high bar for most voters. Yet another bill, paradoxically, would require early ballots that are mailed to voters to be delivered by hand.
In Georgia, where Mr. Biden won by fewer than 12,000 votes, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Gov. Brian Kemp, both Republicans, have repeatedly defended the election results. The two are nevertheless supporting stricter voting requirements.
A proposal by Republicans in the State Senate to eliminate no-excuse absentee ballots — a quarter of the five million votes cast in November — has drawn opposition even before it has been filed. But Republicans broadly support a bill to require submitting a photocopied identification card such as a driver’s license with both applications for absentee ballots and the ballots themselves. Mr. Raffensperger has said he supports that measure and another to make it easier to challenge a voter’s legitimacy at the polls.
Brian Robinson, a Republican political consultant in Atlanta, said, “The overall purpose of these reforms is to restore faith in our election systems.” He added, “That’s not to say that it was a giant failure; that’s to say that faith has been diminished.”
He allowed that Mr. Trump’s false charges of fraud “drives a lot of the loss of faith among Republicans,” but he also took aim at Democrats, noting that the Democrat who lost the 2018 governor’s race, Stacey Abrams, also had refused to concede, saying voter suppression had caused an “erosion of our democracy.”
“Both sides have dipped their toes in those waters,” he said.
But it’s clear that Republicans are now dipping much more than their toes. Democrats and some voting-rights advocates say the Republican agenda on voting is less about lost trust than lost elections. A Republican election official in suburban Atlanta said as much this month, arguing for tougher voting laws that reduce turnout after Democratic candidates won both of the state’s Senate seats in runoffs.
“They don’t have to change all of them,” said Alice O’Lenick, who heads the Gwinnett County Board of Registrations and Elections, “but they have got to change the major parts of them so we at least have a shot at winning.”
Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer who led legal battles against restrictive voting rules last year, said the reason for the state’s voting-law crackdown was transparent. “These were elections that withstood the scrutiny of two recounts, an audit and a whole lot of attention in the political arena and the courts,” he said. “The only reason they’re doing this is to make voting harder because they didn’t like the results. And that’s shameful.”
Indeed, a handful of bills seem to make no bones about their partisan goals. One Arizona proposal would give the Legislature the power to decide presidential elections by overriding the secretary of state’s certification of electoral votes.
Bills in Arizona, Mississippi and Wisconsin would end the practice of awarding all electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the statewide vote. Instead, they would be allotted according to votes in congressional districts — which in Republican states are generally gerrymandered to favor Republicans. In Arizona, the Legislature also would choose two electors.
In the last election, the moves would have reduced Mr. Biden’s electoral vote total by 11 votes.
Nebraska, on the other hand, would do the reverse with a similar partisan outcome: The state now awards presidential electors by congressional district, but legislation would move the state to the winner-take-all system. One of Nebraska’s three House districts voted for Mr. Biden in November.
Even Republicans in states where the November election was not close are proposing to tighten voting laws. In Texas, a state with perhaps the nation’s strictest voting rules and one of the lowest levels of turnout, the state party has declared “election integrity” the top legislative priority. Among other proposals, legislators want to cut the time allotted for early voting, limit outsiders’ ability to help voters fill out ballots and require new voters to prove they are citizens.
Republicans who control the Pennsylvania Legislature have mounted one of the most aggressive campaigns, even though any laws they enact probably would have to weather a veto by the state’s Democratic governor.
A handful of Republican state lawmakers want to abolish no-excuse absentee voting only 15 months after the Legislature approved it in an election-law package backed by all but two of its 134 G.O.P. members who cast votes. The main supporter of the bill, State Senator Doug Mastriano, has claimed that Mr. Biden’s victory in the state is illegitimate, and spent thousands of dollars to bus protesters to the Jan. 6 demonstration that ended in the assault on the Capitol.
Rolling back the law appears a long shot. But there seems to be strong Republican support for other measures, including eliminating drop boxes for absentee ballots, discarding mail-in ballots with technical errors and ending a grace period for receiving ballots mailed by Election Day.
State Representative Seth Grove, the Republican chair of the committee holding 14 hearings into election practices, said at the initial gathering on Jan. 21 that he was not interested in dwelling on the 2020 election. “We want a better process going forward, and we’re committed to that,’’ Mr. Grove said.
But at that hearing, legislators grilled Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, for three hours on her emailed guidance to county election officials before the Nov. 3 vote.
In an interview, Ms. Boockvar said the purpose of the hearings was to further undermine voters’ confidence in democracy and to “lay the groundwork for disenfranchisement.’’
“We are at a watershed, and we have a choice to make right now,” she said. “Acknowledge the truth — have public, vocal, strong support for the strength and resilience of our democracy. Or we can continue to perpetuate the lies.”
In Washington, a Democratic agenda can be seen in the latest version of a far-ranging elections and voting bill that passed the House last year but died in the Republican-controlled Senate.
This time, the Democrat-controlled Senate will file its own version, with committee hearings expected in February.
Its voting provisions include allowing automatic and same-day voter registration, 15 days of early voting, no-excuse voting by mail, and online voter registration, as well as the restoration of voting rights nationwide to felons who complete their sentences. In one fell swoop, it would set minimum standards for American federal elections that would erase a host of procedural barriers to casting a ballot.
It also would require the states to appoint independent and nonpartisan commissions to draw political boundaries, eliminating the profusion of gerrymanders that the Supreme Court said in 2019 were beyond its authority to control.
Few expect much chance of passage in a deeply divided Senate, but the Democratic leaders in both houses have made it the first bill of the new congressional session, a statement that — symbolically, at least — it is the first priority of the new Democratic majority.
Whether any of it goes beyond symbolism remains to be seen.
by ponchi101 These are the same people that then go and claim that the USA is "The greatest democracy on Earth".
What a joke.
by the Moz
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:44 am
These are the same people that then go and claim that the USA is "The greatest democracy on Earth".
What a joke.
Absolutely, but the joke really really really really really isn't funny anymore
by JazzNU Tip of the iceberg, but in case you're unaware of how deranged the thinking of Q is, a little detail on what they believe. There's been a lot of reporting on it in the last few days on their crazy ideas, in addition to what we heard after the insurrection.
by ponchi101 Silly thought.
Can the REST of the USA go like "even crazier" and start spreading even weirder news about the GOP, to the most extreme, to see if the Q Anon people start seeing how insane their positions are? You know, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
"Mitch McConnell went to the bathroom and he crapped a fully alive, 20 feet long python"
"Lindsey Graham every day eats one fully homosexual baby, and then he has shoes made from his skin".
"Marjorie Taylor Greene brushes her teeth with gunpowder, and uses a special Preparation H that is loaded with Polonium 182"
"You know that story about Richard Geere and the gerbils? Well, Ted Cruz does it too but with a Gila monster!"
"You know this new kid Hawley? He is an Alien from outer space with two anuses that survives eating live chihuahuas he can swallow with his dislocating jaw!"
I don't know, see if they can see how lunatic their ideas are when they start looking at even crazier ones.
by ti-amie It's a cult. They start off with things that "seem" as if they could be true and then drag you over the cliff. The whole thing should've ended when the pizza place they claimed had a basement where kidnapped children were being held was shown to not have a basement. I saw some ravings from another one last night and you really do have to wonder what kind of mental illness they're suffering from.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:13 pmIt's a cult. They start off with things that "seem" as if they could be true and then drag you over the cliff. The whole thing should've ended when the pizza place they claimed had a basement where kidnapped children were being held was shown to not have a basement. I saw some ravings from another one last night and you really do have to wonder what kind of mental illness they're suffering from.
For real. I've been saying for weeks if you have any money to invest in a business, I'd look into deprogramming centers like the ones that used to exist in the 70s and 80s. Like rehab for cult ideology instead of a drug addiction. Even more potential patients now than then, and they were hardly empty back in the day.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Uh, phrasing is everything?
by ti-amie And here's Mitch trying to act as if he's still in charge and trying to define the parameters of the conversation.
by ponchi101 If it were a $1.9 trillion package to bail out banks, insurance companies and the NRA it would not pass because the GOP would ask for $3.8. That would be the sole reason.
by shtexas Did anyone see that ridiculous Axios article about Hunter Biden hiring an attorney who had an ex- colleague who now became part of the DOJ?
Is this what the press is going to do now? Equate this non- story somehow with Trump's shenanigans?
by ponchi101 When journalism becomes nothing more than reporting "He tweeted this, she tweeted that", yes, that is what the press becomes.
by ponchi101 Now they become the party of fiscal responsibility for four years.
"Oh, no, we can't have food stamps! It will bankrupt the country!!!"
by patrick Indeed after they glowingly passed the Tax Cut bill in 2018 without a thought about saving
by meganfernandez
patrick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:49 pm
Indeed after they glowingly passed the Tax Cut bill in 2018 without a thought about saving
But that created jobs!!
by JazzNU
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:33 pm
Pat Toomey
He thinks another spending bill is not needed:
This jackass. Don't get me started. He's been out here pretending he's got a spine in the last few months. Don't believe it. He was bought and paid for long ago and will never do the right thing unless there is some kind of upside for him. Trust me when I say, the people who voted for him need the money and benefits in that bill way more than the people that didn't, but does he care? Not a lick. He has never given a ish about any voter in PA that isn't donating to his campaign or paying his bills and he never will.
by ponchi101 But isn't that the core of the tragedy of American politics? The millions that vote for the party that hates them, for reasons that do not affect them (abortion, the fictional taking away of freedoms)?
by Suliso The American form of government is among the oldest in the world. From one side it's admirable, but from the other it's outdated. If one were to start fresh no way it would be made like this.
by ponchi101 Well, the believe by some people that a document written almost 250 years ago is infallible is certainly one problem. As logical as believing that a document written 2,000 years ago has all the answers too.
As you say, it has been a very successful form of government (despite all the wrongs along the way), but it needs some major changes. In a country as divided as it is now, that is not possible.
by ti-amie Just in case you are not familiar with what the QOP is about here's just one example. I started running into them on gossip sites a couple of years ago and it's only now that the sites are starting to crack down on these people. I just read the subtitles. And wondered if there was any Jack left when I finished reading/watching.
I said it before and I'll say it again. The GOP as we knew it will have to split.
by ponchi101 It is not the GOP. There has got to be something really bad in the water that simply wipes out the slightest power of skeptical and critical thinking in a portion of the population of the USA.
As the man says: where, and how, do you start to dismantle such believes?
by ponchi101 Why doesn't this man end the charade and simply move to the Democratic party? Mitt Romney Proposes $350 Monthly Child Allowance.
I know, with that D in front of his name, he loses a considerable amount of votes in Utah, but he also gains some. A proper calculation, and marketing, could make him look like "The Centrist/Moderate Democrat", which is a viable position (Kyrsten Sinema?) and could gain traction in that state (I only know South Utah and a bastion of the right it is not).
At the very least, go independent.
Anyway, a viable proposition. Wonder why he comes up with that one now.
by ti-amie I see Romney forming a new more center-right GOP than becoming a Democrat.
by the Moz How feasible is a legitimate, workable third party option in America?
by Suliso You'd need to split Democrats too, otherwise it makes no sense.
by ti-amie
the Moz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:21 pm
How feasible is a legitimate, workable third party option in America?
A month ago I would've said "not very" but there are conservatives who don't subscribe to the crazy and I don't see them staying in a party like the "QOP"
by Togtdyalttai Unless our system changes, a third party can't survive long term. If one branch of the GOP splits off, either it will overwhelm the GOP or it will become irrelevant/die out within a decade.
by ti-amieHouse ejects Marjorie Taylor Greene from committees over extremist remarks
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) leaves after speaking on the House floor at the Capitol on Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
By
Mike DeBonis
Feb. 4, 2021 at 7:37 p.m. EST
The House voted largely along party lines Thursday to remove Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from her two committee assignments, a precedent-shattering move by Democrats to rebuke a Republican who has espoused extremist beliefs that she publicly renounced in part just hours before the vote.
The vote against Greene reflected deep frustration in the Democratic ranks over the Republican leadership’s reluctance to take its own action to marginalize Greene (R-Ga.), their desire to yoke the entire GOP to her extremism, as well as their anger over a lack of accountability for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
As recently as last year, Greene had been an open adherent of the QAnon ideology, sprawling and violent web of conspiracy theories that played a role in inspiring the Capitol attack. In addition, she had made comments on social media suggesting some mass shootings were staged by supporters of gun control, that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by government forces and that a Jewish cabal had sparked a deadly wildfire with a space beam.
“I don’t understand what is complicated here,” said House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-Mass.), exhorting his colleagues to sideline Greene. “We know the result of these violent conspiracy theories. We saw that on Jan. 6. We know what it leads to. I don’t ever want to see that again. And we all should make clear where we stand on this.”
The vote was 230-199, with 11 Republicans voting with Democrats to strip Greene of her committees.
Greene had renounced some of her most egregious past remarks on the House floor a few hours earlier, in a 10-minute speech that was more explanation than apology — one that doubled down on her attacks against the media and her political enemies while omitting some of her most recent behavior.
“These were words of the past, and these things do not represent me, they do not represent my district, and they do not represent my values,” she said.
Greene said the 9/11 attacks “absolutely happened” and that school shootings are “absolutely real.” She said she embraced QAnon in late 2017 out of her support for former president Donald Trump and her mistrust of government and of mainstream media sources.
“I was allowed to believe things that weren’t true, and I would ask questions about them and talk about them, and that is absolutely what I regret,” she said. “Because if it weren’t for the Facebook posts and comments that I liked in 2018, I wouldn’t be standing here today and you couldn’t point a finger and accuse me of anything wrong.”
She went on to describe the uproar about her comments as a “cancel culture” attack on the free speech of conservatives: “Big media companies can take teeny, tiny pieces of words that I’ve said, that you have said, any of us, and can portray us as someone that we’re not, and that is wrong.”
It was enough remorse — first expressed behind closed doors in a House Republican conference meeting Wednesday evening — to mostly close the GOP ranks behind her ahead of Thursday’s vote.
“Representative Greene has denounced her previous comments and expressed regret over those actions,” read a whip memo sent to Republican lawmakers ahead of the vote, urging them to vote no. It also called the measure an “infringement upon minority rights which will have a lasting and damaging impact on the institution.”
But Greene’s comments Thursday did little to temper Democrats’ outrage — particularly as they seized on comments she made just last year during her House campaign where she refused to repudiate QAnon, as well as her ongoing efforts to raise money off the uproar. Greene said on Twitter late Wednesday that she had raised more than $330,000 from 13,000 small donors in 48 hours
“I’m just like millions of people in this country and millions of people around the world that are very much concerned about a deep state,” she told a local TV station in August, adding, “I’ve only ever seen patriotic sentiment coming out of that source and other sources.”
Equally infuriating to Democrats were social media postings she made approving of violence against prominent Democratic politicians including former president Barack Obama, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Green did not address those postings in her Thursday remarks.
“I believe in forgiveness but in order to benefit from forgiveness, you’ve got to demonstrate contrition, and she has demonstrated no contrition,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), who added that he saw “a correlation between that type of reckless rhetoric and what we saw on Jan. 6.”
Pelosi on Thursday placed the onus on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other Republican leaders, suggesting they should have acted against Greene out of a “sense of responsibility to this institution.”
One Pelosi deputy was even more stark: House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) called McCarthy’s refusal to act a “national security threat.”
“While the behavior of one individual is deeply disturbing, her party’s near unanimous capitulation is even more alarming,” he said in a statement.
In one striking moment on the House floor Thursday, Hoyer hoisted a sign showing a Facebook posting her campaign made in September — one showing Greene posing with an assault rifle juxtaposed with photos of three liberal Democratic congresswomen and the caption, “The Squad’s Worst Nightmare” — and walked it over to the Republican side of the chamber.
“When you take this vote, imagine your faces on this poster,” he said. “Imagine it’s a Democrat with an AR-15. Imagine what your response would be.”
Greene was seated among fellow Republicans as Hoyer spoke. Behind him was Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), one of the women targeted in the post — and one of the Democrats that Republicans have suggested they might remove from committees in the future under the new precedent.
Omar made allegedly anti-Semitic comments in 2019. She subsequently apologized and voted for a Democratic resolution denouncing hatred, though Pelosi and other leaders did not heed GOP calls to remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
While Republicans have suggested this week that partisan action against Greene would create a slippery slope — endangering the rights of Democratic members in a future GOP-majority House — Pelosi said she had no such concerns: “If any of our members threaten the safety of other members, we’d be the first ones to take them off a committee. That’s it.”
The vote came a day after McCarthy publicly refused to strip Greene from her committees as Democrats had demanded. Instead, he told reporters, he proposed to Hoyer that Greene move from the Education and Labor Committee, which has jurisdiction over school security, to the Small Business Committee.
Democrats rejected that move, and McCarthy responded by accusing Democrats of a “partisan power grab” that upended the long-standing practice of allowing each party’s leadership to determine its own committee assignments — a procedural argument that gained traction among GOP members who were uninterested in defending Greene’s comments.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the top Rules Committee Republican, called the move against Greene “a dangerous mistake” that would boomerang on Democrats.
“Frankly, when the majority changes, the temptation will be overwhelming for members to say: Oh, well, there’s a member I didn’t like or said something or did something I didn’t like … I think I’m just going to take that committee assignment away.”
In floor remarks Thursday, McCarthy said the Democratic resolution “sets a dangerous new standard that will only deepen divisions within this House” and also suggested that turnabout would some day be fair play for Republicans.
“I would advise them to think twice,” he said. “If people are held to what they said ... prior to even being in this House, if [the] majority party gets to decide who sits on what other committees, I hope you keep that standard, because we have a long list to work with.”
But McCarthy’s refusal to bow to the Democratic demands that she be entirely removed from her committees — as Republicans did in 2019 to former Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) after he made public comments questioning why the term “white supremacist” was offensive — stands to carry a political cost.
Democratic political operatives have signaled that they intended to use Thursday’s vote as way to tie mainstream Republican lawmakers to the extremist right wing.
“The party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan is becoming the party of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the party of violent conspiracy theories,” McGovern said.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the vote demonstrated the GOP’s inability to distance itself from extremism. The DCCC this week spent roughly $500,000 tying swing-district Republicans to QAnon, and after Thursday’s vote, the Democratic super PAC House Majority Forward said it would run ads on the same theme against McCarthy.
“When we said they stood with Q, we didn’t think it would be a standing ovation,” Maloney said.
Still, there appeared to little hesitation in the GOP ranks on voting to support Greene. Several Republicans suggested that her speeches — inside the private GOP meeting and later on the floor — helped defuse the issue inside the party ranks.
“We’ve seen some people shift from just voting no for the procedure and precedent to voting because now we know the person,” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.). “She’s admitting to mistakes she’s made in the past.”
Some moderate Republicans voted to support keeping Greene on her committees, explaining that they were uncomfortable reprimanding a member for conduct that happened before their congressional service.
“This type of rhetoric has no standing, no place in Congress, and she knows where we stand as a conference,” said Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.). “She did this before she came to Congress, and I’ve given her the benefit of saying, okay, you’re a member of Congress now, we’re all watching.”
The 11 Republicans who backed removing her from committees were Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Carlos A. Gimenez (Fla.), Chris Jacobs (N.Y.), John Katko (N.Y.), Young Kim (Calif.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.), Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.), Christopher H. Smith (N.J.) and Fred Upton (Mich.).
The Greene saga might not yet be over: Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), who has introduced a resolution to expel Greene from the House, said he still intended to force a vote on that question, but said he was in talks with Democratic leaders about the timing of the move. The House is expected to take a two-week recess after it completes its business this week.
Gomez said Thursday’s vote — and Greene’s speech — did little to soothe Democrats’ anger, which remains raw just four weeks after the deadly riot.
“If Donald Trump is Conspirator No. 1 in the insurrection, she’s Conspirator No. 2,” he said. “That’s why I’m pursuing this, is to send a message that this kind of discourse in our politics is not acceptable — inciting political violence, threatening people, is not acceptable and a person like that should not hold a position in the House of Representatives.”
by ti-amie In situations like this the Dems should always ask "What Would Mitch Do" and act accordingly.
by ponchi101 What Pelosi is not noticing is: the GOP does not play by the same rules. No DEM is going to advocate for violence against a GOP'er. But for the GOP, a statement along the lines of "we have to impose controls on (choose your industry here)" will be grounds for a vote in a GOP-controlled house.
This precedent is relevant.
by ti-amie
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:50 am
In situations like this the Dems should always ask "What Would Mitch Do" and act accordingly.
Give tax breaks to billionaires, and pack the court with conservative judges?
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:50 am
In situations like this the Dems should always ask "What Would Mitch Do" and act accordingly.
Give tax breaks to billionaires, and pack the court with conservative judges?
Well they could do a version of that by seeing to the needs of the 99.9% that Mitch ignored for four years but I was thinking more in terms of using the rules and raw power to get what they want. Mitch gave McCarthy no cover in this situation which I found interesting.
by ti-amie
Another one who has "learned their lesson".
by ti-amie The other powerful moment from the House today/
by ponchi101 What IQ level do you need to have to VOTE FOR THIS WOMAN?
It comes to a point in which you cannot simply blame her, and only her, for what she says. The people that voted for her also have to explain what led to that vote.
by ti-amie Was it here that I read the county she's from in Georgia was home to one of the founding members of the John Birch Society?
by ti-amie Where was this jacka** when Tiny was using AF1 to go golfing?
by ponchi101 I forgot to upload the old emoji with the firing rifle... What an idiot.
And, BTW. Jan has to learn to answer these sorts of questions with: "He lives there". "AF1 is a private plane".
Deadpan the stuff. Don't fall for the trap.
by ti-amie
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:41 pm
Where was this jacka** when Tiny was using AF1 to go golfing?
They've brought this problem on themselves. If you have coherent policies then you're going to be asked why they don't apply to the President. The government recommends not travelling, and so the President shouldn't travel either.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:41 pm
Where was this jacka** when Tiny was using AF1 to go golfing?
They've brought this problem on themselves. If you have coherent policies then you're going to be asked why they don't apply to the President. The government recommends not travelling, and so the President shouldn't travel either.
He's taking AF1, a private plane. He follows C19 protocols. What is he supposed to do take Amtrak like he used to do for these weekend visits?
by ponchi101 How do you fly in a 747 from DC to Delaware? It is like 50 miles in a straight line. They won't even have time to retract the landing gear...
by ti-amie DC to Bedminster, NJ by air isn't a big distance either.
by ti-amie
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:32 am
Unless our system changes, a third party can't survive long term. If one branch of the GOP splits off, either it will overwhelm the GOP or it will become irrelevant/die out within a decade.
Opinion: The GOP is making a very risky bet
Opinion by
Paul Waldman
Columnist
Feb. 5, 2021 at 12:53 p.m. EST
As the GOP struggles to find its way toward a post-Trump future, Republicans are faced with two paths. One is complicated, difficult, labor-intensive and might not yield immediate benefits, even if it’s far more morally defensible. The other is a little uncomfortable but comparatively easy, particularly in the short term.
The first path would mean turning away from their party’s darkest impulses and most repugnant figures in order to fashion an identity with the same substantive beliefs about policy but tethered to reality. The second path would mean trying to keep the extremists in the fold, hoping that they can benefit from the crazy but not let it define them with the broader electorate.
From a purely political standpoint, both paths have dangers. But the latter is the one the GOP is going to follow, even if it runs the risk of alienating moderates and exacerbating its long-term problem of representing a portion of the electorate that gets smaller every year — and only the angriest among them.
At the moment, this concerns Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has gotten far more attention than anyone could have imagined back when she was just another conspiracy-touting social media nitwit. She is now the most famous member of the freshman class of 2021.
But political celebrity is unpredictable; sometimes a figure with remarkable talent bursts into the national consciousness, like Barack Obama did when he gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, and sometimes your crazy aunt winds up in Congress, then the other party makes her into a symbol of her own party’s moral depravity, and she becomes a household name.
On Thursday, the House voted to strip Greene of her committee assignments, with 11 Republicans joining all the Democrats. This occurred despite Greene clarifying that she now believes the 9/11 attacks were real and school shootings are not staged with child actors. But her contrition did not last long:
It’s noteworthy that Greene describes the ordinary status of being in the House minority as living under “this Democrat tyrannical government.” But that’s a key component of the GOP extremist’s ideology: When Democrats get elected, it can only be because elections were stolen and any Democratic governance is inherently illegitimate.
What House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and the rest of the party’s leadership would like is for Greene and others like her not to go away, but to just keep a lower profile. They want the unhinged base’s energy and anger to drive the turnout that could give Republicans back congressional majorities in the 2022 midterms. McCarthy doesn’t really care if you think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) runs a satanic child-trafficking conspiracy and literally eats babies, as long as your delusions get you to the polling place.
The trouble is that in today’s political world, there are no more dog whistles, messages heard by only one segment of your party but unnoticed by everyone else. Democrats decided to make Greene famous, and so she is.
Now consider the alternative for Republicans. Let’s say they truly broke with the extremists and said they want nothing to do with them. The votes they lost by doing so would have to be made up somewhere, which would mean finding ways to appeal to the moderates who rejected President Donald Trump in 2020. That means developing new policies to improve people’s lives and building a party identity based on something other than anger and resentment.
They could do that, but the ongoing culture war that draws on, and draws in, the loony right is just a lot easier. All the work it requires is symbolic — finding fights to start, shouting angrily on Fox News — and there are plenty of people in the party eager to do it.
Democrats hope that holding moderates and holding the extremists will be mutually exclusive for the GOP. “You can do QAnon, and you can do swing districts, but you can’t do both,” says Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are many Republicans who fear that’s true, but there are others — probably including McCarthy — who think they can do both. The controversy around Greene will blow over, and they’ll be able to keep the far right on a low boil while they tell moderate voters that President Biden is a failure and electing Republicans to Congress will solve the practical problems of their lives.
The truth is that no one knows for sure, because this is a novel situation. You can look to the experience of the tea party in the Obama years — which helped Republicans take back Congress despite being plenty extreme itself — but the comparison gets you only so far.
That’s because in the eyes of an ordinary person, there’s a difference between protesters prancing around in tricorn hats while they do their Founding Father cosplay, and a murderous mob storming the Capitol.
Or at least one assumes there would be, and if Republicans don’t reject their extremists, then they’ll bleed votes in key suburban districts, where some will decide they can no longer have anything to do with a party that includes QAnon and violent insurrectionists.
If American politics in recent years had taught us that people and parties inevitably pay a price for their cynicism and morally indefensible choices, we could be more certain about how the GOP’s bet will turn out. But we can’t. So given the alternative, Republicans are willing to roll the dice on placating their extremists.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:41 pm
Where was this jacka** when Tiny was using AF1 to go golfing
My favorite reply to that video.
by ti-amie
This is what I meant about doing as Mitch would do. Eff 'em.
by ti-amie I put this here because some are trying to belittle AOC's sharing of her trauma during 1/6. Of course they're playing politics so here we are.
Opinion: I denied my combat trauma for years. Survivors of the Capitol attack must not do the same.
Opinion by Jason Kander
Feb. 5, 2021 at 1:48 p.m. EST
Former Missouri secretary of state Jason Kander is the president of Veterans Community Project and hosts the political podcast “Majority 54.”
Some advice for the members of Congress, their staff, law enforcement, building employees and anyone else who lived through the violent insurrection attempt Jan. 6 at the Capitol: Don’t make the same mistake I did.
For the decade after I served a tour as an Army intelligence officer in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, I denied the trauma I brought home with me. For 10 years, I compared, ranked and ultimately dismissed my own combat experience. Unlike some of my friends, I hadn’t been physically wounded; fortunately, I’d never had to kill another human being. So I ignored my violent nightmares, hyper-vigilance, shame, self-loathing and emotional numbness.
I hid my symptoms from everyone. I became depressed. I eventually fell into suicidal ideation. All because I didn’t think my trauma measured up.
You, too, have undergone trauma. Armed insurrectionists smashed their way into your place of work, looking to kill the people inside. They placed pipe bombs near the building you walk into every day. It would be normal — not unique; normal — for it to have affected you. If you believe that anyone whose workplace or school was terrorized by an attack is justified in seeking counseling, you must extend yourself the same compassion.
Some of the lawmakers present on Jan. 6 have already taken the brave step of opening up, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) virally among them. Many received her candor about fearing for her life with appropriate compassion, but others — some of them her Republican colleagues — mocked it. While their craven partisan motive is as disgusting as it is predictable, the real damage won’t be to her, but in the chilling effect that sort of reaction has on the rest of you inside the Capitol that day who might be inclined to understate your wounds.
Cynical forces might seek to dismiss your trauma, to politicize your decision to even see it as trauma. Do not let their self-interested spin keep you from help. Do not let their words work their way into your head: “They never came banging on my door. They didn’t leave death threats on my desk. I shouldn’t let this affect me.” An individual brain doesn’t know or care what another has experienced, just as one arm broken slipping down the Capitol steps wouldn’t be any less serious if someone else broke both.
And for all you know, the unaffected appearance of some who survived the insurrection might be a pretense. Perhaps they’re just waiting for someone else to go first. Your decision to open up and get help might allow them to do the same. Getting help can be scary because it requires that you admit that something is wrong — and it is terrifying to think that something is wrong.
The constraints of working in the public eye only ratchet up those worries. Whether as Missouri secretary of state or later as a potential presidential candidate, I repeatedly denied the reality of my situation because — among other reasons — I didn’t think I could be so openly flawed and hold office at the same time. But I was wrong. And even if I had been right, it wouldn’t have mattered, because my health should have come first.
You suffered an injury, and it is normal to treat an injury. In fact, it is not normal to not treat an injury. Treating it doesn’t mean you can’t do your job; it simply means you can do your job better.
Eventually, I got help, and today I am living a productive and enjoyable life of post-traumatic growth. I do not dread going to sleep. I can sit with my back to a door. I love what I do, I like who I am, and I’m emotionally present as a father and husband. But I nearly waited too long, all because I didn’t think I’d done enough to earn the right to label what I experienced as trauma.
Ignore all the forces that discourage you from treating your wounds, and listen to me when I tell you what you experienced was real. You don’t have to feel this way. If you commit to trauma counseling, you can get to a point where it won’t disrupt your life.
And as for the shaming and the judging — either internal or external — please consider this article whatever validation you need. Print it, clip it, laminate it to remind yourself or anyone who shames you that a veteran who came home from Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder wrote you this therapy permission slip and urged you to use it.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:21 pm
I put this here because some are trying to belittle AOC's sharing of her trauma during 1/6. Of course they're playing politics so here we are.
Talking a big game now. But we all saw the video of them on the ground in the aisles and rows of the chambers scared (expletive) clutching their gas masks as they waited for rescue hoping they weren't going to die before then. AOC and the Dems aren't the only ones traumatized, just the only ones speaking out in public.
by JazzNU No one should be surprised. Lifelong criminals regularly exhibit criminal behavior.
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:41 pm
He's taking AF1, a private plane. He follows C19 protocols. What is he supposed to do take Amtrak like he used to do for these weekend visits?
If you're telling people not to travel than set the example and don't travel. This has been the problem from the beginning is that rules, guidelines, and recommendations are set out and then everyone finds ways in which to get a round them because they can do it 'safely'. If it's not safe to travel, then it's not safe to travel, so don't travel, and then also don't get surprised if when you break your own rules you get called on it.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:41 pm
He's taking AF1, a private plane. He follows C19 protocols. What is he supposed to do take Amtrak like he used to do for these weekend visits?
If you're telling people not to travel than set the example and don't travel. This has been the problem from the beginning is that rules, guidelines, and recommendations are set out and then everyone finds ways in which to get a round them because they can do it 'safely'. If it's not safe to travel, then it's not safe to travel, so don't travel, and then also don't get surprised if when you break your own rules you get called on it.
There aren't any travel restrictions going from DC to Delaware. Metro areas that are linked don't have travel restrictions imposed on one another.
The mode of transportation is up to the Secret Service to determine.
by ti-amie
by Togtdyalttai The 2020-2021 election season has finally ended today (nationally at least). Anthony Brindisi (D) has conceded the race in New York's 22nd Congressional District to Claudia Tenney (R). This makes the final tally 222-213 for the Democrats, though two Republicans have died of Covid and 2 Democrats have been selected by Biden for administration positions.
by ti-amie Gallup is a right leaning polling organization.
by ponchi101 Yet, they hold 50% of the power in the Senate, and correct me if I am wrong, are a majority in Governor-ships.
Extremely odd.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:16 pm
Yet, they hold 50% of the power in the Senate, and correct me if I am wrong, are a majority in Governor-ships.
Extremely odd.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:16 pm
Yet, they hold 50% of the power in the Senate, and correct me if I am wrong, are a majority in Governor-ships.
Extremely odd.
The Republicans will get fewer votes in 2022, and yet win more seats, if not gain control of Congress.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:16 pm
Yet, they hold 50% of the power in the Senate, and correct me if I am wrong, are a majority in Governor-ships.
Extremely odd.
Gerrymandering is their ace in the hole.
Even more so than Gerrymandering is the fact that the Senate over represents rural areas very heavily, and the Republican party is currently the party of rural people.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Why do the democrats keep believing that the GOP is at its end? They hold 50 seats in the senate, are just a few seats away from a majority in congress.
Why are dems delusional?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Togtdyalttai I'm not including the full list. They go into detail on a few but mostly link to articles about the rest.
57 GOP State And Local Officials Were At The Capitol Insurrection
At least 57 state and local Republican officials attended the Jan. 6 rally in Washington that turned into a deadly insurrection, according to an updated HuffPost tally. Almost all of them are resisting calls to resign.
They traveled from 27 states for the “Stop the Steal” demonstration near the White House. A couple of officials even gave speeches, warming up the crowd for then-President Donald Trump, who took the stage and regurgitated lies about the election results before instructing the “Make America Great Again” mob to march on the U.S. Capitol.
Late last month, after identifying an initial 21 state and local GOP officials at the rally — among them a QAnon conspiracy theorist, a self-described member of a far-right militia and a man who once declared that “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat” — HuffPost received emails from readers across the country identifying the additional 36 officials in this new tally.
Some of the reader emails were urgent — “PLEASE, PLEASE REVISE YOUR ARTICLE TO REFLECT THESE INSURGENT SEDITIONISTS PLEASE!” read one — underscoring how communities across the country are still grappling with the fallout from the siege of the U.S. Capitol. Many are hoping that these officials will somehow face consequences for their actions.
Nearly all 57 are facing calls to resign. Yet only two men, both of whom were arrested for their role in the riot — a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates and a secretary of the California Republican Assembly — have actually stepped down.
Elsewhere, a Virginia state senator was censured and stripped of committee assignments. Two other censure attempts — of a city councilwoman and a school board member in California — were voted down. In Texas, a Pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-believing field organizer was fired.
In most cases, the GOP officials have brushed aside calls to resign. “For a call to go out seeking my resignation is beyond the pale and reeks of cancel culture,” said Rob Socha, a city councilman in Hillsdale, Michigan. (Incidentally, at least four of the 57 GOP officials invoked “cancel culture” or being “canceled” while dismissing calls that they step down.)
All across the country, accountability feels hard to find, including in Washington itself, where a Senate impeachment trial against Trump for inciting the insurrection is all but assured to end in a party-line vote for acquittal. (Trump’s lawyers have also invoked “cancel culture” during the proceedings.)
In the mob on Jan. 6, according to HuffPost’s analysis, were, at least, 16 Republican members of state houses or assemblies, four state senators, a state attorney general, six county commissioners, seven city council members, two mayors, three school board members, two state GOP chairs, two prosecutors and a slew of other officials and party functionaries. The group also included an extremist sheriff from Oklahoma who discussed harming members of Congress, a town council member from Massachusetts who is closely affiliated with the violent neo-fascist gang the Proud Boys and a county commissioner from Florida who once discussed beheading liberals.
Only a few breached the Capitol property itself, with four GOP officials having since been arrested on charges including “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds” and disorderly conduct. The rest of the officials have since largely condemned the violence that occurred that day, insisting they were nowhere near the chaos or claiming they’d already returned to their hotels or boarded buses home before the rioters started ransacking the seat of American democracy, leading to the deaths of five people.
Many have since sought to avoid responsibility for their part in it all. Of the 57 GOP officials identified as being at the rally, afterward at least 20 pushed the false conspiracy theory that “antifa,” or leftist anti-fascists, actually started the violence — a claim that’s been rendered increasingly absurd with the arrests of about 200 Trump supporters since Jan. 6.
Meanwhile, Republicans continue to cast the Capitol rioters as a lunatic fringe who do not represent the party. But the party’s complicity comes into clearer focus each day, as do the demographics of those who traveled to Washington on Jan. 6: It was an overwhelmingly white, heavily armed, petit bourgeois and middle-aged mob marching alongside dyed-in-the-wool white nationalists and other extremists, as well as dozens of cops, all with a single-minded focus on keeping their perceived political enemies — Democrats — from acquiring power.
It was a perfect representation of the GOP.
Here are the 57 state and local Republican officials who were at the Jan. 6 rally, including one official whose attendance had previously gone unreported. (This list does not include the federal lawmakers in attendance.)
by ti-amieWith Trump gone, CNN pulls the plug on White House press briefings
Different rules for Dems
Eric Boehlert
After creating new programming rules for the Trump administration and airing virtually every minute of every White House press briefing live and in its entirety, CNN has quietly cut the cord with the new Democratic administration.
Just one month into President Joe Biden's term, the all-news cable channel last week stopped airing the daily White House press briefings. Perhaps the events weren't entertaining enough, as White House spokesperson Jen Psaki has routinely declined to insert Biden into cultural war debates, refused to castigate reporters, and won’t make stuff up in the name of partisan warfare, the way her Republican predecessors did.
Instead, Psaki has answered questions as best she can about White House policy, while treating journalists with respect, instead of mocking them in search of cheap political points.
That's no longer considered must-see TV at CNN. Fox News also stopped airing the briefings, which is completely expected. MSNBC as of last week was still airing the live Q&A's from the White House.
CNN's move represents one of the most dramatic ways the press has changed the way it covers Biden, as compared to Trump. Suddenly gone is the nonstop, unfiltered coverage of White House briefings, which defined cable news during the past four years.
In January 2017, the rules changed overnight when Trump was inaugurated and suddenly the media sessions were treated as breaking news events. That, despite the fact that during the final six months of Barack Obama's presidency, just three percent of daily White House press briefings aired live, according to Media Matters.
In other words, Obama briefings were not aired. Trump's were. Now, Biden's are not. So much for liberal media bias.
here were no blockbuster stories or public crises unfolding back in early 2017. It was simply the D.C. press collectively deciding that every Trump utterance and each one of his administration's briefings had to be carried live, which meant hundreds of hours of free airtime.
That brand of obedient programming led to a breathless mindset more synonymous with a wartime culture — Everybody stop what you’re doing, the White House is about to make a statement! There was no justification for the nonstop coverage, especially when the briefings were built on deceits, designed to foil honest inquiries.
Early on, reporters knew the Trump White House press briefings were a sham and a waste of time. In June 2017, CNN's Jim Acosta called the events "useless" and "pointless" because so little relevant information was being given to reporters.
And from May 31 that year, on CNN [emphasis added]:
ALISYN CAMEROTA: So then Sean Spicer goes to the podium with the press; and he can't confirm or comment on the questions that the press has about Jared Kushner and whether or not Jared Kushner tried to set up this back channel. So I mean, at what point -- why is Sean Spicer holding these press briefings? You know? What's the point of these?
DAVID GREGORY: There's really no point. And what's unfortunate for Sean Spicer is that the White House press secretary position under President Trump doesn't have credibility.
That same day, CNN’s Dylan Byers detailed just how little substance then-White House spokesperson Spicer delivered at the briefings: “For two days in a row, since returning from President Trump's trip abroad, the White House press secretary has held uncharacteristically short press briefings in which he claimed not to know the answer to questions, outsourced questions to other officials or dismissed the premise of questions entirely.”
That was January 2017. CNN for the next four years continued to air virtually every White House press briefing during Trump's term. It wasn't until February 2021, with a new Democrat president inside the Oval Office that CNN decided press briefings were no longer newsworthy.
Even more unforgivable was the fact that Trump's pandemic briefings were aired all last year. Every time Trump addressed the novel virus and America's unfolding pandemic, he made things worse with his steady stream of reckless contradictions, lies, and misinformation. One low point was when Trump used a television briefing to suggest Americans inject bleach into their bodies to fight off Covid-19, a deadly suggestion. This, while Trump was simultaneously lying about dismantling the White House's pandemic team, accused hospital workers of stealing much-needed surgical masks, and told governors on a conference call that he hadn't heard any complaints about there being a shortage of coronavirus tests.
Another briefing moment of shame came in April when Trump hosted one of the most bizarre televised performances by a sitting president. The planned rant featured a campaign-style commercial that aired in the briefing room and attacked the media as well as Trump's critics who had hammered him over the administration's botched handling of the pandemic. Immediately following the meltdown, CNN anchor John King admitted, "That was propaganda aired at taxpayer expense in the White House briefing room."
So why did CNN keep airing future briefings?
More importantly, why did CNN decide the time to stop airing them was when a new Democratic president took office?
by ti-amie And this is how CNN's reporters are treated.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Scary days in the USA. let's see what incendiary statements Tiny says during the weekend. It could be dangerous.
by patrick Yes, indeed. Something may happen a week after 45 speak
by JazzNU There's word of something happening next week that has kept the National Guard in place in DC. Not sure if this will influence that or not. But that's been the main worry.
by patrick If I recall, QAnon is saying 45 will be returning to Prez on March 4th.
by ponchi101 The CPAC looney show is example #1 that the man is anything but finished. By comparison, North Korea is indifferent to Kim Yung Um.
by the Moz the Donald should hone his 2024 run with some freelance détente. Maybe use Bush 43's 'Axis of evil' as a stepping off point
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:43 pm
The CPAC looney show is example #1 that the man is anything but finished.
I've spent much of this morning thinking the exact same thing. I honestly don't know if the Republic will survive this. It is well within the realm of possibility that we're merely living in a 4-year respite and that everything will shift back to reality in 2024.
by Suliso What's the reason to think that a million or two of those who voted for Biden last year will vote for Trump in 2024? I don't see it... People have short memories, but not that short.
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:25 pm
What's the reason to think that a million or two of those who voted for Biden last year will vote for Trump in 2024? I don't see it... People have short memories, but not that short.
You know I am half joking when I say that your believe and trust in humanity is almost endearing.
Donald Trump never hid what he was or what he "stands" for, yet in 2016 he won. Biden won in part thanks for the tanking economy, something that people like us can see really was not totally Trump's fault but was completely related to the pandemic. Of course, Tiny mishandled it completely but all that is needed, in 2024, is an economy that is still not recovered and which then will be blamed on Biden, and a few states implementing further gerrymandering tactics to suppress votes.
The democrats penchant to also shoot themselves in the foot is always there to ensure that a lot of people will not come to vote in 2022 and Congress, the Senate or both can shift to the GOP again. That will mean two years of sabotaging anything Biden will try to do to benefit the country; by now, it is clear that to the GOP "Party" comes before "Country" and if the way for the GOP to regain the three branches of government (they will keep the SCOTUS for a long time, we know that). You can always count on AOC or Bernie to try to do the perfectly right thing that is a pipe dream and in that process, block the possible good thing that could be done. In some district, a photo of a democratic candidate wearing an "inappropriate" custom during a Halloween party when they were teenagers will torpedo a candidacy here, another one there, and you will end with a few more Marjorie Taylor Greene's here and there.
It boils down to: the GOP belongs to Tiny, and you have said it yourself. In any election in the USA, both candidates have a close to 50% chance of winning. These weekend, at CPAC, Tiny will tell everybody the election was stolen, and that the new cases against them are a witch hunt and that, regardless of what evidence is produced, he had done nothing. And the crowd will swallow it.
He has 72MM votes in the pocket, guaranteed. Biden has 80MM, that can sway.
by ti-amie I think you still have to put what he is out there so the proverbial "folks in the back", in this case those who live far from NYC and other large urban areas hear it. Faux, even though they're 24/7 GOP/Q propaganda, have to say what it is he's being accused of that's so out there those in mostly empty states will know what to be angry about. I was listening to Noel Casler on a Judy Gold podcast and he said one of the mistakes that was made was assuming everyone knew what he was when it was mostly folks in NYC, Washington DC and probably LA and the Bay Area who knew. Many people's first intro to him was The Apprentice.
I say the investigations should continue and be made as public as they can be. Let the MAGAt's have to defend against the charges. When all is said and done they will be left with one argument.
by ti-amie
by dave g
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:25 pm
What's the reason to think that a million or two of those who voted for Biden last year will vote for Trump in 2024? I don't see it... People have short memories, but not that short.
The majority of the GOP are actually Trumpians. So that, the ANP (amoral, narcistic psychopath) will almost assuredly get the GOP nomination in 2024. The Trumpians won't care that he doesn't have a chance in the general election because they refuse to recognize reality, or they don't care about reality. So, even if the ANP loses the 2024 general election, he will keep winning the nomination until he is dead. Basically, his supporters are essentially psychotic and are completely detached from reality. So, we won't be through with him until he is dead, if we are lucky. If we are not lucky, some other ANP will take his place. So, "No, we are not done with him yet".
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Uh, what?
by the Moz ^^If that happened to Ted Cruz he'd say he was attacked by Antifa.
by ponchi101 I said it before: if Romney would to take the brutally honest route of declaring himself an "Independent", it would get him more votes.
I would have never voted for him, if I were American, in 2012. But he has earned my respect.
by meganfernandez (not the congressman Matt Gertz, the media watchdog Matthew Gertz)
by ti-amie
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:18 pm
(not the congressman Matt Gertz, the media watchdog Matthew Gertz)
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. An elephant's faithful one hundred per cent.
I will not watch Fox in sox...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie And the shenanigans continue. Johnson is one of the 8 Republicans who spent the 4th of July in Moscow a few years back.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie NOW I get it.
by ponchi101 Worth considering, at least.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Can someone explain to me why major opposition to the minimum wage hike is coming from the South West? I really have no theories as to why this would be.
by ponchi101 I don't understand ANY opposition at all. The math is simple: $7.25 x 40 Hrs/week x 4 weeks a month comes up to $1,160. A single man living in his grandmother's den could barely make it on that. Heck, $15 will barely double that. How can a single mother of one make it?
It is basic cruelty.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:47 pm
I don't understand ANY opposition at all. The math is simple: $7.25 x 40 Hrs/week x 4 weeks a month comes up to $1,160. A single man living in his grandmother's den could barely make it on that. Heck, $15 will barely double that. How can a single mother of one make it?
It is basic cruelty.
Because it could inconvenience uber-rich people who are accustomed to bathing in money off the backs of the working class. We can't have that. What about that do you not comprehend?
by ti-amie
by Togtdyalttai I'm sad that we didn't get to see a 51D-49R senate. That would have meant the pressure would be almost entirely on Sinema. I'm not sure that she would be voting the same way she is now. If only Cal Cunningham could keep it in his pants...
by ti-amieSenate passes Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill after voting overnight on amendments, sends measure back to House
Debate continued Saturday after all-night session; Democrats defeated multiple GOP amendments
By
Tony Romm,
Jeff Stein and
Erica Werner
March 6, 2021 at 12:57 p.m. EST
The Senate approved a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan on Saturday, as Democrats muscled through a marathon debate — and overcame dissent from moderates within their own ranks — to move one step closer to delivering President Biden his first legislative victory.
Democrats voted to adopt the bill without any Republican support after a more than 24-hour, around-the-clock session. It will now fall to the House to consider the sweeping package once again before it can become law and any of the aid can be dispersed.
The Senate’s passage of the measure marked an early win for Biden and his congressional Democratic allies, who had promised in the wake of the 2020 presidential election to authorize a robust package of new coronavirus aid –- including another round of one-time checks for families -– as one of their first acts.
But a prolonged standoff between centrists and progressives within the Democratic caucus quickly served to illustrate the precarious politics of the party’s meager tie-breaking majority in the Senate, where even one holdout can upend Democrats’ economic agenda in the early days of Biden’s presidency.
The relief measure includes a new round of up-to $1,400 stimulus checks for millions of Americans, $350 billion for cash-strapped cities and states, $130 billion for schools, and other sizable sums for a wide array of programs including food assistance, rental relief and coronavirus vaccine distribution. The bill also authorizes an additional $300-per-week in unemployment payments until early September, trimming the amount that House Democrats initially had approved earlier in the month.
(So they accepted the cut in UI to $300 per week but it will now last until September. Politics on display for all to see and for those who want to, to understand.)
The scope and duration of the jobless aid at one point appeared to imperil Democrats’ legislation: The Senate fell into a nine-hour standoff that stretched into late Friday night as one of the party’s most influential moderates, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), demanded significant changes to scale back the benefits.
Once resolved, though, Democrats largely banded together to jettison a series of Republican amendments that would have dramatically slashed spending or struck funds set aside for transit systems and local governments. The relief plan generally remained intact as it cleared the chamber on a 50-49 vote more than a day after legislative proceedings began.
"This bill will deliver more help to more people than anything the federal government has done in decades,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) in a speech just before the chamber adopted the bill.
The process still exposed fissures within the Democratic caucus, pitting progressive-minded lawmakers, willing to spend big and act aggressively to achieve sweeping economic reforms, against some moderates, who have preached political unity and fiscal restraint. And it illustrated the difficulty that Biden in particular may face in wooing Republicans to support his legislative agenda, given that every GOP lawmaker opposed the bill.
The lingering tensions threaten to loom large over the Senate as it prepares to turn soon to Biden’s plans to upgrade the country’s infrastructure and rethink the U.S. tax code.
“The Senate has never spent $2 trillion in a more haphazard way, or through a less rigorous process,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“Voters gave Senate Democrats the slimmest possible majority. Voters picked a president who promised unity and bipartisanship,” he continued, noting Democrats instead had opted to “ram through” their stimulus bill.
Along with stimulus checks, unemployment aid, and cash to cities and states, the stimulus that passed the Senate on Saturday includes a bevy of aid to lessen businesses’ tax bills, assist Americans in paying for childcare and support transit and other infrastructure reforms. Schools and hospitals also receive a major financial boost as the U.S. government labors to respond to the coronavirus while simultaneously preparing to return to regular life more than a year after the pandemic first arrived.
But some of Democrats’ other priorities did not survive the fractious Senate debate. The most critical included a plan to boost the federal minimum wage to $15-per-hour, which would have marked the first such increase in decades.
The provision became a casualty of Democratic leaders’ tussle with moderate members of their own caucus, who did not support an effort to override the Senate’s parliamentarian after the rule-keeper determined it could not remain part of the bill. The chamber advanced the stimulus under arcane rules known as “reconciliation,” meaning it only required a simple majority to pass. A later effort by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to revive the minimum wage hike failed.
Moderate Democrats also secured changes to narrow the scope of stimulus checks, rethink how some state and local aid might be distributed and reduce the amount of weekly unemployment benefits even while extending their duration past August. Democrats brokered the deal on jobless benefits with Manchin out of concern that he would side with Republicans led by Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) on an effort to scale back the aid even further to July.
The unemployment provisions at one point late Friday sparked a tense back-and-forth on the Senate floor between Portman and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), with Portman citing the reopening of many sectors in states across the country to argue the benefits were unnecessary.
“Suddenly, if you’re on unemployment insurance you don’t have to pay taxes. But if you’re working, you do have to pay taxes. How does that work?” said Portman, who offered the GOP’s more aggressive cuts to benefits.
Wyden responded that the tax forgiveness only included modest relief for jobless Americans, adding of the GOP’s opposition: “The party that claims to want to help workers on their taxes won’t lift a finger.”
Portman’s amendment eventually passed with Manchin’s support, but Democrats’ compromise with the senator essentially overwrote it. Earlier, the White House backed the Democrats’ deal on jobless benefits. Biden spoke personally with Manchin on Friday in an effort to resolve the issue at a moment when the senator’s vote looked uncertain, according to a person with knowledge of the conversation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to confirm it.
The alterations together still marked a break with the House, where some Democrats appeared irate late Friday out of a belief that the 2020 election had given them a mandate to deliver sweeping, aggressive economic reforms.
“What are we doing here? I’m frankly disgusted with some of my colleagues and question whether I can support this bill," tweeted Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.), later adding: “What I’m seeing of the negotiations right now doesn’t cut it.”
The Senate took up various other amendments into early Saturday morning, though none altered the fate of the bill. Numerous proposals pushed by Senate Republicans — including an attempt by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to offer a $650 billion bill in place of Biden’s; an effort by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to tie school funding to reopening; and a plan by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) demanding transparency in state nursing home investigations — were defeated narrowly by the Democratic majority. Democrats did later band with the GOP on limited changes including redirecting $800 million in education funds to help homeless kids.
In other instances, Republicans sought to scuttle the stimulus through controversial votes around immigration and transgender equality. An amendment from Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Al.) aimed to block some federal funds to schools that allow students to participate in athletics programs based on their gender identity as opposed to their biological sex. Democrats joined with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to block the attempt.
The House is still expected to pass the Senate’s bill quickly, teeing it up for Biden to sign in a matter of days.
by ti-amie NoelCaslerComedy
@CaslerNoel
As others have said the GOP is now all about ‘performative trolling’ the galling part is it couldn’t come at a worse time for our nation.
@GOP
by ti-amie
by Togtdyalttai It'll be interesting to see what effect Trump has on elections next year in general, but he won't have any effect in Alaska. I guess it's something for him to do after the primaries though because that's where he can be a kingmaker elsewhere, but the top 4 advance in Alaska's primaries.
by ponchi101 If the GOP is able to implement all the voting suppressing laws they are trying to get through, his role will be crucial. No GOP'er will dare cross him and with those laws they have good chances.
America will only be safe if the Big Macs, diet Cokes and fries do their job. Otherwise, expect the same nightmare in 2024.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 And now is when that 6-3 SCOTUS comes in really handy.
by ti-amie This headline, while technically correct, in my opinion should read "The Democratic Led Congress Has Pased the $1.9 trillion Stimulus Package". The way it's written makes it seem as if the GOP had something to do with the bill's passage.
Congress adopts $1.9 trillion stimulus, securing first major win for Biden
A House vote Wednesday sends the bill to President Biden, who is expected to sign Friday, the White House said.
By Tony Romm
March 10, 2021 at 3:33 p.m. EST
Congress approved a sweeping $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package on Wednesday, authorizing a flurry of new federal spending and a temporary yet dramatic increase in anti-poverty programs to help millions of families still struggling amid the pandemic.
The 220-211 vote in the House of Representatives almost (?) entirely along party lines now sends to Biden’s desk one of the largest economic rescue packages in U.S. history, which Democrats had promised to pass as one of their first acts of governance after securing narrow but potent majorities in Washington during the 2020 presidential election.
The bill, dubbed the American Rescue Plan, authorizes another round of stimulus payments up to $1,400 for most Americans, extends additional, enhanced unemployment aid to millions still out of a job, and makes major changes to the tax code to benefit families with children. It couples the new pandemic relief with what Democrats have come to describe as one of the most robust legislative responses to poverty in a generation, seeking to assist low-income families who struggled financially long before the coronavirus took root.
Lawmakers also set aside tens of billions of dollars to fund coronavirus testing, contact tracing and vaccine deployment, as they aim to deliver on Biden’s recent promise to produce enough inoculations for “every adult in America” by the end of May. And the stimulus bill approves additional funds to help schools reopen, allow restaurants and businesses to stay afloat and assist state and local governments trying to meet their own financial needs.
“The Biden American Rescue Plan is about the children, their health, their education, [and] the economic security of their families,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) just before lawmakers gave the bill a final green light, prompting cheers among Democrats gathered in the chamber. “This legislation is one of the most transformative and historic bills any of us will ever have an opportunity to support."
Republicans banded together in opposition on Wednesday, much as they had voted against an earlier version of the proposal in the House last month and the Senate bill’s over this weekend. The GOP approach evinced the tough political climate that Biden is likely to face even after preaching political unity upon taking office. Partisan tensions now threaten to overshadow his expected work in the coming months to shepherd major new investments in infrastructure, overhaul the immigration system and rethink other elements of the U.S. tax code.
(...)
The bill now heads to Biden, who is expected to sign it Friday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said. The signing comes a day after the president is set to deliver his first prime-time television address on the country’s response to the coronavirus. Wall Street appeared to acknowledge the news, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average continued to climb, and was about 529 points by the early afternoon.
“For weeks now, an overwhelming percentage of Americans – Democrats, Independents, and Republicans – have made it clear they support the American Rescue Plan. Today, with final passage in the House of Representatives, their voice has been heard,” Biden said in a statement.
“This legislation is about giving the backbone of this nation – the essential workers, the working people who built this country, the people who keep this country going – a fighting chance,” he added.
With the American Rescue Plan, lawmakers adopted their sixth major coronavirus relief package since the deadly pandemic first encroached on the country roughly a year ago. The sheer vastness of aid Congress has adopted to date reflects the contagion’s toll, with 29 million cases, more than 527,000 deaths, and deep economic scars, including 10 million fewer jobs than at the start of the crisis.
(...)
The newly adopted law includes another round of $1,400 stimulus checks, which Biden and his top aides have said should reach a large number of Americans by the end of the month. Democratic leaders pledged to authorize the aid in the final days of the 2020 campaign, seizing on the highly popular idea to give them an electoral boost in Georgia, where they picked up two Senate seats and ultimately took control of the chamber.
With unemployment, millions of Americans who were set to lose benefits in a matter of days now will received continued, enhanced federal payments of an extra $300 each week until early September. Many workers who collect unemployment also are set to receive a tax break on those benefits.
And the new stimulus includes a dramatic expansion of the child tax credit, for the first time seeking to pay out periodic, perhaps monthly, benefits to families with kids. Biden and his congressional Democratic allies have estimated the changes to law could cut child poverty by up to half.
The bill authorizes a wide variety of additional aid, including a $5 billion expansion to federal programs that help Americans afford food in the pandemic and a $7 billion effort to help students obtain internet access. In total, it includes $1.8 billion in federal spending and is expected to add $1.85 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to a congressional estimate.
Democrats did not get everything they initially sought. An earlier version of the stimulus, which passed the House last month, coupled the aid with the first increase in the federal minimum wage in decades. The idea died in the Senate, where moderate Democrats ultimately proved unwilling to support the aggressive procedural maneuvering that would have been required to raise the hourly rate.
Only one Democrat voted against the measure: Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has said the party should have focused on a more narrow measure targeting vaccine funding. In a statement describing his vote, he said that the Senate’s changes did not assuage his concerns while removing elements he did support, including the increase to the minimum wage.
“Democrats made a choice. A choice to put their own partisan political ambitions ahead of the needs of the working class, ahead of the needs of the American people,” said Rep. Jason Smith (D-Mo.) (sic), the top Republican on the House’s budget panel, ahead of the vote. “When our Democratic colleagues speak of unity, they mean keeping their party together, not keeping this country together.”
But Democrats countered that the absence of GOP support -- after lawmakers crossed the aisle to approve prior stimulus packages -- reflected the party’s own political calculations.
“There’s only one thing that’s changed since we passed those first five bills,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “The need is there, the virus is still with us, the economy is struggle, but now we have a Democratic president.”
by ponchi101 They are not even trying to hide it. Many of them claim they don't want to be a new Venezuela, but want the Venezuelan system 100%.
by JazzNU I'm not sure about Venezuela. I think they are trying for the South African system.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie They're calling the Stimulus checks "Biden bucks". They're calling them "Kamala Kash". Some banks are like
by JazzNU I have zero knowledge of what it is like to bank with Chime and CashApp, didn't even know that was possible with the latter, but talk about a great promo for them.
by ponchi101 I would also like to ask the doubters: what is YOUR solution? What do YOU propose to avoid millions of people from going bankrupt, millions of people from facing real financial consequences?
What do those people say?
by ti-amie I bet the banks are accepting the cash downloads and making money from them before letting the commoners have access to the funds. I never heard of Chime before and the less said the better about Cash App.
by JazzNU Chime has commercials or I never would've heard of them either. You know the banks are trying to make as much interest as possible on the billions hitting their bank before it is withdrawn.
by mmmm8 Because of the outdated US clearing system, it's possible the banks would also not see that money before Tuesday or Wednesday. The ones depositing immediately are possibly fronting the money as soon as the government sends it but before they have it.
by JazzNU Definitely. Though it is telling that they didn't make it available now. At least at some of the bigger banks, people are reporting their checks as pending. Given that there's not an actual concern that it will clear, the big banks could've made the money available like the smaller banks and credit unions appear to have done. There are some that had it pending yesterday, available today. Others pending yesterday, available on Monday. The 17th is the official payment date, that's why that is the date given by the various banks. It'll benefit the banks' bottom line. But those additional days might be difficult for those that are the most in need.
by ti-amie
If you read his Twitter bio you'll see why this "mea culpa" is a big deal.
by JazzNU Stuart is a harder one to take for me than several of the other Lincoln Project crew. This reply to his tweet is where I'm at right now.
David Lytle
@davitydave
Replying to @stuartpstevens
I’m honestly glad you’re having this epiphany, but I need to hold your feet to the fire over experiencing this when YOU finally need the government’s genuine help. I hope you spend the rest of your life working to help others to make amends.
JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:47 pm
Stuart is a harder one to take for me than several of the other Lincoln Project crew. This reply to his tweet is where I'm at right now.
David Lytle
@davitydave
Replying to @stuartpstevens
I’m honestly glad you’re having this epiphany, but I need to hold your feet to the fire over experiencing this when YOU finally need the government’s genuine help. I hope you spend the rest of your life working to help others to make amends.
With rw'ers it's always "socialism" or "handouts" or "let the free market be" until something happens to them and then, as you rightly say, the have an epiphany. At least this one didn't hide what he was doing like the former guy and his "spouse".
by ti-amie
The response is to this tweet.
I mean Jen Psaki is out there every day explaining what the Biden Administration is doing and why. Maybe, instead of a side show these "reporters"/"journalists can start doing what their elders did and track down leads instead of waiting for the daily floor show by the former guy.
by JazzNU Peter getting ratioed big time. Well deserved for this non-story.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
by ti-amie Pressure works!
by ti-amieOhio attorney general sues Biden administration over $1.9 trillion stimulus
Dave Yost, a Republican, alleged that the law contains unconstitutional restrictions on the way the federal government restricts aid to states.
By
Tony Romm
March 17, 2021 at 1:40 p.m. EDT
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued the Biden administration on Wednesday over its $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, alleging the federal government sought to impose “unconstitutional” limits on states’ ability to access some of the aid.
The lawsuit from Yost, a Republican, follows a day after 21 other GOP attorneys general issued their own veiled legal threat in a move that ratcheted up tensions between states and Democratic policymakers in Washington over one of the largest rescue measures in U.S. history.
The Ohio lawsuit centers on a $350 billion fund meant to help cities, counties and states cover the costs of responding to the coronavirus pandemic. The stimulus law opened the door for cash-strapped local governments to tap federal aid to pay for expenses, including for first responders, although it prohibited states from using the money to directly or indirectly offset new tax cuts.
To Ohio, though, the restriction on cutting taxes is overly broad, putting states that had planned any tax cuts — even those that predate the pandemic — in jeopardy of losing access to the federal relief money. Yost said the federal government had no right to make a such demand, and the attorney general asked a federal court in Ohio to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the portion of the stimulus law from being enforced.
“The Tax Mandate thus gives the States a choice: they can have either the badly needed federal funds or their sovereign authority to set state tax policy. But they cannot have both. In our current economic crisis, that is no choice at all,” Ohio’s lawyers wrote in the court filing.
Yost, in an interview, said the “plain meaning of the statute is unconstitutional.”
The lawsuit echoes the criticisms raised by other Republican leaders, who wrote Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday to ask her to clarify the law’s application by March 23 — or face “appropriate additional action.” The letter from the attorneys general of Arizona, Georgia, West Virginia and 18 other states said the stimulus, absent clarification, “would represent the greatest invasion of state sovereignty by Congress in the history of our Republic.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A White House administration official, speaking on background on Tuesday, because they were not authorized to comment on internal discussions, said Congress is well within its rights to “establish reasonable conditions on how states should use federal funding.” The official added that the American Rescue Plan doesn’t prohibit all tax cuts, just that they have to replace the revenue in some other way — and they can’t use stimulus funds to do it.
(...)
This week, the Biden administration tapped Gene Sperling, a former top White House budget official, to oversee its efforts across Washington to bring the stimulus online. Biden and Vice President Harris, meanwhile, embarked on a national tour to promote the benefits of the plan, which will send them both to Georgia on Friday.
Ohio’s legal salvo comes as the Treasury Department only is just beginning its work to implement the $350 billion local aid program, which will take weeks to stand up. Mayors, governors and other local leaders nationwide for months had called on Washington to deliver them the significant burst of cash, citing the impact of the pandemic on their bottom lines. More than half of all U.S. states have seen revenue fall from the prior year, cutting deeply into their spending and employment, even as they’ve managed to stave off the most crippling cuts.
Ohio, in particular, stands to see about $11.2 billion in fiscal relief at the state and local levels, according to a March analysis from the Congressional Research Service. The money could provide a boost after Gov. Mike DeWine ordered $390 million in new spending cuts across state agencies in January.
But Yost said his state, and others like it, may find themselves struggling to take advantage of it given the federal governments restrictions. His lawsuit contends "every change’ in tax policy that could affect revenue ultimately violates the stimulus prohibitions, even though the Constitution gives states broad latitude to manage their own budgets. He also said the U.S. government had overstepped in seeking to force states to pay back the money if they do impose tax cuts.
“Let’s assume they spend the whole thing, and the federal government comes back and says . . . we want the money back," the attorney general said. "Well, it’s gone. Where are we supposed to get that?”
by ti-amie Mean ol Joe Biden! The other guy used to just give us money we could use any way we wanted and now we have to account for it?! How dare he!
by ti-amie
by the Moz
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:27 pm
Mean ol Joe Biden! The other guy used to just give us money we could use any way we wanted and now we have to account for it?! How dare he!
Don't forget the unaccounted paper towel during hurricane season!!
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Suliso So they have votes to kill filibuster now?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:14 pm
So they have votes to kill filibuster now?
That's the question. IF they do they're holding their cards close to their vest.
by Suliso If state never had to "pay for anything" then why not just print 20k for every American? Unfortunately there are actually complications with that... Even US dollar can't be stretched to eternity.
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:19 pm
If state never had to "pay for anything" then why not just print 20k for every American? Unfortunately there are actually complications with that... Even US dollar can't be stretched to eternity.
Slate Money did an interesting podcast last year I think on MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) that says just that. It's a fascinating listen.
by Suliso It doesn't make any sense. Taking this to an extreme - why do we need to pay any taxes at all? The state could just produce new money to pay our pensions, welfare, infrastructure etc. I'm no economist, but even I can tell where that would end - Venezuela style inflation...
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:49 pm
It doesn't make any sense. Taking this to an extreme - why do we need to pay any taxes at all? The state could just produce new money to pay our pensions, welfare, infrastructure etc. I'm no economist, but even I can tell where that would end - Venezuela style inflation...
The sole difference is the currency. Let's remember the Greek crisis, triggered solely because the Greek debt reached a 1:1 ration with its GDP.
The American debt right now far surpasses that ratio; China's too. So it is completely as you say. The sole reason why the USA and China are not in declared bankruptcy, and their bonds and financial instruments are "worth" something is because of politics.
Your Venezuela example is spot on. But a lesser known one: Colombia. The GOV here gave a small COP300,000 assistance to people at the start of the pandemic, and the peso immediately went from 3,400/$ to around 3,900/$. Real economics, when you are dealing with us "other" countries.
by Suliso Yes, it's more extreme with weaker currencies. However, even dollar, euro or yuan is not infinitely elastic. In the case of a dollar you won't get it to collapse against other currencies easily, but you will get significantly larger inflation. It did happen in 70-ties so there is already proof it can happen.
by ti-amie
by patrick GOP wants Biden to reverse that Keystone Pipeline decision and handle the immigration crisis because Mr Rioter had that under control.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Some tweets re President Biden's press conference:
by ti-amie More excerpts
by ti-amie Continued:
by ti-amie Continued:
by Suliso What does it even mean 13th on infrastructure?
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:39 pm
What does it even mean 13th on infrastructure?
I guess we're ranked 13th in terms of qualify of infrastructure?
by ti-amie Full POTUS quote re the politics of governing:
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 There must be many ways to measure where you stand in infrastructure. % of GDP spending, Gross Spending, etc. Whichever way you see it, being 13th in the world, when the largest economic group in the world is called the G7, makes you sound pretty bad.
by Suliso I think being 13th out of 200+ countries in anything positive is fantastic. Assuming of course it's measured per capita not in absolute terms.
by ponchi101 Regardless of the numbers, when you go to the USA you can see that infrastructure facilities are not being properly kept or even maintained. Coming to the USA from Europe, for example, makes you wonder where does the mighty dollar goes. The sole airport that I would consider reasonable in the USA is Houston; I recently had to go through LAX and it is shameful. Compared to Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia, JFK is a dump. Even a small airport like Copenhagen beats any American airport hands down.
Germans would laugh (or already do) at American highways. The USA basically has no train's infrastructure, other than freight, anywhere that is not the North East corridor.
Of course, in comparison to S. America or Africa, the USA is alright. But that is not a benchmark you want to use. I do wish I would have American highways here in Colombia but, when I go to Europe and drive in a proper highway, I see the difference.
Plus: remember that Americans do frequently break into "We are #1!" chants. In infrastructure, chanting "we are #13!" does not have the same ring.
by Suliso I drove on American highways last time in late 2019. They are not as good as the ones in Switzerland, but considering the size of the country perfectly serviceable. You do have a point about airports, those are lousy indeed.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 I can't thank you for that post, Ti. It is sickening.
by JazzNU
by JazzNU That press conference was clearly out of step with what is most concerning to everyday Americans right now, who truly don't care about re-election two months after inauguration. If they had bothered to ask, they may have learned information such as this, which is very likely to help with mitigating the current surge in cases. I know the one that is opening in Newark is capable of 42k doses/week and NJ is having the largest increase in cases of any state as you can see in the graph above.
by ti-amie
JazzNU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:12 pm
That press conference was clearly out of step with what is most concerning to everyday Americans right now, who truly don't care about re-election two months after inauguration. If they had bothered to ask, they may have learned information such as this, which is very likely to help with mitigating the current surge in cases. I know the one that is opening in Newark is capable of 42k doses/week and NJ is having the largest increase in cases of any state as you can see in the graph above.
The WH press corps showed itself to be poorly prepared to cover a real Administration, one focused on governing and not reality show style sideshows. Let's hope they do better next time.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Suliso Is there anything the federal government can do against that crazy law in Georgia? If not more wins by the blue team probably not happening there...
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:56 pm
Is there anything the federal government can do against that crazy law in Georgia? If not more wins by the blue team probably not happening there...
Yes, federal law overrides state law, so many particulars in the state laws being passed will become void. The original Voting Rights Act prevented much of this nonsense, but the teeth of the act were taken out through various GOP actions in recent years in an effort to do what they are doing right now.
In my experience, even well meaning white people have no idea how offensive anything relating to a plantation is and will gloss over everything about them and see them as nothing other than "gorgeous antebellum architecture" or some such nonsense. Man oh man, have I had to have multiple conversations on this topic.
In my experience, even well meaning white people have no idea how offensive anything relating to a plantation is and will gloss over everything about them and see them as nothing other than "gorgeous antebellum architecture" or some such nonsense. Man oh man, have I had to have multiple conversations on this topic.
In my experience, even well meaning white people have no idea how offensive anything relating to a plantation is and will gloss over everything about them and see them as nothing other than "gorgeous antebellum architecture" or some such nonsense. Man oh man, have I had to have multiple conversations on this topic.
White privilege.
White privilege is much much much too kind here. We have a group of rich white guys in suits standing in front of a picture of a death camp (It's a plantation like Auschwitz was a candle factory) signing Jim Crow era anti Black voter legislation. How about white supremacist racists?
Kevin
by the Moz It is too kind. I just wanted to keep my judgemental response short.
by JazzNU FWIW, I thought @Moz was responding more to my comment than what was going on in that photo as a whole. For the photo and what those men are doing? Too kind. For my comment? Pretty spot on.
by Suliso Since I've not been further south than Richmond on the East coast: do most of these plantations still serve as private residences? Some are museums no doubt, but probably minority.
by the Moz Please tell me the ceramic lawn jockeys are gone? It took a Civil War and a Constitutional Amendment to downgrade to those from '3/5'. So very very very offensive disgusting revolting...
by ponchi101 While I agree with the sentiment, I do not think this is white privilege. A privilege is a passive thing that benefits the people it affects. Like, the way white mass murderers are treated when arrested is white privilege. We know what happens when non-whites interact with the police.
Yet I cannot find the proper description. White violence? Actionably, it is that: a few white men taking away rights from minorities that leads to a verifiable denigration of their well being. White sadism? White abuse? (I feel that is too soft).
How to describe this? Pettiness is still too soft, although the concept is in the right direction: white people passing laws that hurt others while at the same time those laws truly do very little FOR them.
White aggression? I would settle for that. This is a violation of an entire section of the population's rights. It is as aggressive as any law can be.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:29 pm
While I agree with the sentiment, I do not think this is white privilege. A privilege is a passive thing that benefits the people it affects. Like, the way white mass murderers are treated when arrested is white privilege. We know what happens when non-whites interact with the police.
Yet I cannot find the proper description. White violence? Actionably, it is that: a few white men taking away rights from minorities that leads to a verifiable denigration of their well being. White sadism? White abuse? (I feel that is too soft).
How to describe this? Pettiness is still too soft, although the concept is in the right direction: white people passing laws that hurt others while at the same time those laws truly do very little FOR them.
White aggression? I would settle for that. This is a violation of an entire section of the population's rights. It is as aggressive as any law can be.
Sorry to take this off topic for a moment, but I'm now wondering is there a similar kind of dynamic between formerly enslaved and former slavers in any other country where slavery was abolished in mid 19th century or later. I'm particularly wondering about Brazil since in the Caribbean the number of fully white people remaining is very small. I've not heard of anything like that, but I could just be poorly informed...
by the Moz The law is voter suppression. End of.
A group of white men standing in front of that painting signing that law and being perfectly fine broadcasting that to the world is white privilege to me. They think and act without consequence or repercussion knowing full well it's offensive and wrong. Their money and access to power shields them from tangible scrutiny.
by ponchi101
the Moz wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:41 pm
The law is voter suppression. End of.
A group of white men standing in front of that painting signing that law and being perfectly fine broadcasting that to the world is white privilege to me. They think and act without consequence or repercussion knowing full well it's offensive and wrong. Their money and access to power shields them from tangible scrutiny.
In case I was not explaining myself well: for sure, you are 100% correct. This is blatant voter suppression. My only question is whether calling it White Privilege is strong enough. To me, this similar to designating RAPE as SEXUAL ABUSE. White privilege simply does not carry the connotations of how despicable this is.
Side note: I have family in Georgia. But if they did not live there, I would never set foot again in that state. The racist, misogynistic cesspool of the USA.
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:03 pm
Since I've not been further south than Richmond on the East coast: do most of these plantations still serve as private residences? Some are museums no doubt, but probably minority.
Private residences, museums, hotels, B&Bs. Some are not quite museums but like part of a historical tour of some kind.
But like I said. Plenty are showing off the architecture and gloss over the history of the structure.
by dmforever
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:03 pm
Since I've not been further south than Richmond on the East coast: do most of these plantations still serve as private residences? Some are museums no doubt, but probably minority.
I don't live in the South, but from what I've read and heard, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), people have weddings and other celebrations on plantations too. It's really sick.
Kevin
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:29 pm
While I agree with the sentiment, I do not think this is white privilege. A privilege is a passive thing that benefits the people it affects. Like, the way white mass murderers are treated when arrested is white privilege. We know what happens when non-whites interact with the police.
Yet I cannot find the proper description. White violence? Actionably, it is that: a few white men taking away rights from minorities that leads to a verifiable denigration of their well being. White sadism? White abuse? (I feel that is too soft).
How to describe this? Pettiness is still too soft, although the concept is in the right direction: white people passing laws that hurt others while at the same time those laws truly do very little FOR them.
White aggression? I would settle for that. This is a violation of an entire section of the population's rights. It is as aggressive as any law can be.
I'd say Apartheid is the word you're looking for. Doesn't connote the descriptiveness you probably want out of the word, but that is what they are attempting to institute. And the word has a well known history that ought to alarm people.
by JazzNU
dmforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:39 pm
I don't live in the South, but from what I've read and heard, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), people have weddings and other celebrations on plantations too. It's really sick.
Kevin
Yes, that's a biggie for their current use. Like I said, I've had to have many conversations on this topic, it being inappropriate for a special occasion to take place if I was expected to attend has been several of those conversations. I have always offered to just skip, not for them to move an event.
dmforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:39 pm
I don't live in the South, but from what I've read and heard, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), people have weddings and other celebrations on plantations too. It's really sick.
Kevin
Yes, that's a biggie for their current use. Like I said, I've had to have many conversations on this topic, it being inappropriate for a special occasion to take place if I was expected to attend has been several of those conversations. I have always offered to just skip, not for them to move an event.
I don't understand what's hard for people to understand. What do these people that you deal with say?
Kevin
by Suliso They probably just see a pretty building and a nice garden. They are pretty from pictures I've seen...
by JazzNU
dmforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:54 pm
I don't understand what's hard for people to understand. What do these people that you deal with say?
Kevin
Like I said, I'm talking about well meaning white people here that have almost all been good friends. Their sheltered worlds didn't make them think of a plantation as a connection to slavery, but as more of a dreamy Gone with the Wind type setting. That is how it is portrayed now and for decades in pop culture and entertainment. as a southern style architecture with large manicured lawns divorced from their previous operation. And it's not like the education system here does much to counteract that.
When I tell them, listen, I'm going to skip it and they ask why, I vary what I say based on who I am talking to and what stage the event planning is (I'm truly not trying to ruin someone's event or make them lose money), but the one that drives the point home the quickest, is when I ask them if they'd be comfortable staying/celebrating at the Hotel Auschwitz? They're typically horrified. It has never occurred to them once to view it in that manner, and that even includes my Jewish friends, it's just never a connection they made.
dmforever wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:54 pm
I don't understand what's hard for people to understand. What do these people that you deal with say?
Kevin
Like I said, I'm talking about well meaning white people here that have almost all been good friends. Their sheltered worlds didn't make them think of a plantation as a connection to slavery, but as more of a dreamy Gone with the Wind type setting. That is how it is portrayed now and for decades in pop culture and entertainment. as a southern style architecture with large manicured lawns divorced from their previous operation. And it's not like the education system here does much to counteract that.
When I tell them, listen, I'm going to skip it and they ask why, I vary what I say based on who I am talking to and what stage the event planning is (I'm truly not trying to ruin someone's event or make them lose money), but the one that drives the point home the quickest, is when I ask them if they'd be comfortable staying/celebrating at the Hotel Auschwitz? They're typically horrified. It has never occurred to them once to view it in that manner, and that even includes my Jewish friends, it's just never a connection they made.
That's actually very heartening that even though they never really thought about it, they do get it once the connection is made for them. Maybe there is still hope. It must be a little a little frustrating for you though to have to make the connection for them.
Kevin
by ti-amie
I read the other day that Tim Scott got a pardon for his coke dealing cousin from Tiny so expect him to come out from whatever rock he hides under and talk about how great this is.
by ponchi101 Can this be challenged in the SCOTUS? It is so blatantly discriminatory that it would seem easy to shot down, but we know what the SCOTUS composition is now.
by patrick Probably but Mr Henchmen and Mr Rioter stacked the courts for the past 4 years after Mr Henchmen said no judge the previous 4 years.
by Togtdyalttai I think there's a good chance that parts of the law get overturned while others stand. The reappointing election boards part seems so blatantly undemocratic that even the conservative Supreme Court may gave difficulty keeping it. I think it will go to a lower court first though, possibly the Georgia Supreme Court?
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:00 pm
Can this be challenged in the SCOTUS? It is so blatantly discriminatory that it would seem easy to shot down, but we know what the SCOTUS composition is now.
SCOTUS? No. It can be challenged in Georgia courts or in a US District Court. Only in extremely rare circumstances can something be challenged directly to SCOTUS. But is there a chance that this law be ruled invalid in the courts in general? Absolutely, a very good chance. Even some of the most conservative judges have previously mentioned that some of what GA threw in here being undue burdens, such as forbidding handing out food and water to those waiting in line.
Will SCOTUS eventually take this up if a District Court overturns it and a a Circuit Court upholds that ruling? Possibly. And there could be an issue then because Roberts who has been somewhat of a level headed justice at times trying to not let the country become the worst version of itself, has helped to gleefully gut the Voting Rights Act in the past. A lot has transpired that he doesn't appear as on board with in the last couple of years so we'd have to see. This might be a bit too obviously Jim Crow for some of them to put their name on. But the assumption would be upholding the GA law, not invalidating it with the current court makeup if it gets there.
That being said, the District and Circuit Courts are different animals and I would look for overturning the GA law at those levels. The SC is much more likely to hear a review if say, the GA and AZ laws are similar and overturned, but similar laws in IA are upheld. This is wait and see right now if it'll reach the SC and a long way off, but at the district court level, rest assured those filings are being prepared as we speak.
by Suliso @JazzNu: are you by any chance a lawyer? You seem to know a lot about stuff like this.
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:29 pm
@JazzNu: are you by any chance a lawyer? You seem to know a lot about stuff like this.
Why yes, technically I am. I do more research and analysis than anything else though.
by mmmm8
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:38 pm
Sorry to take this off topic for a moment, but I'm now wondering is there a similar kind of dynamic between formerly enslaved and former slavers in any other country where slavery was abolished in mid 19th century or later. I'm particularly wondering about Brazil since in the Caribbean the number of fully white people remaining is very small. I've not heard of anything like that, but I could just be poorly informed...
This is a good question. I think this is often overlooked for Brazil. Now it seems there is more of a colorism issue since the population is majority-mixed and the white minority is now formed of more recent, post-abolition of slavery European immigrants. But historically there were issues of institutional segregation similar to the US.
by ponchi101 He is underwater in his handling of gun violence? Then what about the GOP? Nothing gets done because of them.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:26 am
He is underwater in his handling of gun violence? Then what about the GOP? Nothing gets done because of them.
Democrats expect progress, Republican voters expect the past, but are happy with the status quo, so Republican politicians benefit from doing nothing.
by ti-amie
$3m - $5m range maybe?
by ti-amieSupreme Court to decide if Ky. attorney general can intervene to defend abortion restrictions
by
Robert Barnes
March 29, 2021 at 2:55 p.m. EDT
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron delivers an address during the Republican National Convention. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
The Supreme Court will decide whether Kentucky’s Republican attorney general can defend the state’s restrictive abortion law against the wishes of its Democratic governor, the justices announced Monday.
The law would effectively ban after 15 weeks a common procedure used to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester. A trial court struck down the law as unconstitutional and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed.
But the case, which the Supreme Court will hear in the term that begins in the fall, does not ask the court to reconsider its abortion jurisprudence.
The question instead is whether the appeals court was right to bar Attorney General Daniel Cameron from taking over the case to further challenge the ruling. Health and Family Services Secretary Eric Friedlander, an appointee of Gov. Andy Beshear, decided against further defense of the law.
The law was passed in 2018 by Kentucky’s majority-Republican legislature and signed by the state’s governor at the time, who was a Republican.
“I promised Kentuckians that I would defend our laws all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and that’s what we’ve done,” Cameron said in a statement. “Since day one in office, we’ve fought to defend House Bill 454, even when the Beshear administration refused to defend it. This law reflects the conscience of Kentucky.”
Beshear, who as the state’s attorney general until 2019 had said he would not pursue additional defense of the law, said during his gubernatorial campaign that he would not defend abortion laws he considered unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court declined to take up a second issue presented by Cameron’s petition. It asked how the court’s ruling last term striking a restrictive Louisiana abortion law affects the legal reasoning the 6th Circuit used to block the Kentucky law. The 6th Circuit ruled just days before the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo.
“This case is only about whether the attorney general, after having sat on the sidelines of this lawsuit, can jump in at the last minute in an effort to revive an unconstitutional law,” said Andrew Beck, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, which represented a Kentucky clinic challenging the law.
by ponchi101 No need to listen to the audio. It says Koch-backed. That says everything.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:12 pm
No need to listen to the audio. It says Koch-backed. That says everything.
But... her emails...
by ti-amieWhat’s in Biden’s $2 trillion jobs and infrastructure plan?
The proposal, which includes a major focus on climate change, could lay the groundwork for the president’s economic agenda
By
Rachel Siegel
March 31, 2021 at 2:14 p.m. EDT
President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion jobs and infrastructure plan Wednesday to address some of the country’s most pressing problems, including damaged bridges, unequal broadband access, climate change and care for people with disabilities and the elderly.
Biden’s proposal, the American Jobs Plan, would be paid for, in part, by raising the corporate tax rate and global minimum tax. Many of these measures would reverse the Trump administration’s 2017 tax cuts.
(...)
The American Jobs Plan is expected to be followed by a second economic package in April that includes a major expansion in health insurance coverage, child-care subsidies, free access to community colleges and other proposals.
Infrastructure: $621 billion
The plan would invest $115 billion to revamp highways and roads, including 10 major and 10,000 smaller bridges in need of reconstruction. It also includes $20 billion to improve road safety, including for cyclists and pedestrians.
The plan calls for $85 billion to modernize existing transit systems and help agencies expand to meet rider demand. The investment would double federal funding for public transit.
Biden is proposing $80 billion to fix Amtrak’s repair backlog.
It would establish $174 billion in grant and incentive programs for state and local governments and the private sector to build a national network of 500,000 electric-vehicle chargers by 2030.
The proposal seeks to replace 50,000 diesel transit vehicles and electrify at least 20 percent of the country’s yellow school bus fleet.
The plan would invest $25 billion in airports, including programs to renovate terminals and expand car-free access to air travel.
Biden is also pitching $17 billion for inland waterways, coastal ports, land ports of entry and ferries to invest in the nation’s freight system.
Infrastructure ‘at home’: $650 billion
Biden’s proposal would invest $213 billion to build and retrofit more than 2 million homes. The plan would build and rehabilitate more than 500,000 homes for low- and middle-income home buyers and invest $40 billion to improve public housing.
Biden’s proposal aims to deliver universal broadband, including to more than 35 percent of rural Americans who lack access to high-speed Internet.
The plan would invest $111 billion for clean drinking water, $45 billion of which would be used to replace the country’s lead pipes and service lines. The effort would reduce lead exposure in 400,000 schools and child-care facilities and improve the safety of drinking water.
The proposal calls for $100 billion to upgrade and build new public schools. It also would invest $12 billion in community college infrastructure and $25 billion to upgrade child-care facilities.
Biden is proposing $18 billion to modernize Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics and $10 billion to revamp federal buildings.
Care economy: $400 billion
The plan expands access to home- or community-based care for seniors and people with disabilities. It would extend a Medicaid program, Money Follows the Person, to move elderly residents out of nursing homes and back into their own homes or into the care of loved ones.
Biden also calls for improving working conditions, including higher wages and more benefits, for caretakers, who are disproportionately women of color and who have largely stayed on the job during the coronavirus pandemic.
Research and development, manufacturing and training: $580 billion
Biden’s proposal would invest $180 billion in research and development. That includes a major clean-energy push to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and boost climate-focused research.
The plan would invest $50 billion in domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
It would provide incentives for companies to locate local manufacturing jobs in the “industrial heartland.”
The plan would double the number of registered apprenticeships to more than 1 million and invest in a more inclusive science and technology workforce.
Tax overhaul
The White House plan calls for about $2 trillion in new spending over eight years. The proposed tax increases would cover that cost over 15 years and become permanent.
The plan raises the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent.
It also increases the global minimum tax paid from about 13 percent to 21 percent.
The proposal ends federal tax breaks for fossil fuel companies.
It also ramps up tax enforcement against corporations and prevents U.S. corporations from claiming tax havens as their residence.
Responding to climate change
Much of Biden’s spending package focuses on green infrastructure and job creation. For example, the White House says automakers could hire workers to make batteries and parts for electric vehicles, shoring up their own supply chains. Consumers would also get tax incentives to buy American-made electric vehicles.
The White House says that 40 percent of the benefits of its climate and clean-infrastructure investments would go to disadvantaged communities.
The Biden administration argues that retrofitting homes and public infrastructure will reduce the billions of dollars in damage caused by climate disasters. The plan calls for $50 billion to improve resilience to climate change, including by protecting electric grids, food systems, urban infrastructure and hospitals in communities most vulnerable to flooding and other severe weather events.
The infrastructure overhaul would also cover protection from wildfires, sea-level rise, hurricanes and droughts and shore up dam safety.
The plan would put $35 billion toward clean-energy technology, new methods for reducing emissions and other broad-based climate research.
The plan would establish an Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard that would set specific targets to cut how much coal- and gas-fired electricity power companies use over time.
Worker rights
Biden’s plan calls for passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or Pro Act, which is aimed at significantly strengthening workers’ rights to organize.
The proposal also places a heavy emphasis on creating union-backed jobs.
by ponchi101 Yet the sacred cow of the USA, Wall Street, remains untouched. No taxes for transactions, or anything related.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:50 pm
Yet the sacred cow of the USA, Wall Street, remains untouched. No taxes for transactions, or anything related.
Good point.
I think it's a decent start. And of course Moscow Mitch has already come out against it.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:50 pm
Yet the sacred cow of the USA, Wall Street, remains untouched. No taxes for transactions, or anything related.
Good point.
I think it's a decent start. And of course Moscow Mitch has already come out against it.
Henchmen profits would be below expectations.
by ti-amie I'll just leave this here...
tumblr_mvm79oB7w71sbhkw0o2_500.png
-->
by dryrunguy
tumblr_mvm79oB7w71sbhkw0o2_500.png
by ti-amie In vino, veritas.
by MJ2004 Lol
by ti-amie
by ti-amie There are many activists in Georgia who feel that boycotts called for by the film and tv industries and direct action like that taken by MLB will only hurt Georgians who depend on them for jobs. I don't know how to feel about their stance to be honest. Here is Stacey Abrams reaction to what MLB did:
I saw this first.
Claire Willett
@clairewillett
Replying to @clairewillett
MLB could have been like "we're donating X% of our profits from this game to Fair Fight because we support voting rights for everybody and we think this law is wrong" and run a whole series of TV promos with popular players talking about voting rights as a bipartisan issue
I'm fine with what MLB did.
by ponchi101 You can't get into a fight and NOT be hit. That is the definition of fight. So sure, maybe if TV/Movies boycott Georgia a lot of people not involved in this (who isn't?) will suffer, and maybe the state will suffer financially. But that is the point. Your rights are being trampled and therefore you need to do something of substance and that involved fighting.
If you expect that law to be repealed, you can't do that via a FB/TWT petition.
I don't think he needs the liquor. This was originally from a talk at Stanford, the one where he called him Lucifer in the Flesh.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:55 pm
I'm fine with what MLB did.
I completely approve. The fight to end Apartheid in South Africa had been going on for years with minor progress and the only thing that got talks moving to end the system at a much more rapid pace was when companies were forced to divest after their ties were exposed.
Yes, it will hurt Georgia some right now. But it also works and you need something that works and works quickly. When North Carolina passed that repulsive bathroom bill several years ago that other states also had in the works, North Carolina got slammed. NCAA moved all championships out of the state, and they always have them there with a ridiculous (biased) frequency. Companies voiced their disapproval loudly, some cancelling planned expansions, others moving the things they could out of the state. They lost event after event. And then Hollywood tv and movie productions, of which there were many in Wilmington, NC, pulled out of the state. No other state passed a similar bill. And NC suffered until it was repealed, but it didn't go under during that time and they are fine now. It's an effective strategy with a proven success record.
Donations to organizations supporting voting rights can still happen, it doesn't need to be an either or. But acting like that's all that needs to be done for change is unrealistic. Like trying to wait for them to see the error of their ways just because it's the right thing to do. The loss of revenue is on the GOP. They can stop being racist ******** anytime and this will all end.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Performance art indeed.
by ti-amie
Just spitballing here but who would they appoint to fill the rest of his term? We're talking deSantis here so we know it's going to be some MAGAt.
by JazzNU I'll believe it when I see it. Was creepy Roy Moore not on a GOP ballot more than once in Alabama or do I have amnesia? Not apples to apples comparison and not suggesting Gaetz isn't worse, but still, they've been very okay with admitted stuff, not just allegations, so I'll believe swift action after an indictment only if it actually occurs.
by ti-amie
by Togtdyalttai
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:16 pm
Just spitballing here but who would they appoint to fill the rest of his term? We're talking deSantis here so we know it's going to be some MAGAt.
Governors can't appoint replacements for Representatives. They can only do so for Senators, and even then, there are some states, such as Wisconsin, that don't allow it. Instead, there would be a special election.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:16 pm
Just spitballing here but who would they appoint to fill the rest of his term? We're talking deSantis here so we know it's going to be some MAGAt.
Governors can't appoint replacements for Representatives. They can only do so for Senators, and even then, there are some states, such as Wisconsin, that don't allow it. Instead, there would be a special election.
Thanks Tog. I didn't know that was the case.
by ti-amie
This is the only one of these I could find. I tried to find one without all the IG stuff
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Puerto Rico state 51, Mexico state 52, Guatemala state 53, Venezuela state 54 (hey, we are for sale!) and keep moving.
Might as well all be states if over 50% of our people want to move to Miami or NYC (Mexico could be called New New Mexico).
(And I am.... sort of joking. Uhm)
by ti-amie
by JazzNU District of Columbia is 51. Personally, if DC doesn't get it, I don't see PR getting it.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Also in case the Mississippi SoS wasn't clear:
by ponchi101 THEY are afraid of uninformed voters?
As opposed to Q'Anon loonies?
(And you know I DO NOT AGREE with universal voting, in theory).
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by mmmm8 I see 40% of Republicans want people to die of lead poisoning.
by skatingfan
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:18 am
I see 40% of Republicans want people to die of lead poisoning.
Jesus will protect them.
by JazzNU
by JazzNU Live look at Liz Cheney watching every morsel of this seedy story unfold:
by ti-amieHere’s What We Know Right Now About Matt Gaetz’s Indicted Tax Collector Friend Joel Greenberg
AARON KELLER
Apr 7th, 2021, 6:29 pm
A former Florida tax collector and close associate of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is facing a 45-page federal indictment alleging wire fraud, sex trafficking, and a litany of other offenses connected to the alleged abuse of his office and other crimes. That former tax collector, Joel Greenberg, is suspected of being a possible cooperating witness against Gaetz, Politico and others have recently reported, as Gaetz faces a reported inquiry into his own sexual behavior.
Greenberg’s attorney has refused to comment publicly on whether or not his client is dishing dirt on Gaetz, and Gaetz has denied any and all wrongdoing. With the degree and extent of Greenberg’s cooperation — if any — against Gaetz officially unknown, Law&Crime dug through police reports and court records naming Greenberg to shed light on the underlying accusations against him and to more fully illustrate the extent of his legal jeopardy. Aside from his federal criminal accusations, which resulted in two separate arrests, Greenberg has also been let off the hook by local authorities in a number of instances. A woman called police to say a man later identified as Greenberg pulled her over using a badge and a flashing light for an alleged traffic violation, even though he isn’t a cop; and his own wife once called 911 on him during an argument.
A third superseding indictment on file with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division currently accuses Greenberg of 33 separate criminal counts. He was initially arrested on June 23, 2020 on an original indictment alleging only two counts on June 17, 2020; he was hit with additional counts — six in total — on July 15, 2020. A second superseding indictment filed August 19, 2020, brought the tally to 12 counts; the third and current indictment was handed up on March 30, 2021.
The charging documents do not directly name Gaetz, but they do allege a wide-ranging scheme against Greenberg.
“As set out herein, JOEL MICAH GREENBERG used his position as Seminole County Tax Collector to engage in, and facilitate, the commission of federal offenses, including sex trafficking of a child, illegally obtaining personal information from a motor vehicle record, unlawful use of a means of identification of another person, illegally producing identification and false identification documents, aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, and money laundering,” the latest charging document begins. “JOEL MICAH GREENBERG also stalked a political opponent. After his arrest in this case, and while he was on conditions of release, JOEL MICAH GREENBERG conspired with an employee of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and another individual to submit false claims for Economic Injury Disaster Loans and to bribe the SBA employee.”
Among the accusations is that Greenberg used the Florida Driver and Vehicle Information Database, known as DAVID, to create fake driver’s licenses using his own “photograph but the personal information of [his] victims.” Though the documents say Florida tax collectors’ offices do handle driver’s license transactions, they allege that Greenberg “obtained, disclosed, transferred, and used personal information of individuals whose personal information was in a motor vehicle record, including individuals with whom [Greenberg] was engaged in ‘sugar daddy’ relationships.” These fake IDs were used “to facilitate” Greenberg’s “efforts to engage in commercial sex acts,” including the sex trafficking of a child between 14 and 18 years old, the documents allege.
The documents also say Greenberg used his access to the driver’s license system to illegally create at least one replacement driver’s license.
They go on to allege that Greenberg cooked up a scheme “to embezzle and divert over $400,000 to benefit himself personally.” It involved using tax collector’s office funds “to purchase cryptocurrency for himself,” to “operate a business that sold cryptocurrency mining machines to benefit himself,” and to actually “mine cryptocurrency to benefit himself.” The mining machines were sold through Amazon.com, the documents allege.
The blockchain part of the alleged scheme involved a company called Government Blockchain Systems, LLC, which Greenberg is said to have set up with one other person, and a series of banks and other organizations — two of which are cryptocurrency exchanges known in the indictment only as “Entity A” and “Entity B.”
Several Government Blockchain Systems, LLC documents on file with the Florida Secretary of States Office, as reviewed by Law&Crime, contain Greenberg’s name, his signature, and the name and address of his official office.
Federal prosecutors say Greenberg “falsely represent[ed] in the memo lines of checks the purpose of the transactions” related to this scheme in order to try to hide their “true personal nature.” They also say Greenberg used some of the money “to personally benefit himself, including by obtaining a $100,000 cashier’s check that [he] deposited into his personal account” at an area credit union. Some of the transactions ran through Greenberg’s government office-issued credit card, prosecutors believe. They also think he tried to cover his tracks by using “funds obtained from a family member” once he realized the Secret Service was investigating him.
One transaction involved in the scheme totaled $65,860 in government funds; another involved $68,087.46, the documents say.
The documents further allege that Greenberg used government money to buy autographed Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan memorabilia.
Greenberg is also accused of stalking a “political opponent” in a manner “reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress.” The victim is said to have worked at a school. Greenberg is alleged to have sent letters claiming to be a “very concerned student” (in the letter’s own words) who “had information that the school employee had engaged in sexual misconduct with a particular student” (those are prosecutor’s words to summarize the letter’s contents). Redacted copies of the letter appear in the court record:
Greenberg is also accused of setting up a Twitter account using the school employee’s name and photograph. It attempted to characterize the school employee as “a segregationist . . . in favor of white supremacy.” Greenberg had no consent or authority to set up the account, and the school employee had no clue it was happening, the documents allege.
“I’m running for office to keep #seminolecounty white and segregated,” one post on the account read. “It’s time we take back out [sic] country!”
“I’m proud of America!! Red WHITE AND blue. WHITE,” read another.
“This is great. Just don’t become a Jew like your kids have,” another anti-Semitic post on the account said.
A fake Facebook account also alleged sexual misconduct against the teacher. One claimed that the teacher raped a “male student” who went to seek the teacher’s “counsel on the student’s sexuality.” The post claimed the teacher admitted “his own sinful homosexual thoughts and they would together pray the gay away.”
“This evolved into several sexual interactions,” the post continued, “even one involving a video of the sexual encounter. This must be made known. He is a sham.”
Prosecutors say it was all a lie. “GREENBERG then and there well knew[] the allegations were false,” the criminal indictment against the former tax collector states.
The documents further say Greenberg filed on June 28, 2020 — several days after his June 23, 2020 release from custody following his initial arrest — documents to reinstate a closed business Greenberg formerly owned. Greenberg is accused of using that company, DG3 Network, Inc., and another company, Greenberg Media, to submit a fictitious claim with the Small Business Administration for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) connected to the novel coronavirus pandemic. The applications are alleged to have included lies about the businesses’ revenues, number of employees, and that the businesses were even active in the first place. A friend allegedly connected Greenberg to an SBA employee who Greenberg bribed to manually approve the fraudulent loans, the documents state.
A full accounting of the charges Greenberg faces is below.
Count 1 – Sex Trafficking of a Child – November 2017 – victim between 14 and 18 years old.
Count 2 – Driver’s Privacy Protection Act Violations – September 4, 2017 – Minor Victim.
Count 3 – Driver’s Privacy Protection Act Violations – November 18, 2017 – Victim R.Z.
Count 4 – Unlawful Use of Means of Identification of Another Person – September 4, 2017 – Minor Victim.
Count 5 – Production of an Identification Document – November 11, 2015 – Victim R.Z.
Count 6 – Aggravated Identity Theft – November 11, 2015 – Victim R.Z.
Count 7 – Production of Identification and False Identification Documents – sometime between November 11, 2017 and June 23, 2020 – Victim R.Z. (with Greenberg’s photograph).
Count 8 – Production of Identification and False Identification Documents – sometime between September 21, 2018 and June 23, 2020 – Puerto Rico driver’s license of victim E.J.C.C. (with Greenberg’s photograph).
Count 9 – Aggravated Identity Theft – sometime between November 11, 2017 and June 23, 2020 – Victim R.Z.
Count 10 – Aggravated Identity Theft – sometime between September 21, 2018 and June 23, 2020 – Puerto Rico driver’s license of victim E.J.C.C.
Count 11 – Wire Fraud – November 8, 2017 – $1,500 credit card charge using Tax Collector’s Office American Express card.
Count 12 – Wire Fraud – December 4, 2017 – involving an email to “an employee at Entity A.”
Count 13 – Wire Fraud – December 12, 2018 – involving an email to “an employee at Entity A.”
Count 14 – Wire Fraud – December 20, 2028 – a $200,000 wire transfer from a Tax Collector’s Office account to Entity A’s account.
Count 15 – Wire Fraud – September 20, 2019 – a $5,000 transfer from Government Blockchain Systems, LLC to Greenberg’s personal account.
Count 16 – Wire Fraud – September 24, 2019 – another $5,000 transfer from Government Blockchain Systems, LLC to Greenberg’s personal account.
Count 17 – Wire Fraud – October 15, 2019 – another $5,000 transfer from Government Blockchain Systems, LLC to Greenberg’s personal account.
Count 18 – Wire Fraud – October 17, 2019 – another $5,000 transfer from Government Blockchain Systems, LLC to Greenberg’s personal account.
Count 19 – Wire Fraud – November 2, 2019 – a wire transfer “to establish a seller account at Amazon.”
Count 20 – Wire Fraud – January 17, 2020 – a “$599.95 credit card charge to purchase an autographed Michael Jordon photograph using an American Express card of the Tax Collector’s Office.”
Count 21 – Illegal Monetary Transactions – December 29, 2017 – transfer of $100,000 to Greenberg’s personal account.
Count 22 – Illegal Monetary Transactions – December 29, 2019 – transfer of $10,000 in Bitcoin to a cryptocurrency wallet belonging to Greenberg.
Count 23 – Illegal Monetary Transactions – December 24, 2018 – transfer of $100,000 in Bitcoin “in the name of the Tax Collector’s Office” to a “cryptocurrency wallet controlled by” Greenberg.
Count 24 – Stalking – October 10, 2019 to November 15, 2019 – involving the political opponent/teacher.
Count 25 – Unlawful Use of Means of Identification of Another Person – November 2, 2019 – involving the fake Twitter account bearing the political opponent/teacher’s name.
Count 26 – Conspiracy to Bribe a Public Official, Submission of a False Claim, Theft of Government Property, and Wire Fraud – Jan. 2017 – SBA loans.
Count 27 – Bribery of a Public Official – July 17, 2020 – for a $3,000 payment Greenberg allegedly made to an SBA employee.
Count 28 – Submission of a False Claim – EIDL application for Joel Greenberg.
Count 29 – Submission of a False Claim – EIDL application for DG3 Network.
Count 30 – Submission of a False Claim – EIDL application for Greenberg Media.
Count 31 – Theft of Government Property – $132,900 in EIDL proceeds for Joel Greenberg.
Count 32 – Theft of Government Property – $149,900 in EIDL proceeds for DG3 Network.
Count 33 – Theft of Government Property – $149,900 in EIDL proceeds for Greenberg Media.
A series of records released to Law&Crime by the Seminole County, Fla. Sheriff’s Office detail various incidents of police contact with Greenberg.
On December 4, 2017, a woman called 911 to say she’d been followed and “pulled over” by someone — who eventually turned out to be Greenberg — driving a black SUV bearing a white flashing light on its dashboard. Greenberg wore a badge around his neck and was dressed in a tactical-style vest. He eventually approached the woman and berated her for “cutting him off” and driving “like a bat out of hell.” The woman responded that Greenberg “scared the hell” out of her and that she’d “never seen a police vehicle with white lights.”
“Oh, well, this is my personal vehicle,” Greenberg reportedly responded.
Authorities later caught up with him at home after using neighborhood cameras to find his license plate number. Greenberg said his wife and infant were “repeatedly disturbed” by speeding vehicles on a neighboring street and that he had decided to deal with the matter on his own. Police set up a traffic patrol to deal with the matter.
In a subsequent letter, a chief prosecutor said Greenberg hadn’t violated the state’s criminal law by impersonating an officer but that his actions were “inappropriate” and could have been used to “exert undue power and influence.”
“I will give Mr. Greenberg the benefit of the doubt and assume that his intentions were pure,” wrote Chief Assistant State Attorney Stacey Straub Salmons. But she also warned that “[a]nother person encountering Mr. Greenberg under these same circumstances may not be so gracious, and could feel it necessary to take a defensive posture. Such as situation could lead to harmful, if not potentially disastrous, results.”
On October 26, 2020, an individual called 911 to report that Greenberg confronted him in a library parking lot and encouraged his wife to beat another candidate for the tax collector. Greenberg is said to have followed the caller; Greenberg asked him, “do you know who I am?” A report was taken to record the incident; no charges were filed.
On November 14, 2020, Greenberg’s wife called 911 and went to a neighbor’s house. There, she said Greenberg was trying to accuse her of striking him during an argument and that he had threatened to call the police himself on her. The wife asked a sergeant and a deputy to review their home’s security video to confirm that she had done nothing wrong. They did. No charges were filed.
On March 3, 2020, deputies went to pick Greenberg up on a warrant from the U.S. Marshall’s Service. During a phone call, Greenberg said he would surrender himself, police documents indicate; however, he did not do so.
“Joel continued to negotiate via phone,” the report continues. “During the negotiations, Joel made suicidal comments stating at various times that he would take pills, utilize firearms, and that he had improvised explosive devices. Joel also said he had hidden several items in his anal cavity.”
Greenberg eventually threw a bag of medicine out his front door before going back inside.
Some of what occurred next is blacked out of the report.
“After several hours of negotiation, Joel exited his residence, and was placed in handcuffs,” the report said. He was eventually brought before a federal judge.
Federal court records indicate Greenberg had violated the conditions of his release.
On November 23, 2020, Greenberg called the police to report that he’d sent Bitcoin totaling $123,280 to a “digital wallet” and that someone transferred the Bitcoins “to another digital wallet without his permission” about 10 minutes later. The case was referred to a financial crimes task force, the police records indicate.
Greenberg’s Twitter account contains several images showing him in Gaetz’s company — and one showing him with the recently pardoned political operative and Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone.
Hearings in Greenberg’s federal cases are scheduled for Thursday and Friday.
Read his latest criminal indictment below:
Joel Greenberg 3d Supersedi… by Law&Crime
(At the link below)
by ti-amie How was this guy not in jail before now?
by ti-amie
Is it just me or does this lawyer take too long to come up with an answer to the question?
by dmforever Whatever deal he cuts, I sure hope he still has to go to prison. My lunch had a hard time staying down after reading the allegations.
Kevin
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:44 pm
On December 4, 2017, a woman called 911 to say she’d been followed and “pulled over” by someone — who eventually turned out to be Greenberg — driving a black SUV bearing a white flashing light on its dashboard. Greenberg wore a badge around his neck and was dressed in a tactical-style vest. He eventually approached the woman and berated her for “cutting him off” and driving “like a bat out of hell.” The woman responded that Greenberg “scared the hell” out of her and that she’d “never seen a police vehicle with white lights.”
“Oh, well, this is my personal vehicle,” Greenberg reportedly responded.
Authorities later caught up with him at home after using neighborhood cameras to find his license plate number. Greenberg said his wife and infant were “repeatedly disturbed” by speeding vehicles on a neighboring street and that he had decided to deal with the matter on his own. Police set up a traffic patrol to deal with the matter.
In a subsequent letter, a chief prosecutor said Greenberg hadn’t violated the state’s criminal law by impersonating an officer but that his actions were “inappropriate” and could have been used to “exert undue power and influence.”
“I will give Mr. Greenberg the benefit of the doubt and assume that his intentions were pure,” wrote Chief Assistant State Attorney Stacey Straub Salmons. But she also warned that “[a]nother person encountering Mr. Greenberg under these same circumstances may not be so gracious, and could feel it necessary to take a defensive posture. Such as situation could lead to harmful, if not potentially disastrous, results.”
Now I realize there's more serious stuff here, but this part is tripping me up. In what way isn't this intentionally impersonating a police officer? And in what way are the intentions "pure"?
by dryrunguy I need a shower.
by ponchi101 I am trying to keep this topic serious, specially in light of the gravity what is being discussed, but Steve Carell...
by ti-amie This man was a one person crime wave for years and it seems nothing was done about anything he did. Impersonating an officer usually means serious trouble but for him, well speeding cars were bothering his family so they set up a patrol.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:44 pm
On December 4, 2017, a woman called 911 to say she’d been followed and “pulled over” by someone — who eventually turned out to be Greenberg — driving a black SUV bearing a white flashing light on its dashboard. Greenberg wore a badge around his neck and was dressed in a tactical-style vest. He eventually approached the woman and berated her for “cutting him off” and driving “like a bat out of hell.” The woman responded that Greenberg “scared the hell” out of her and that she’d “never seen a police vehicle with white lights.”
“Oh, well, this is my personal vehicle,” Greenberg reportedly responded.
Authorities later caught up with him at home after using neighborhood cameras to find his license plate number. Greenberg said his wife and infant were “repeatedly disturbed” by speeding vehicles on a neighboring street and that he had decided to deal with the matter on his own. Police set up a traffic patrol to deal with the matter.
In a subsequent letter, a chief prosecutor said Greenberg hadn’t violated the state’s criminal law by impersonating an officer but that his actions were “inappropriate” and could have been used to “exert undue power and influence.”
“I will give Mr. Greenberg the benefit of the doubt and assume that his intentions were pure,” wrote Chief Assistant State Attorney Stacey Straub Salmons. But she also warned that “[a]nother person encountering Mr. Greenberg under these same circumstances may not be so gracious, and could feel it necessary to take a defensive posture. Such as situation could lead to harmful, if not potentially disastrous, results.”
Now I realize there's more serious stuff here, but this part is tripping me up. In what way isn't this intentionally impersonating a police officer? And in what way are the intentions "pure"?
Yes, this really bothered me too. So either the police and/or district attorney are completely corrupt, or somehow in his position as tax collector he has a badge and some authority that somehow makes what he did not illegal. I find that second possibility hard to believe. And obviously the dude is white. No way a person of color does that and nothing happens.
Kevin
by ti-amie
by ti-amie I know this is the politics thread but I'm posting this because good grief what he's wearing! His grandfather's pants and Nestor's jacket? A man who would dress like this has issues that require deep psychological help. JMHO.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:16 am
This man was a one person crime wave for years and it seems nothing was done about anything he did. Impersonating an officer usually means serious trouble but for him, well speeding cars were bothering his family so they set up a patrol.
WHAT?!
This is what I'm saying. I must have read it 3 or 4 times, positive I missed a detail thinking that couldn't possibly be the response of the police and the DA.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by patrick Wonder why protestor was at event involving DeSantis?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie‘Felt like a setup’: WhatsApp chat shows Gaetz ally scrambling to contain fallout
The Florida congressman’s "wingman" said he was paying legal fees for the former teen at the center of the case.
By MARC CAPUTO, JOSH GERSTEIN and MATT DIXON
04/12/2021 01:00 PM EDT
MIAMI — The feds were closing in. And Rep. Matt Gaetz’s friend, Joel Greenberg, was in a panic.
The Florida county tax collector was five days away from a federal indictment for sex trafficking involving a 17-year-old — the same one Gaetz is now being investigated over — so Greenberg reached out to mutual friends on Aug. 14 last year and tried to enlist them in his defense, according to a WhatsApp chat shared with federal investigators and obtained by POLITICO.
He fumed that the prosecutor should be fired. He suspected that a political consultant “was the rat here.” He fretted that investigators had combed through his Venmo cash app history, fearing it led them to the former teen at the center of the case.
Greenberg also said he was paying the legal fees for the woman, who is now 20 years old.
The WhatsApp messages shed light on key aspects of the scandal consuming the Florida Republican congressman and close ally of ...Donald Trump — and on the state of mind of the man Gaetz once called his “wingman” as he sought to manage the fallout.
Greenberg went so far as to push Gaetz to use his influence with Trump for a pardon, according to two sources familiar with the discussions, including one who heard Greenberg say it repeatedly.
Asked about the request from Greenberg, Gaetz previously declined to confirm or deny that it occurred. But the congressman said he did not ask Trump to pardon Greenberg. Gaetz couldn’t be reached this weekend to discuss the WhatsApp messages that are the subject of this story.
Gaetz’s allies now fear that Greenberg is preparing to strike a deal with prosecutors to deliver Gaetz, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing. The congressman has not been charged and so far no evidence has surfaced against him beyond anonymous allegations he had sex with a minor or paid for prostitutes. But the scandal has seriously hobbled Gaetz, who built a national reputation as one of the staunchest defenders of Trump and has relentlessly attacked the very Department of Justice that’s now investigating him.
Greenberg faces decades of prison time from a total of 33 different charges, including identity theft, a host of financial crimes and stalking a political opponent he falsely smeared as a pedophile. But the alleged sex-trafficking of the former 17-year-old is the most serious charge and carries a 10-year mandatory-minimum prison sentence.
In the Aug. 14 WhatsApp chat with a politically influential Republican mutual friend of Gaetz and Greenberg, Greenberg initially referred to the young woman as “Vintage 99” — a fine-wine reference to her birth year that she used as her online name on SeekingArrangement, a dating website that connects women with so-called sugar daddies.
“I’m having to pay for vintage 99 to retain [a] lawyer,” Greenberg wrote in the WhatsApp chat to the friend, who discussed the messages with POLITICO on condition of anonymity. “They [federal agents] contacted her and are wanting her to talk. She doesn’t want to talk to them.”
Nor does she want to talk to the press. She blocked a POLITICO reporter on social media and her iPhone after she was called and texted to discuss the case Monday. Her attorney couldn’t be reached. POLITICO is withholding her name because she is the alleged victim of a sex crime.
Greenberg’s defense attorney, Fritz Scheller, said his client is not paying anyone else’s legal bills that he’s aware of, and noted he couldn’t speak to Greenberg’s arrangements before Scheller began to represent the defendant in December.
Scheller suggested his client might cut a deal.
“I am sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today,” Scheller said after a hearing last Thursday.
It’s not illegal for a suspect to pay the legal bills of a potential witness against him, but attorneys say the arrangement could raise questions about the case against him.
“Imagine if this was a drug case and the drug lord was paying the lawyer of a prosecution witness. What would people say?” said an attorney representing an individual who spoke to prosecutors in the case, and who was not authorized to speak on the record.
“Any time you get something of value, it’s a potential problem and you’re subject to impeachment. It can make a witness less credible,” the attorney said. “At the same time, to make this case [against Gaetz] work, the evidence just needs to be piled on ... They’re interviewing everyone.”
In the WhatsApp chat obtained by POLITICO, Greenberg told the friend that his attorney at the time informed him that “everyone is going to need a lawyer.” But the friend then called Greenberg’s attorney — and determined that Greenberg wasn’t telling him the truth.
“I have nothing to do with any of this and think it is incredibly uncool you are trying to lawyer me up to be a part of it, Joel,” he wrote back via WhatsApp. “Not. F---ing. Cool.”
The friend told POLITICO that Greenberg’s message “felt like a setup.”
“It’s the same playbook he used against the teacher he falsely smeared as a pedophile,” the friend said, referring to a separate charge against Greenberg. “And he’ll do the same thing to Gaetz if he can get less prison time.”
Greenberg and Gaetz shared girlfriends, according to interviews with friends and associates who know the two men, and Greenberg introduced him to young women he met on SeekingArrangement. One friend who spent time in the company of both men said he was of the impression that the two engaged with women in more of a “sugar daddy relationship” where money changed hands, though it wasn’t explicitly prostitution.
“I know Joel and Matt paid some of their bills, rent, tuition, things like that,” the friend said. “This is a thing that happens when you’re successful and you have these relationships: ‘Are we not supposed to help these women who mean something to us and that we care about?’ Is that prostitution? Maybe if you’re a Puritan.”
Since many of the transactions in question took place on Venmo, Greenberg speculated in his WhatsApp messages that those mobile payment records were the likely evidentiary link to the woman who was allegedly sex-trafficked as a minor.
“I’m trying to let everyone know who came into contact with any of these girls that the feds are going through my Venmo history and don’t want anyone to be caught off guard,” Greenberg wrote to his friend, who promptly replied that he wasn’t on Venmo, had no such history with any of these women and begged him to “absolutely positively leave my name the f--- out of any of this. I’m serious about this Joel.”
“Understood,” Greenberg replied. “My only concern is I don't know what could possibly come out of their mouths, and if any of them mentioned places where we met etc. I would think you would want to at least have a heads up if some chick says she partied at your house or something. That's all. I'm trying to cover every possible angle I can think of. I wouldn't want anyone to be blindsided.”
The friend insisted that he had nothing to do with what Greenberg was describing and was not involved in his schemes.
“I know you aren’t. I didn’t mean to alarm you. You’ve done nothing wrong,” Greenberg replied.
by mmmm8 This should be paid for by user fees but providing rural police with military-grade equipment is to be paid for directly from the budget. Cool story.
by ti-amie
Smart TV
A smart TV, also known as a connected TV, is a traditional television set with integrated Internet and interactive Web 2.0 features, which allows users to stream music and videos, browse the internet, and view photos. Smart TVs are a technological convergence of computers, televisions, and digital media players. Wikipedia
by ti-amieOpinion: Biden’s rescue plan is looking like a home run
Opinion by
Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
April 16, 2021 at 7:45 a.m. EDT
A lot of good economic news emerged this week. The Post reports: “First-time unemployment claims fell sharply last week to a pandemic low of 576,000, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That’s down 193,000 from the preceding week’s surprise spike, an unexpectedly strong showing even as unemployment remains elevated.” On top of that, “retail sales soared 9.8 percent in March as stimulus checks hit bank accounts, business restrictions loosened and spring weather arrived. The better-than-expected jump comes on the heels of a 2.7 percent decline in February.” In other words, after President Biden and the Democrats pump more money into consumers hands, unemployment declines and consumer spending rebounds. Gosh, could economic results translate into political popularity?
It sure looks that way. A raft of polls, including the latest survey from the Pew Research Center, suggests Biden’s rescue plan was pretty much a home run. Meanwhile, unanimous Republican opposition to the plan looks like political malpractice.
The Pew poll finds that a stunning 72 percent of Americans, including 55 percent of Republicans, say “the Biden administration has done an excellent or good job managing the manufacture and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to Americans.” (The poll was completed before distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was paused.) Asked specifically about the rescue plan, a supermajority (67 percent) approve while only 32 percent disapprove. Republicans, it seems, are wildly out of touch with voters. Overall Biden’s approval rating has ticked up five points since March to 59 percent; only 39 percent disapprove.
And despite Republicans’ ludicrous attempts to paint Biden as too partisan or feeble-minded, Pew reports that views of Biden’s conduct in office are more positive than they were for Trump last year: 46 percent of Americans say they like how Biden conducts himself in office; in February of 2020, just 15 percent said this of President Donald Trump. Similarly, 44 percent say Biden has changed political discourse for the better, while just 29 percent say it worse and 27 percent say he has made no difference.
This poll is largely in line with other polls on the popularity of the rescue plan, the vaccine rollout and the president’s approval. Several aspects of the poll are worth emphasizing.
First, the notion that Biden is not really running things because he does not tweet regularly — as per the appropriately ridiculed suggestion from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) — does not seem to have caught on, to put it mildly. Maybe an empathetic, detail-oriented president who is churning out executive orders and legislation at a furious rate while largely staying off social media (and staying out of sight on weekends) is precisely what Americans wanted.
Second, despite Republicans shouting about the need for more “unity,” rarely has there ever been a government undertaking as complicated and extensive as Biden’s that has garnered more than 70 percent approval. It is equally rare to see two-thirds of the public support a gigantic spending bill. Moreover, contrary to Republicans’ specious claim to be the party of working-class Americans, lower-income Republicans (55 percent) favor the rescue bill while rich Republicans do not (18 percent). What Biden has not done — and what no mortal politician ever could do — is drag millions of Republicans out of the MAGA cult. They do not like anything he has done, it seems, no matter how successful or beneficial. The good news is that they are a small — albeit persistent — minority of voters.
Finally, it is a wonder why Republicans in Congress are doubling down on their oppositional behavior. A poll from Navigator Research is just one of many showing the overwhelming popularity of Biden’s infrastructure bill. Fixing roads and bridges received 88 percent approval, removing lead from drinking water drew 83 percent, preventing future pandemics got 81 percent and modernizing schools drew 76 percent. Extending broadband (76 percent) and investing in clean energy (70 percent) were also winners.
Still, it seems Republican are bent on opposing a variety of tremendously popular items because they do not want to acknowledge that they are “infrastructure.” And despite the popularity of increasing the corporate tax rates, Republicans still want to protect their business friends and donors. (Biden has proposed raising the corporate from 21 percent to 28 percent. Republicans are ardently opposed to raising it at all, even though not too long ago, many of them — as well as business interests — were eager to set it at 25 percent.)
At some point, one might think Republicans would notice their current positioning is a political bust. Then again, if their goal is just to get on right-wing media, I suppose they will keep on this self-destructive track.
by ti-amie Someone posted this yesterday on the Bird App.
Misnaming the Medieval: Rejecting “Anglo-Saxon” Studies
by Mary Rambaran-Olm on November 4, 2019 in Histories of the Present
When we think of the study of Old English literature or its language, we often think of the epic poem Beowulf. We seldom consider the scholarly field in which Beowulf is most closely scrutinized, nor the pervading assumptions within our lexicon about the people within the period that Beowulf was composed.
‘Anglo-Saxons’ has long been associated with the early English people, but this label suffers from a long history of misuse. The scholarship and field supposedly draw their name from the people that scholars study, although the labels ‘Anglo-Saxonist’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon studies’ are also fraught with inaccuracies. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (rather than the medieval ‘Anglo-Saxorum’ or ‘Anglo-Saxoria’) gained popularity in the eighteenth and nineteenth century as a means of connecting white people to their supposed origins. Historically, the people in early England or ‘Englelond’ did not call themselves ‘Anglo-Saxons’. The term was used sporadically during the early English period, but by and large, the people in early medieval England referred to themselves as ‘Englisc’ or ‘Anglecynn.’
In the centuries following the Norman Conquest of 1066, only scant references of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ exist, most notably in reference to royal titles. It was not until the sixteenth century that English antiquarians and scholars began to collect early English manuscripts and compile dictionaries of Old English. This sudden interest in the early English period was not as benign as one might think. In contrast to the Catholic church, Protestant Reformers in England aimed to establish precedent for their sectarian beliefs by reinterpreting early medieval English Christianity to create links between the “primitive English church” and Reformers’ present day. Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, an English nationalizing agenda emerged, centered on an English ‘race’ dependent upon an appropriation and a refashioning of the past. English discourse depicted the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as reflecting ideals of national liberty.
Rather than accurately portray the early English people as separate tribes (most notably, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) that migrated to the British Isle, the Anglo-Saxon myth links white people with an imagined heritage based on indigeneity to Britain.This false account of the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as a nation and ‘race’ has played heavily in political discourse over the past 500 years, often reconstructed to include fictitious narratives to promote political messages of patriotism, imperialism, or racial superiority. As the English language—along with English imperialism—erased indigenous languages and swept across the globe, the Anglo-Saxon myth served as empirical ‘proof’ mandating racial superiority. The study of race fascinated scientists and ethnographers throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and equally, early twentieth-century Anglo-Saxonists directly worked with scientific racism in their scholarship, including phrenology. Their anachronistic medievalism ignored a more factual image of ‘others’ in England who had ancestral ties to the land. Despite the long history of invasion and integration in England, English scholars sought to imagine a direct connection to the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ past free from alien associations in order to cleanse English history of the ‘foreign’ elements that, in fact, constituted the English population. Today, far-right identitarian groups seeking to prove their superior ancestry by portraying the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ in ways that both promote English identity and national sociopolitical progress.
During British (and afterwards American) imperialism and colonization, the racial meaning of ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ became the most dominant usage of the term, rather than a historical reference to pre-Conquest England. This white supremacist movement in Euro-America has used the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ to justify racial violence and colonial genocide for at least 200 years. The racial meaning throughout the English-speaking world deepened and came to be associated crudely with whiteness. ‘Anglo-Saxon’ has become a supremacist dog-whistle reinforcing the idea of the ‘Anglo-Saxon race’ as an indigenous group in England. It suspiciously erases the fact that the Angle and Saxon peoples were ‘migrants’. The term’s association with whiteness has saturated our lexicon to the point that it is absurdly misused in political discourse.
The scholarly field that investigates early England supposedly draws its name from the people studied, although the labels ‘Anglo-Saxonists’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon studies’ are fraught with inaccuracies. Today’s field represents more than just literature and linguistics, as archaeologists and historians (material, art, and otherwise) are all under one large umbrella. Historically, Anglo-Saxon studies itself has reinforced superiority of northern European or ‘Anglo-Saxon’ whiteness. Today we see the word misused extensively as a label for white identity despite it being inaccurate. Within the field of Anglo-Saxon studies, we have more recently been examining what the term means, how it is used, and what it represents. The field has traditionally been represented by white people and unsurprisingly still attracts mostly white students due to the field’s inherent whiteness. The discipline’s largest organization (International Society of Anglo-Saxonists) had a membership vote recently where more than 60% voted to remove ‘Anglo-Saxon’ from the organization’s name. Since the vote, disgruntled voters mostly from the United Kingdom have argued that the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or variations of it should continue in the organization name, in a nauseating attempt to sidestep its inaccurate use even within a historical context. Equally, this willful ignorance reveals an appalling lack of concern over the dehumanization of colleagues of color and supporters who acknowledge the term’s racist connotations. While some scholars outside the US argue that the term’s misuse is an American problem, it is also noteworthy that some British scholars—some of whom identified themselves as ‘English’ or more gallingly ‘Anglo-Saxon’ on academic listservs and across social media—and their institutions remain so intimately wedded to this inaccurate term. The contested term is not neutral. In fact, one cannot be neutral in the face of racism. Scholarly work, even historical studies, are never separate from current social and political realities.
The term’s nationalist connections and whiteness in predominantly English-speaking countries extends beyond laypeople’s vernacular. Such refusal to understand the racist roots of the discipline and how the term inaccurately represents the early English demonstrates an insidious and obstinate ignorance within academic institutions. By and large though scholars are coming to understand the need to interrogate the use of this term and many are keen to find terms that represents scholars, the field and the early English more accurately. Medievalists, in particular, were able to remove ‘the Dark Ages’ from scholarly lexicon (although it is sometimes used in common parlance among laypeople) because it mischaracterized the early medieval period. In this way, we have a benchmark for removing an incorrect term.
Returning to Beowulf, part of its intrinsic value and richness as a text lies in the fact that it was not produced in isolation or hermetically sealed off insularity; thus, white nationalist claims to it are amiss. By the same token, replacing the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ with one that is more historically accurate does not mean we are ceding to white supremacists. Their ideology is based on myth, where selected terms, symbols, and narratives used to promote hate and white identity are wholly inaccurate and/or misappropriated. Just as the field of early English studies is evolving with new evidence and findings that help shed light on the early medieval period, scholars specializing in this period also have an obligation to interrogate the language they use, and to guide the public’s understanding of these historical terms. We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people. As the old adage goes: ‘words matter.’
I would like to thank Dr. Adam Miyashiro, Dr. Erik Wade and Dr. Dorothy Kim for their comments on earlier drafts of this piece.
by ponchi101 I am confused about this last part:
"We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people."
Is it racist to call somebody an Anglo-Saxon? Or
Is it racist to denote a population an Anglo-Saxon population?
Why denote the use of the term a "racist dog-whistle"?
by Suliso I say it's a lot of revisionist nonsense...
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:28 pm
I am confused about this last part:
"We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people."
Is it racist to call somebody an Anglo-Saxon? Or
Is it racist to denote a population an Anglo-Saxon population?
Why denote the use of the term a "racist dog-whistle"?
She's saying that in some US/UK circles it is a racist dog whistle. I don't think it's feasible to go back and correct all of the articles and studies that use the term but I think - and this is just my opinion - that she's saying going forward the term shouldn't be used because of what it's come to mean.
I agree that the wording is muddled and there could/should have been better editing but given the major thrust of the article
she feels that the term should stop being used.
It's hard to say if this was posted before or after the announcement of the new caucus. It should be mentioned that Marjorie Green is from Georgia, a state that the English used as a place to dump prisoners from its overcrowded jails.
All of this is happening because of the 1619 Project btw.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:28 pm
Is it racist to call somebody an Anglo-Saxon? Or
Is it racist to denote a population an Anglo-Saxon population?
Why denote the use of the term a "racist dog-whistle"?
In the context of the new GOP caucus, it obviously is a racist dog whistle.
by Suliso I don't care what it is or isn't for GOP caucus. This is European history and it's not for them to define how things should or shouldn't be called.
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:46 pm
I don't care what it is or isn't for GOP caucus. This is European history and it's not for them to define how things should or shouldn't be called.
Even if the basis for the creation of the term and the so called "history" around it is false?
by ti-amie The term "Anglo Saxon" does not include Eastern or Southern European populations by the way.
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:46 pm
I don't care what it is or isn't for GOP caucus. This is European history and it's not for them to define how things should or shouldn't be called.
Even if the basis for the creation of the term and the so called "history" around it is false?
It isn't false, only in the minds of these far left academics. Sure they didn't call them exactly that, but that's sophistry Germans don't call themselves Germans either...
One should note that the term is appropriate for historical populations not the current ones.
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:46 pm
I don't care what it is or isn't for GOP caucus. This is European history and it's not for them to define how things should or shouldn't be called.
But it's not European history. This is all just a cover if that wasn't obvious, hence the references to dog whistle. They are just looking for coded language to better sell this racism, that's all.
by Suliso
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:53 pm
The term "Anglo Saxon" does not include Eastern or Southern European populations by the way.
Of course not. Who said it does? It refers to Britain only.
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:46 pm
I don't care what it is or isn't for GOP caucus. This is European history and it's not for them to define how things should or shouldn't be called.
But it's not European history. This is all just a cover if that wasn't obvious, hence the references to dog whistle. They are just looking for coded language to better sell this racism, that's all.
The entire point of the article is that it's not English history at all. It's a made up category of people that was used to advance imperialism and colonialism (her words). The fantasy became a code word and is today a dog whistle.
by ponchi101 If the Klan wants to use the term as part of their "heritage", then of course it is ludicrous. But now to denote the term as something that did not exist is too extreme. There is an identity to it.
For example. I am currently reading a book called "The Light Ages". It is about the science of the Middle Ages. One of the initial complaints of the author is that the name "Dark Ages" should not be used because there was some progress in those 1,000 years, and therefore it is not appropriate. The use of the term "Medieval" as a pejorative term of backwardness is also frowned by the author. So far, into the reading, his sample of medieval science is the invention and improvement of the astrolabe and standardization of time measurements.
If those where the sole accomplishments in 1,000 years, heck, they were Dark Ages.
So, back to Anglo Saxon. You can review and find new history. But to expect an eradication of the term because some bozos in Georgia claim to be part of that heritage is too extreme. It holds no innate racist terms.
About imperialism: no successful civilization in the past has not been imperialistic. Starting with Egypt, it was the sole purpose of all cultures. No need to list them here so, to point out Europe as the sole imperialist form of government/conquest is shortsighted.
by mmmm8 The debate about Anglo-Saxon is irrelevant to this issue. Agree, it's not a dog whistle, it's a loudspeaker. You can just substitute Aryan (which is also a term with a revised history) in their wording.
by ponchi101 I am still confused. So a term that has not held racial implications in the past and was used to solely designate a population becomes racist simply because a group wrongly starts using it?
Off Topic
I have always been fascinated by the American fixation with "roots". So many people want to be identified with their roots: the Irish, Italians, Mexicans, Cubans, etc. Nobody seems to want to be simply "American". The exception? The Germans, who identify themselves as simply that, while there are a lot of them in the USA.
Maybe if people were to stop looking at from where their fifth-great-grandparents came from would there be more homogeneity?
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:18 pm
I am still confused. So a term that has not held racial implications in the past and was used to solely designate a population becomes racist simply because a group wrongly starts using it?
Off Topic
I have always been fascinated by the American fixation with "roots". So many people want to be identified with their roots: the Irish, Italians, Mexicans, Cubans, etc. Nobody seems to want to be simply "American". The exception? The Germans, who identify themselves as simply that, while there are a lot of them in the USA.
Maybe if people were to stop looking at from where their fifth-great-grandparents came from would there be more homogeneity?
Haven't seen that exception play out, those with German heritage seem to be just as proud. There is an area of Texas near Austin with lots of descendants of people who were recruited to move to Texas from Germany. You can't drive a mile there without hitting a biergarten. Also witnesses someone tell my German friend (who is from Germany), "I'm German too! By great-grandfather was German AND! I was an assistant manager at Aldi!"
And yes, terms that are usurped for the purposes of discrimination can become an insult but I don't think "Anglo-Saxon" is an example of that. A more common example of "dog whistle" is, for example, is using the word "urban" to mean "black."
by ti-amie No one here remembers the term WASP?
by ponchi101 Sure. I always felt that one was ingenious. A quick way to refer to a group of people with a group of characteristics.
by ti-amie
Sorry Floridians but you know what's coming.
by ponchi101 So you can have a riot inside a car?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 There is no transition to a "green economy" unless you have some form of social program for the millions of workers that will be left without a job (uhm) and which should mostly consist of re-training and mandatory hiring.
And it would mean worldwide. No way you flip and switch tomorrow and turn every coal power plant into a "sustainable" power source and mayhem does not ensue in, at a minimum, twelve countries in the world. The entire Middle East, Russia, Nigeria, and plenty of sub-divisions of many other countries.
Venezuela would be basically reduced to drug trafficking.
by Suliso It will be a slow process taking a decade or two. In any case this "green economy" doesn't run on fairy dust. Still requires lots of mining and manufacturing, just much less oil. Countries with lithium, cobalt, rare earth metals deposits will benefit.
by ponchi101 You know my position. Without major and publicly funded environmental projects (reforestation and cleaning up the oceans) everything else will not be nearly enough.
by ti-amie WTH is wrong with these people?!
by ponchi101 People get fired in the real world for stuff like this. In the industry, triggering a false alarm is basically a request for termination.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:52 pm
People get fired in the real world for stuff like this. In the industry, triggering a false alarm is basically a request for termination.
People get arrested in the real world for this stuff.
by ti-amie
I wonder who the two no votes were for the Dems?
by JazzNU A good reminder. These are almost never new strategies.
I couldn't find them in a quick search, but my bet is that Jared Golden (ME-2) is one of them. He's the Democrat from the most Trunp-leaning district and has been voting no on a number of Democratic sponsored bills.
by Suliso From where I sit Washington DC as a state doesn't make much sense. It ought to be distributed between Virginia and Maryland so people there get proper representation in congress.
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:19 pm
From where I sit Washington DC as a state doesn't make much sense. It ought to be distributed between Virginia and Maryland so people there get proper representation in congress.
1) Why doesn't it make sense?
2) Why is your solution for them to get representation in places they don't live?
3) Why doesn't DC as a state make sense but Wyoming as a state does?
by Suliso Of course they can do what they want, that's not the point. They would all live in Maryland (or Virginia) if Washington DC was dissolved and added to those states. Washington DC is tiny, then just as well NYC could be a state without all the upstate territories. Wyoming is a huge territory even if people not so many.
I see it as a clear power grab from Democrats and Republicans having done the same 120 years ago in not an argument.
by ponchi101 DC as a state makes way more sense than Wyoming, but in reality what the US should do is get rid of some states. WY should simply be Northern Colorado (and part of it, not a new state). Two Dakotas make no sense, in the same fashion of two Virginias (and two Carolinas, although of course one was confederate, the other Yankee). Why is Idaho there, and what for?
But of course, that will never happen. So might as well give DC its statehood and its two Senators.
by JazzNU Clearly I don't need to have this conversation with you @suliso. A dismissive reply, bordering on offensive.
NV stands for "Not Voting". There actually are no "NO" votes by Democrats.
by dave g Washington D.C's current status is written into the Constitution. I suspect that if this does pass the Senate, it will get challenged in the courts and get struck down by the Supreme Court. Then they will have to start over with a Constitutional Amendment, which is where I think they should be starting.
by MJ2004 Why not Puerto Rico, too?
by mmmm8
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:05 pm
Why not Puerto Rico, too?
Because Puerto Ricans aren't sure they want this whereas DC have been trying to get representation for such a long time.
dave g wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pm
Washington D.C's current status is written into the Constitution. I suspect that if this does pass the Senate, it will get challenged in the courts and get struck down by the Supreme Court. Then they will have to start over with a Constitutional Amendment, which is where I think they should be starting.
Yep, this is why I think Puerto Rico becomes a state first if the filibuster is gutted.
by dryrunguy The Puerto Rico statehood debate is a completely different ball of yarn. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I am moveable. I see positives for sure, but the negatives, as I see it, are fairly compelling.
by Togtdyalttai This is the part of the Constitution that Dave is referencing. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
Congress shall have Power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Building.
The Democrats argue that nothing in there says that the District has to include all of what it does currently. It's even true that its boundaries have changed four (depending on your definition) times since its creation. The bigger deal is that the new Federal District that they propose would have no residents. I can't see how the Constitution prohibits that, but 1) I'm not a lawyer and 2) I wouldn't put it past the Supreme Court to rule otherwise.
Yeah, there was a lot behind that vote. Many leading activists and politicians called it useless and suggested the governor called it to drive turnout for her party and switch the conversation from all the post-Maria/corruption. There were also accusations of fraud.
The previous 2017 referendum was even less engaging, had something like a 22% turnout
by mmmm8
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:06 am
The Puerto Rico statehood debate is a completely different ball of yarn. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I am moveable. I see positives for sure, but the negatives, as I see it, are fairly compelling.
It seems this is also the position of many Puerto Ricans, both on statehood and independence. Which is why nothing's happening.
by JazzNU Based on a few posts in here, it seems to me not everyone here knows the history of DC's fight to govern themselves and trying to get statehood and would do well to read up on the subject.
by ti-amie
I really hate when they pimp their own sites but this is an interesting tidbit.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Meanwhile:
by ti-amie And meanwhile:
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Togtdyalttai This is a really good article about the advantages Republicans have in the American political system. I could copy the text here, but I'm not going to because it is tennis-themed, and you'd miss out on all the lovely tennis graphics.
by ponchi101 A great way of putting down in numbers something we (this forum) already knew.
Sorry, no way that is the greatest democracy in the world. And excuse my offense.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:12 pm
A great way of putting down in numbers something we (this forum) already knew.
Sorry, no way that is the greatest democracy in the world. And excuse my offense.
Which country do you think is now?
by ponchi101 "Think" would be the wrong word to use; I do not have the complete gamut of countries around the world to compare. Also, and I gather we would agree, how do you define "Greatest", in the concept of comparing vote-casting political systems? So I gather I could use the word "Feel".
I could talk of countries where democracy is truly not doing the job: Colombia is failing, Argentina too. Bolivia, surprisingly, has a "good" system in that the election was won by the opposition, with the people holding power knowing they would face personal persecution were that to happen; yet, they allowed it.
I would give the mantle of "Greatest Democracy" to a country where we have seen, recently, a high political figure (PM or Pres) being tried for crimes. The concept of "Nobody being above the law" is paramount if you want to call yourself a democracy; the USA fails at that too.
So I would go, again, with the Scandinavians, and maybe the AUS/NZ duo. They seem to have systems in which the representatives really do try to improve the lot of the people, which is not a trivial thing. But of course, a contrarian (which you would not know anything about ) could say that the Chinese have improved the conditions of their people in considerable and verifiable ways, yet they are not a democracy.
We would need another forum to write that book.
by ti-amie
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:47 pm
This is a really good article about the advantages Republicans have in the American political system. I could copy the text here, but I'm not going to because it is tennis-themed, and you'd miss out on all the lovely tennis graphics.
And yet they're terrified of large voter turn out. It makes you wonder.
by Suliso I asked you this question because it just came to my mind that one could define "Greatest" in two radically different ways:
- the richest and most powerful country which is a democracy even if flawed (still US)
- country where democracy works the best for the benefit of the population (not US, some options would be Scandinavian countries, Germany, Australia etc.)
by ti-amie Gaetz-gate continues.
The Daily Beast has a paywall
by ti-amieAuditors hide donors, look for secret watermarks on ballots
By: Dillon Rosenblatt April 29, 2021
What the Senate election audit lacks in transparency, it makes up for in QAnon conspiracy theories.
From the Arizona Senate to the cybersecurity company overseeing the audit of nearly 2.1 million ballots from the November election, everyone involved has said one way or another that they want and hope to be transparent about the process, but to date, there is little evidence to support those claims.
While media outlets across the state had to fight and threaten legal action to receive limited access to the Madhouse on McDowell – dubbed so decades ago for raucous Phoenix Suns games – unanswered, important questions still hang in the air.
TRANSPARENCY
Former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, the Senate liaison for the audit, hasn’t disclosed any private contributors helping to fund the audit. The Senate and Cyber Ninjas, the firm overseeing the process, agreed on a $150,000 contract that will come from taxpayers, but it is known that there is a lot of money pouring in from outside sources, including One America News Network, which pushes the far-right agenda.
Bennett has stated his intention for transparency on the private funding, but has yet to accomplish that.
Bennett said April 27 he will try to have the money go through the state Senate so it can be tracked as a public record. Currently, the private money is going directly to Cyber Ninjas, whose CEO Doug Logan has repeatedly refused to disclose any information.
“I am going to fight with every ounce of breath I have to make sure that all of that money goes through the Arizona Senate, and is publicly disclosed,” Bennett said.
If any money does go to the Senate, it would go through the Legislative Council, not directly to senators.
However, according to Legislative Council, the body that would actually accept any “gifts” the Senate receives, no one has asked about the possibility of setting up a mechanism to receive these donations.
Mike Braun, Legislative Council executive director, said Arizona Capitol Times reporters were the only ones who have even broached the topic to him.
He said that this isn’t one of those times where “the answer is no, but the check will be here by two o’clock.”
“Nobody’s ever talked to us about setting it up or doing it, or what the requirements would be,” Braun said.
Bennett declined to say whether former President Trump was sending money to back the audit, but he said MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has not donated money.
While simultaneously claiming the money would become public, Bennett plugged the Trump-friendly One America New Network-backed 501(c)(4) organizations fundraising for the audit, directing people to its website to donate during the brief press conference.
He said the source of those nonprofits’ funding will “get disclosed … when all the 501(c)(4) contributors get disclosed.” That might be a while, considering 501(c)(4) organizations are “dark money” nonprofits that aren’t required to disclose donors.
Bennett also urged people to visit a website if they wanted to give money to the audit. The site – also a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization – is hoping to raise $2.8 million. The nonprofit, The America Project, is run by former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, who has close ties to Trump, Lindell and others in that inner circle.
Meanwhile, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled on April 28 that policies and procedures for the audit conducted by Cyber Ninjas and its subcontractors is considered a public record, but the ruling is likely pending appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
To date, a coalition of media publications had to fight with the Senate, Bennett and Cyber Ninjas over allowing members of the press to be in the room as the audit is being conducted. It took until the fourth day of counting ballots before media got inside Veterans Memorial Coliseum to report. From day one of the auditing process, media outlets could only gain access to the venue if they volunteered to participate as an observer without being able to report, but attorneys for media organizations struck a deal to allow one pool reporter at a time in.
Before that, only one reporter, Jen Fifield from The Arizona Republic, was granted access (a Capitol Times reporter was denied after signing up) and became a key part of the story when she noticed blue pens were about to be used and urged Logan to remedy it.
Now, there’s a rotation of media outlets who can observe from the bleachers inside the coliseum during several shifts in a day.
CONSPIRACY
While Arizona media fights for access, journalists and election officials are also fighting to debunk persisting conspiracy theories Bennett and others involved with the audit are pushing.
The 2020 election gave rise to many conspiracy theories of a stolen election, and some are still alive as auditors count the ballots.
The most prevalent conspiracy theory is that the auditors are using ultraviolet light to scan ballots to look for secret watermarks the Trump administration placed on “official ballots.”
That repeatedly-debunked theory began from the QAnon community.
QAnon emerged after Trump’s election, claiming that Trump is fighting an elite cabal of business leaders, celebrities, media professionals and politicians engaged in Satanic worship and child sex trafficking.
One of its rumored leaders, who might be “Q” himself, according to a recent HBO documentary series is Ron Watkins, who does not live in the United States. He has gotten heavily involved with the Maricopa County audit through the instant-messaging app Telegram. Watkins, on the social media channels he has not been banned from, goes by the moniker CodeMonkeyZ. He has posted more than a dozen times about the audit, claiming he has seen wrongdoing on the livestream cameras.
Bennett would not answer questions about Watkins’ possible involvement.
It’s unclear how involved Watkins is in the audit, but there is a host of connections between him and the auditors, including that Watkins and Cyber Ninja CEO Doug Logan retweeted each other after the election.
Watkins claimed Trump actually received 200,000 more votes in Arizona than he did, which Logan shared on his now-deleted account.
On the message board, Watkins commented that he has been talking with Bobby Piton, a mathematician and investment manager who has theorized that the election was stolen. Piton attended the unofficial legislative hearing in November at the Hyatt in Phoenix as an expert witness and posted on social media that he spent “12 hours working on AZ Data” over the weekend.
The two agree that UV light will expose all the fake votes.
“Called [Piton] earlier and had a chat about the potential use of the UV light station,” Watkins wrote. “Since UV is able to detect oil from fingerprints, if there are no fingerprints on the ballot then the likelihood of the ballot being marked through a non-human process is high.”
Watkins also complained that volunteers weren’t doing the UV process properly.
In an interview with Newsmax, another right-wing channel, Bennett confirmed they were looking for watermarks.
Maricopa County Elections Department recently said their ballots do not have watermarks on them.
Bennett said auditors “are looking for a lot of things” with the UV light.
by ti-amie'A stupid mistake': Trump supporter gets slap on the wrist probation for felony election fraud
Tom Boggioni
April 30, 2021
A Delaware County, Pennsylvania man who was charged with two felony counts of perjury and one count of unlawful voting for successfully casting his dead mother's absentee ballot for former president Donald Trump has avoided jail, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Bruce Bartman, 70, pleaded guilty on Friday and was sentenced to five years on probation, made ineligible to vote in an election for four years, and banned from serving on a jury by Common Pleas Court Judge Richard Cappelli after apologizing for his actions.
Speaking to the judge, Bartman admitted, "I was isolated last year in lockdown. I listened to too much propaganda and made a stupid mistake."
According to the report, Bartman's actions were not a simple mistake and he knew exactly what he was doing when he committed fraud.
"Last fall, Bartman used the driver's license of his dead mother, Elizabeth Bartman, to register her to vote online, and then requested and filled out an absentee ballot in her name, prosecutors said. He repeated the process for Elizabeth Weihman, his deceased mother-in-law, using her Social Security number, though he did not cast a ballot for her," the Inquirer is reporting. "The state's system flagged the registration for his mother as belonging to a dead person — she died several years ago — but Bartman signed and sent back a letter asserting she was still alive."
I wouldn't put much stock into that poll. First, AP-NORC tends to be one of if not the most Democratic-leaning of the mainline pollsters. Second, this is possibly because they poll adults, who are typically more liberal than registered voters. In October 2020, they had Trump with almost the mirror image of that approval: 39%-61%. That same poll found Biden leading Trump nationally by 15 points.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Togtdyalttai I don't agree that the Senate would refuse to certify unless its composition changes radically, going by its votes on January 6th. Also, it's the Congress elected in 2024 that presides over certification, not the one elected in 2022.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie I really, really could not be a politician.
by ponchi101 It is one of the sad things in the world. In my lunatic perfect world, the FIRST requisite to be a politician would be that you don't want to be one.
You DON'T want to be president? THE JOB IS YOURS!!!!
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Biden gonna Biden
by mmmm8 Uncle Joe at his best.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Ex CIA guy here.
by ti-amieTrump wanted a quick tax break. His appointees are now stuck with big bills.
They've been ordered to immediately repay months of payroll taxes that had been deferred under a bid by Trump to boost the economy ahead of last year’s elections.
By BRIAN FALER and DANIEL LIPPMAN
05/27/2021 04:30 AM ED
Many of former President Donald Trump's political appointees got a nasty surprise when they left the government: A big tax bill.
They've been ordered to immediately repay months of payroll taxes that had been deferred under a bid by Trump to boost the economy ahead of last year’s elections — levies he had assured them would later be forgiven.
“If the indebtedness is not paid in full within 30 calendar days, we intend to forward this debt to the Department of Treasury, Treasury offset program, for further collection,” reads one letter to a former White House official, demanding she pay $1,500.
That has left some shocked and angry.
One former official called her $1,300 bill “unacceptable,” saying she and her colleagues “gave our time and effort to this agency and this is how we’re getting paid back.”
Said another, asked to pay almost $1,200: “It’s just a very unfortunate situation.”
It’s a little-noticed addendum to Trump’s much-criticized plan last summer to prime the economy.
In August, he issued an executive order allowing employers to put off paying their workers’ share of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax for the rest of the year. The idea was to boost consumer spending by putting more money in the pockets of millions.
But the initiative was widely rejected by private sector employers, in part because they feared workers would be unprepared to pay the money back.
It was mandatory, though, for federal employees making less than $4,000 per biweekly paycheck, and the government began implementing it in September.
Trump said many times he expected Congress to eventually forgive the debts. Lawmakers didn’t do that, though they did agree to give people more time to pay the money back. While the IRS had initially wanted the money paid back this year between January and the end of April — matching the four-month length of the deferral — Congress agreed to give people this entire year to repay it.
For current federal employees, the taxes are now being incrementally withheld from their paychecks.
Often overlooked, though, were people who left the government because they quit or retired — but, perhaps more likely, because they were political appointees who had to leave with Trump’s defeat.
Some of those former appointees say they don’t blame Trump, even if his initiative is now coming back to haunt them.
“I thought it was a good plan — I don’t think it got the traction it deserved,” said one former appointee. “I just wish I had the option to opt-out.”
Some point a finger at President Joe Biden.
“I just think it’s really hypocritical that the Biden administration, which is spending trillions to send people checks in the mail, are demanding that former government employees who went into the office every day are now being forced to give back hard-earned money for a program that I did not opt into in the first place,” another person said.
The former officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they said they didn’t want to be seen as publicly criticizing the deferral initiative.
A White House spokesperson noted Biden did not support the payroll tax plan.
“President Biden campaigned vigorously last year against the former Administration’s payroll tax plan because it would’ve jeopardized the retirement benefits of hard-working Americans, and the country agreed — sending him to the White House,” said Mike Gwin.
“Now in office, the President has been focused on getting economic relief to the Americans who actually need it the most, and on successfully getting our economy back on track.”
While agencies are demanding former employees immediately repay the debts, they’re supposed to give them the option of paying the money back in installments without penalties or interest — similar to what would have happened if they had remained in the government.
Some who've left have also had the taxes owed withheld from their final paychecks.
But one former appointee, who said he made a little more than $50,000 working for Trump, said he figured the installment plan was more trouble than it was worth, even if it pinched when he paid his $1,200 bill.
by dryrunguy Oh, darn... I seem to have misplaced my violin for the political appointees... I do feel badly, however, for civil servants who retired.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by JTContinental I am officially on the record as being pro this trend of firing billionaires off into space
by the Moz They should be trapped a la those three villains from one of the Superman films
by Suliso Never mind billionaires, I just hope all these space adventures succeed. We're living in a great time for space travel and exploration.
by ponchi101 I think this will become more "space tourism" than anything else. Let's see who sets up the first Space hotel. In a world with plenty of people not blinking an eye to put down $500K for a car, charging that to have caviar over the Pacific ocean should not be an unprofitable venture.
I knew the man was a moron (how DOES he keep getting reelected?) but this is truly world class embarrassing.
How does he keep getting reelected? His district is 51.44% more Republican-leaning than the country as a whole, according to FiveThirtyEight and has a Cook Partisan Index of R+25 (because of their definition, 538's rating is typically around double Cook Political's). As to why he doesn't lose a primary, his fervent support of Trump is quite sufficient.
by Jeff from TX
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:43 am
How does he keep getting reelected? His district is 51.44% more Republican-leaning than the country as a whole, according to FiveThirtyEight and has a Cook Partisan Index of R+25 (because of their definition, 538's rating is typically around double Cook Political's). As to why he doesn't lose a primary, his fervent support of Trump is quite sufficient.
It was more of a rhetorical question. I'm fairly familiar with this district. Still, quite sad - and embarrassing.
by mmmm8 To be fair to this idiot, I learned Bill Gates really IS trying to "dim" the Sun, so anything is possible:
(They canceled a test n April because of outcry about this)
by ponchi101 Gates is financing it but the idea has been around for quite a while now, and it may actually be inevitable if we want to control CC. The one I agree the most with would be spraying a fine mist of seawater over the oceans, because otherwise you would salinize land areas. The salt in the mist would be the reflecting part.
Believing that just by cutting down emissions we will reign in CC is not totally valid. We have output enough greenhouse gases for that solution to be non-effective, even in the medium term.
by Suliso We'll just move on to higher ground and further north. Colombian highlands will be great and also here we come in South Dakota and Siberia.
by ponchi101 Bogota is already fairly crowded. Not to mention that we don't have the infrastructure to handle 10 more million assorted Latvians, Russians and New Yorkers
Beverly Hills moves to La Paz?
by ti-amie
Daniel Biss
@DanielBiss
Sometimes we're so easily caught up in the outrage cycle that those lies can start to seem believable to people who aren't ordinarily swayed by the right-wing echo chamber. Please don't fall for them -- and urge those around you not to fall for them either.
/thread
by Togtdyalttai The way they're planning to introduce it makes it seem like they don't feel great about it passing, but this is more important than any other voting rights legislation out there.
Democrats To Introduce Bill To Combat Election Subversion As Part Of Voting Rights Push
The bill will try to stop state-level Republicans from fulfilling Trump’s dream of giving them the power to overturn future elections.
headshot
By Paul Blumenthal
Democrats plan to introduce legislation in the House and Senate on Tuesday to combat new laws in Republican-run states that could lead to the subversion of fair elections by partisan officials.
The new bills come in response to measures passed by Republican-majority state legislatures and signed into law by Republican governors that make it easier for partisan legislatures to purge state election boards and local election supervisors and replace them without cause with partisan officials. These state laws follow former President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign against state and local election officials to overturn his 2020 reelection loss based on false claims of widespread voter fraud.
The anti-election bills will institute a new federal safeguard for local election supervisors or superintendents by forbidding their removal by partisan state election boards or legislatures for any reason other than “for cause.” Recent election subversion laws enacted at the state level by Republicans have allowed removal for no reason at all. The new measures introduced by Democrats will also provide a “for cause” standard.
Local and county election officials subject to removal by a state election board or other entity will also be allowed under the Democratic bill to move that process to a federal court.
The bills will also make it a federal crime to intimidate, threaten, coerce or harass election workers, or to attempt to do so. They will also require poll observers to maintain a minimum distance from any voter or ballot during early voting and on an election day.
This push to counter election subversion comes alongside the efforts by congressional Democrats to pass the For the People Act, a sweeping package of voting rights, campaign finance, redistricting and ethics reforms, also known as H.R. 1. The For the People Act, which passed the House in May, faces its first test in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon when it is expected to face a Republican filibuster.
The election subversion bills are being introduced as standalone legislation by Reps. John Sarbanes (D-Md.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) and Colin Allred (D-Texas) in the House and Sens. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) in the Senate. The intention is to make these bills part of the For the People Act in an amendment when the bill is brought to the Senate floor again.
Election challengers demand to enter to observe absentee ballot counting after the 2020 general election in Detroit on Nov. 4
Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Election challengers demand to enter to observe absentee ballot counting after the 2020 general election in Detroit on Nov. 4. One of the Democratic measures would provide a minimum distance between a poll observer and any voter or ballot.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
“Republicans across the country continue to invent new tricks to give themselves control over our elections,” Williams said in a statement. “Their latest efforts seek to remove protections for the non-partisan election officials who ensure the integrity of our democracy. Protecting election officials from partisan interference is one way Congress can secure free and fair elections for everyone, no matter their zip code. I am proud to co-lead this bill with House and Senate leaders because it shows that Congress is ready to respond in real time to any threat to our democracy. As we continue to strengthen H.R. 1, this will not be the last discussion we have about how to prevent further attempts to subvert our elections.”
The anti-election subversion bills come as state-level Republicans are using their newfound powers to remove local election officials for no stated cause. Of the 10 local officials removed so far in Georgia, five are Black and most are Democrats, according to The New York Times. They are all likely to be replaced by Republicans. States including Arizona and Texas are considering similar election subversion legislation.
The officials being removed are in charge of selecting precinct locations; notifying voters of these locations, election times and rules; setting early voting hours; and, most important, certifying elections. Partisans installed into these positions could limit polling locations, place them in inconvenient locations, limit early voting hours and days, fail to notify voters of their precinct locations and, as Trump wanted in 2020, refuse to certify an election result.
This risk of election subversion by partisan officials emerged as a new threat after the 2020 elections when Trump and the Republican Party tried to overturn the result. Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn Georgia’s election result. Raffensperger refused. The Republican state legislature responded by stripping him of his election oversight authority, and Trump endorsed a primary challenger who had supported overturning the 2020 election for him.
In Michigan, two local Republican election officials nearly refused to certify the election results in Wayne County, the home of Detroit. These officials were white and the county is predominantly Black. They certified the election after pressure from local voters.
These efforts to overturn the election eventually snowballed into the Jan. 6 insurrection Trump led against Congress to try to stop it from certifying President Joe Biden’s 306-232 win in the Electoral College.
CORRECTION: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article said Biden won the electoral vote by 303 to 232. He won 306 Electoral College votes.
by ponchi101 The simple fact that the GOP sees these mechanisms as valid ways of running an electoral system in a country knocks the USA from its claim of the greatest democracy on Earth.
It truly tells you about what they really are: autocrats at heart.
by JazzNU More is going on in that Evanston story than can be fit in a Tweet. Same ish, different year. Always trying to start something in that area.
by ti-amie This is kind of huge...
From earlier today:
From Sinema:
POTUS knows how sausage is made.
by ti-amie A very powerful statement from Gen. Milley
by ponchi101 Telling that Gaetz is shaking his head.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm
Telling that Gaetz is shaking his head.
The best reply to him doing that thus far:
"Safe to say Gaetz has a problem with older ppl anyway."
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm
Telling that Gaetz is shaking his head.
The best reply to him doing that thus far:
"Safe to say Gaetz has a problem with older ppl anyway."
by JazzNU
by ponchi101 Serious here. I am at a loss. If the DOJ sues you, who are the judges? Aren't the judges in America part of the DOJ? And wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
(A technical question. The merits of the lawsuit are obvious and worthy).
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:20 pm
Serious here. I am at a loss. If the DOJ sues you, who are the judges? Aren't the judges in America part of the DOJ? And wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
(A technical question. The merits of the lawsuit are obvious and worthy).
Federal law so federal judges. No, federal judges are not part of the DOJ, they are part of the federal judiciary. No, there's no conflict of interest.
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:20 pm
Serious here. I am at a loss. If the DOJ sues you, who are the judges? Aren't the judges in America part of the DOJ? And wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
(A technical question. The merits of the lawsuit are obvious and worthy).
The federal government sues states all the time. A close friend works for the DOJ department that oversees that the Americans with Disabilities Act is enforced. Their lawsuits are typically against state governments.
by ti-amie I was going to post large excerpts from her article but when I got to her having a consensual affair with Ken Starr I decide to do the TL;dr and just post the Tweet.
It's funny how all of these people are speaking up now not when it would've mattered.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Can these people secede already?
by ti-amie This also happened.
And yet, all of these people will get their precious bundles of joy vaccinated.
by ponchi101 Serious question here, not in one of my "AITA" moods.
In which moral way is this different from the Tuskegee Experiment? You are withholding information and vaccines and cures from people, for a disease that is well known and which can be deadly.
Or am I pushing the envelope too much?
(And excluding the racial connotations of Tuskeege)
by JazzNU Well I sure as heck can't like that, but thanks for the info @Ti.
Bizarre. I typically am not surprised by this stuff, but risking kids becoming sick is the most dangerous of dangerous games and I'd back away from this one quick, fast, and in a hurry. That blowback has the ability to send you straight to hell. I hope they are compiling a list of GOP to roast when there's an outbreak at area high schools.
I'm sure there will be some non-profit efforts to pick up the slack, but it's gonna be uneven with presumably the Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville and Chattanooga areas having a better shot at continuing their campaigns with alternative funding.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:24 pm
Serious question here, not in one of my "AITA" moods.
In which moral way is this different from the Tuskegee Experiment? You are withholding information and vaccines and cures from people, for a disease that is well known and which can be deadly.
Or am I pushing the envelope too much?
Too much. Also unintentionally minimizing the level and amount of deception in Tuskegee. This is bad what they are doing, but doesn't rise to the level of that, lucky not much in recent decades does.
Of course, that is my "lovely" governor for you. He said that the Cuban protests are OK because the Cubans are pursuing freedom(break free of their dictatorship regime) even though their actions were similar to BLM last year. Also, the governor know that he will need the Cubans for his re-election bid next year as the race will be tighter than expected.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:21 pm
I was going to post large excerpts from her article but when I got to her having a consensual affair with Ken Starr I decide to do the TL;dr and just post the Tweet.
It's funny how all of these people are speaking up now not when it would've mattered.
Quick reminder that this asshole was also the president of Baylor University during their egregious sexual assault scandal.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:24 pm
Serious question here, not in one of my "AITA" moods.
In which moral way is this different from the Tuskegee Experiment? You are withholding information and vaccines and cures from people, for a disease that is well known and which can be deadly.
Or am I pushing the envelope too much?
Too much. Also unintentionally minimizing the level and amount of deception in Tuskegee. This is bad what they are doing, but doesn't rise to the level of that, lucky not much in recent decades does.
I agree with JazzNu here. In other contexts it reminds me of comparing events and people with Nazis and the Holocaust. In 99.99% cases this is ridiculous.
by ti-amie
I like this Jen Psaki person.
by ponchi101 I know the bar was actually buried under a carpet with the other people, but she seems trustworthy. Which is almost impossible to fathom in most countries nowadays.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:08 pm
I know the bar was actually buried under a carpet with the other people, but she seems trustworthy. Which is almost impossible to fathom in most countries nowadays.
All good press secretary's are somewhat a copy of the person they speak for, and Psaki has that same earnestness when she speaks that Biden has.
by ti-amieJoint Chiefs chairman feared potential ‘Reichstag moment’ aimed at keeping Trump in power
Gen. Mark A. Milley speaks with members of the military as he arrives for a Medal of Honor ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Sept. 11, 2020. (Al Drago/for The Washington Post)
By
Reis Thebault
July 14, 2021|Updated today at 11:03 a.m. EDT
In the waning weeks of Donald Trump’s term, the country’s top military leader repeatedly worried about what the president might do to maintain power after losing reelection, comparing his rhetoric to Adolf Hitler’s during the rise of Nazi Germany and asking confidants whether a coup was forthcoming, according to a new book by two Washington Post reporters.
As Trump ceaselessly pushed false claims about the 2020 presidential election, Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, grew more and more nervous, telling aides he feared that the president and his acolytes might attempt to use the military to stay in office, Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker report in “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year.”
Milley described “a stomach-churning” feeling as he listened to Trump’s untrue complaints of election fraud, drawing a comparison to the 1933 attack on Germany’s parliament building that Hitler used as a pretext to establish a Nazi dictatorship.
“This is a Reichstag moment,” Milley told aides, according to the book. “The gospel of the Führer.”
A spokesman for Milley declined to comment.
Portions of the book related to Milley — first reported Wednesday night by CNN ahead of the book’s July 20 release — offer a remarkable window into the thinking of America’s highest-ranking military officer, who saw himself as one of the last empowered defenders of democracy during some of the darkest days in the country’s recent history.
The episodes in the book are based on interviews with more than 140 people, including senior Trump administration officials, friends and advisers, Leonnig and Rucker write in an author’s note. Most agreed to speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity, and the scenes reported were reconstructed based on firsthand accounts and multiple other sources whenever possible.
Milley — who was widely criticized last year for appearing alongside Trump in Lafayette Square after protesters were forcibly cleared from the area — had pledged to use his office to ensure a free and fair election with no military involvement. But he became increasingly concerned in the days following the November contest, making multiple references to the onset of 20th-century fascism.
After attending a Nov. 10 security briefing about the “Million MAGA March,” a pro-Trump rally protesting the election, Milley said he feared an American equivalent of “brownshirts in the streets,” alluding to the paramilitary forces that protected Nazi rallies and enabled Hitler’s ascent.
Late that same evening, according to the book, an old friend called Milley to express concerns that those close to Trump were attempting to “overturn the government.”
“You are one of the few guys who are standing between us and some really bad stuff,” the friend told Milley, according to an account relayed to his aides. Milley was shaken, Leonnig and Rucker write, and he called former national security adviser H.R. McMaster to ask whether a coup was actually imminent.
“What the f--- am I dealing with?” Milley asked him.
The conversations put Milley on edge, and he began informally planning with other military leaders, strategizing how they would block Trump’s order to use the military in a way they deemed dangerous or illegal.
If someone wanted to seize control, Milley thought, they would need to gain sway over the FBI, the CIA and the Defense Department, where Trump had already installed staunch allies. “They may try, but they’re not going to f---ing succeed,” he told some of his closest deputies, the book says.
In the weeks that followed, Milley played reassuring soothsayer to a string of concerned members of Congress and administration officials who shared his worries about Trump attempting to use the military to stay in office.
“Everything’s going to be okay,” he told them, according to the book. “We’re going to have a peaceful transfer of power. We’re going to land this plane safely. This is America. It’s strong. The institutions are bending, but it won’t break.”
In December, with rumors circulating that the president was preparing to fire then-CIA Director Gina Haspel and replace her with Trump loyalist Kash Patel, Milley sought to intervene, the book says. He confronted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows at the annual Army-Navy football game, which Trump and other high-profile guests attended.
“What the hell is going on here?” Milley asked Meadows, according to the book’s account. “What are you guys doing?”
When Meadows responded, “Don’t worry about it,” Milley shot him a warning: “Just be careful.”
After the failed insurrection on Jan. 6, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Milley to ask for his guarantee that Trump would not be able to launch a nuclear strike and start a war.
“This guy’s crazy,” Pelosi said of Trump in what the book reported was mostly a one-way phone call. “He’s dangerous. He’s a maniac.”
Once again, Milley sought to reassure: “Ma’am, I guarantee you that we have checks and balances in the system,” he told Pelosi.
Less than a week later, as military and law enforcement leaders planned for President Biden’s inauguration, Milley said he was determined to avoid a repeat of the siege on the Capitol.
“Everyone in this room, whether you’re a cop, whether you’re a soldier, we’re going to stop these guys to make sure we have a peaceful transfer of power,” he told them. “We’re going to put a ring of steel around this city and the Nazis aren’t getting in.”
At Biden’s swearing-in on Jan. 20, Milley was seated behind former president Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama, who asked the general how he was feeling.
“No one has a bigger smile today than I do,” Milley replied. “You can’t see it under my mask, but I do.”
by ti-amieKremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House
Exclusive: Documents suggest Russia launched secret multi-agency effort to interfere in US democracy
Luke Harding, Julian Borger and Dan Sabbagh
Thu 15 Jul 2021 11.00 BST
Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.
Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature.
By this point Trump was the frontrunner in the Republican party’s nomination race. A report prepared by Putin’s expert department recommended Moscow use “all possible force” to ensure a Trump victory.
Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them. The papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin.
The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.
The Kremlin responded dismissively. Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov said the idea that Russian leaders had met and agreed to support Trump in at the meeting in early 2016 was “a great pulp fiction” when contacted by the Guardian on Thursday morning.
The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.
There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.
There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.
The paper refers to “certain events” that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow. Security council members are invited to find details in appendix five, at paragraph five, the document states. It is unclear what the appendix contains.
“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.
This extract from a secret Kremlin document gives details of the Russian operation to help an impulsive and ‘mentally unstable’ Donald Trump to become US president
This would help bring about Russia’s favoured “theoretical political scenario”. A Trump win “will definitely lead to the destabilisation of the US’s sociopolitical system” and see hidden discontent burst into the open, it predicts.
The Kremlin summit
There is no doubt that the meeting in January 2016 took place – and that it was convened inside the Kremlin.
An official photo of the occasion shows Putin at the head of the table, seated beneath a Russian Federation flag and a two-headed golden eagle. Russia’s then prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, attended, together with the veteran foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.
Also present were Sergei Shoigu, the defence minister in charge of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency; Mikhail Fradkov, the then chief of Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence service; and Alexander Bortnikov, the boss of the FSB spy agency.Nikolai Patrushev, the FSB’s former director, attended too as security council secretary.
According to a press release, the discussion covered the economy and Moldova.
The document seen by the Guardian suggests the security council’s real, covert purpose was to discuss the confidential proposals drawn up by the president’s analytical service in response to US sanctions against Moscow.
The author appears to be Vladimir Symonenko, the senior official in charge of the Kremlin’s expert department – which provides Putin with analytical material and reports, some of them based on foreign intelligence.
The papers indicate that on 14 January 2016 Symonenko circulated a three-page executive summary of his team’s conclusions and recommendations.
In a signed order two days later, Putin instructed the then chief of his foreign policy directorate, Alexander Manzhosin, to convene a closed briefing of the national security council.
Its purpose was to further study the document, the order says. Manzhosin was given a deadline of five days to make arrangements.
What was said inside the second-floor Kremlin senate building room is unknown. But the president and his intelligence officials appear to have signed off on a multi-agency plan to interfere in US democracy, framed in terms of justified self-defence.
Various measures are cited that the Kremlin might adopt in response to what it sees as hostile acts from Washington. The paper lays out several American weaknesses. These include a “deepening political gulf between left and right”, the US’s “media-information” space, and an anti-establishment mood under President Barack Obama.
The ‘special part’ of a secret Kremlin document setting out measures to cause turmoil and division in America
The paper does not name Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 rival. It does suggest employing media resources to undermine leading US political figures.
There are paragraphs on how Russia might insert “media viruses” into American public life, which could become self-sustaining and self-replicating. These would alter mass consciousness, especially in certain groups, it says.
After the meeting, according to a separate leaked document, Putin issued a decree setting up a new and secret interdepartmental commission. Its urgent task was to realise the goals set out in the “special part” of document No 32-04 \ vd.
Members of the new working body were stated to include Shoigu, Fradkov and Bortnikov. Shoigu was named commission chair. The decree – ukaz in Russian – said the group should take practical steps against the US as soon as possible. These were justified on national security grounds and in accordance with a 2010 federal law, 390-FZ, which allows the council to formulate state policy on security matters.
According to the document, each spy agency was given a role. The defence minister was instructed to coordinate the work of subdivisions and services. Shoigu was also responsible for collecting and systematising necessary information and for “preparing measures to act on the information environment of the object” – a command, it seems, to hack sensitive American cyber-targets identified by the SVR.
The SVR was told to gather additional information to support the commission’s activities. The FSB was assigned counter-intelligence. Putin approved the apparent document, dated 22 January 2016, which his chancellery stamped.
The measures were effective immediately on Putin’s signature, the decree says. The spy chiefs were given just over a week to come back with concrete ideas, to be submitted by 1 February.
Written in bureaucratic language, the papers appear to offer an unprecedented glimpse into the usually hidden world of Russian government decision-making.
Putin has repeatedly denied accusations of interfering in western democracy. The documents seem to contradict this claim. They suggest the president, his spy officers and senior ministers were all intimately involved in one of the most important and audacious espionage operations of the 21st century: a plot to help put the “mentally unstable” Trump in the White House.
The papers appear to set out a route map for what actually happened in 2016.
A matter of weeks after the security council meeting, GRU hackers raided the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and subsequently released thousands of private emails in an attempt to hurt Clinton’s election campaign.
The report seen by the Guardian features details redolent of Russian intelligence work, diplomatic sources say. The thumbnail sketch of Trump’s personality is characteristic of Kremlin spy agency analysis, which places great emphasis on building up a profile of individuals using both real and cod psychology.
Moscow would gain most from a Republican victory, the paper states. This could lead to a “social explosion” that would in turn weaken the US president, it says. There were international benefits from a Trump win, it stresses. Putin would be able in clandestine fashion to dominate any US-Russia bilateral talks, to deconstruct the White House’s negotiating position, and to pursue bold foreign policy initiatives on Russia’s behalf, it says.
Other parts of the multi-page report deal with non-Trump themes. It says sanctions imposed by the US after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea have contributed to domestic tensions. The Kremlin should seek alternative ways of attracting liquidity into the Russian economy, it concludes.
The document recommends the reorientation of trade and hydrocarbon exports towards China. Moscow’s focus should be to influence the US and its satellite countries, it says, so they drop sanctions altogether or soften them.
‘Spell-binding’ documents
Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russia’s spy agencies and author of The Red Web, said the leaked material “reflects reality”. “It’s consistent with the procedures of the security services and the security council,” he said. “Decisions are always made like that, with advisers providing information to the president and a chain of command.”
He added: “The Kremlin micromanages most of these operations. Putin has made it clear to his spies since at least 2015 that nothing can be done independently from him. There is no room for independent action.” Putin decided to release stolen DNC emails following a security council meeting in April 2016, Soldatov said, citing his own sources.
Sir Andrew Wood, the UK’s former ambassador in Moscow and an associate fellow at the Chatham House thinktank, described the documents as “spell-binding”. “They reflect the sort of discussion and recommendations you would expect. There is a complete misunderstanding of the US and China. They are written for a person [Putin] who can’t believe he got anything wrong.”
Wood added: “There is no sense Russia might have made a mistake by invading Ukraine. The report is fully in line with the sort of thing I would expect in 2016, and even more so now. There is a good deal of paranoia. They believe the US is responsible for everything. This view is deeply dug into the soul of Russia’s leaders.”
Trump did not initially respond to a request for comment.
Later, Liz Harrington, his spokesperson, issued a statement on his behalf.
“This is disgusting. It’s fake news, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA was fake news. It’s just the Radical Left crazies doing whatever they can to demean everybody on the right.
“It’s fiction, and nobody was tougher on Russia than me, including on the pipeline, and sanctions. At the same time we got along with Russia. Russia respected us, China respected us, Iran respected us, North Korea respected us.
“And the world was a much safer place than it is now with mentally unstable leadership.”
by ponchi101 Problem is: it is believable.
So more evidence is needed.
by ti-amie This is the first time I've seen this.
by ponchi101 Me too.
Looked it up in SNOPES. It is not listed as a hoax. HuffPost and Slate have articles about it. So it seems to be legit (the flyer).
It is sort of my point. If you don't like the tax rates Amazon pays, and who does, then pass the laws that will make them pay what they really should. Pass the laws that will make Amazon pay their employees what they should.
Amazon, and many others, are the beneficiary of totally unfair tax laws passed by dysfunctional governments? Whose fault is that?
It is sort of my point. If you don't like the tax rates Amazon pays, and who does, then pass the laws that will make them pay what they really should. Pass the laws that will make Amazon pay their employees what they should.
Amazon, and many others, are the beneficiary of totally unfair tax laws passed by dysfunctional governments? Whose fault is that?
Government and the electorate, not just the former.
It is sort of my point. If you don't like the tax rates Amazon pays, and who does, then pass the laws that will make them pay what they really should. Pass the laws that will make Amazon pay their employees what they should.
Amazon, and many others, are the beneficiary of totally unfair tax laws passed by dysfunctional governments? Whose fault is that?
Government and the electorate, not just the former.
I would phrase it electorate and the government that results from their votes. Otherwise I agree 100%
by ti-amiePelosi rejects GOP's Banks, Jordan for Jan. 6 select committee, saying they may jeopardize 'integrity of the investigation'
By
Marianna Sotomayor and Jacqueline Alemany
Today at 1:45 p.m. EDT
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has rejected two of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) picks to serve on the Jan. 6 select committee, saying the outspoken Republicans may jeopardize “the integrity of the investigation.”
McCarthy announced Monday that he would recommend Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks (R-Ind.), noting that the two Republicans and three others represent an array of viewpoints and opinions. Both Jordan and Banks voted against certifying the election of President Biden.
“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee,” Pelosi said in a statement. “The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision.”
Pelosi, who as speaker has final say on who can serve on a committee that is set to hold its first hearing Tuesday, said that she was “prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy E. Nehls.” All three members were seen arriving to McCarthy’s office in the Capitol for a huddle shortly after Pelosi released her statement.
In response, McCarthy issued his own statement Wednesday afternoon in which he slammed Pelosi for “an egregious abuse of power” he believes “will irreparably damage this institution.”
(...)
Tensions were already high as Democrats and Republicans spent months trying to strike a deal to move forward with a bipartisan commission that would seat nonmembers of Congress to lead the investigation, a move that failed in the Senate. Since establishing a select committee to investigate, Pelosi and McCarthy have sparred over the legitimacy of the investigation, given the speaker’s ability to have final say over who serves on the panel.
Her decision comes one week before the committee, which currently has seven Democrats and one Republican in Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), are set to hold its first hearing focused on law enforcement’s experience on Jan. 6.
Asked about the possibility of McCarthy pulling all Republicans, besides Cheney, from investigating, Pelosi said: “We have a bipartisan quorum. We can proceed.”
by ti-amiePlan to honor Trump with banquet becomes flashpoint at one of America's most elite golf clubs
The former president has been a member of Winged Foot, one of the country's top golf clubs and host of the 2020 U.S. Open, for more than 50 years.
July 28, 2021, 5:10 PM EDT
By Jonathan Allen and Liz Brown-Kaiser
Winged Foot Golf Club in the northern suburbs of New York City is one of the most prestigious country clubs in the U.S. Membership is by invitation only, the waiting list is as long as a decade, and when people do get in, they reportedly pay $200,000 just for the initiation fee. It was the site of last year's U.S. Open tournament.
Now it has become the latest battlefront in the wars over former President Donald Trump, who has been a member of the club for more than 50 years.
Some members of Winged Foot who want to honor Trump have made quiet plans for a fancy tribute banquet at the club on Aug. 4. And that has provoked outrage from other members who think such an honor is inappropriate and are trying to get the banquet canceled. So far, they have not succeeded.
For some club members, it is a point of pride that one of their own was president. The dinner is being hosted by fellow member Ted Virtue, a longtime Trump ally, who is expected to play a round with Trump and investor Paul Queally beforehand.
But some members are furious that the club is moving forward with the plan to honor Trump, according to two sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Those members were angered and disgusted by Trump's role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and his treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, according to a club member who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from fellow members. Queally repeatedly has been criticized over the years for making misogynistic, homophobic and anti-minority remarks.
The anti-Trump club members have not taken aggressive action to stop the banquet, but they have informally asked members of the board to intervene — to no avail. They believe they are speaking on behalf of employees of the club who are afraid that speaking out would cost them their jobs, the member said.
All of that makes the plan to celebrate Trump a flashpoint.
"The rich Republican Trumper members think it's great to feast the insurrectionist," the club member said. "Pathetic!"
A spokeswoman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment about the banquet and the battle over it.
It is not the first time Trump's relationship with the golfing world has been a source of controversy — nor is it Winged Foot's first experience with Trump troubles.
Republican members of the club were incensed when it declined entreaties to hang a portrait of Trump in 2017. Then-President Barack Obama was not allowed to play either of the club's courses when his aides sought tee times for him over Labor Day weekend in 2014 because of the inconvenience it would cause other members.
Winged Foot, which is in Mamaroneck, in Westchester County, had "no comment" about the latest dust-up, said a person who answered the phone at the club and then hung up.
"Club management AND board praying it comes and goes unnoticed," a club member said in a text message. "All pretty hush-hush, and no club announcement. But Secret Service will have to close down some of the course."
In January, the PGA of America backed out of its agreement to play a championship event at Trump's Bedminster, New Jersey, golf course next year, the second time it had canceled a tournament planned for a Trump property
by ponchi101 Where does the line for jokes about Ted VIRTUE holding a banquet for Tiny starts?
by mmmm8 Ugh, I thought this would be in Florida somewhere, but this is here in the NYC suburbs...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Gaetz, Gym Jordan and of course the former guy all have gotten free passes from the press. I don't like Cuomo one bit - he's governed as a Republican, a wolf in sheep's clothing - but lets hear the evidence. I think that if he's still standing by the end of the day I think he'll survive this. The Al Franken debacle still resonates with Democrats.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Kafka could not come up with this.
by ti-amie Andrew Cuomo announced he will step down as Governor of New York State in two weeks. I've said here many times that as Governor, especially during Covid, he's done a great job. As a person, I think he's found out that when you've made everyone dislike you there is no one to have your back.
I don't know anything about Lt Gov Hochul except that she is from the Buffalo area.
by Jeff from TX Looking at one of Amie's post's here and came across this story in following up on it. Fascinating and a bit frightening but not really surprising:
Deceased GOP Strategist's Daughter Makes Files Public That Republicans Wanted Sealed https://www.npr.org/2020/01/05/78567220 ... wanted-sea
by mmmm8
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:00 pm
Andrew Cuomo announced he will step down as Governor of New York State in two weeks. I've said here many times that as Governor, especially during Covid, he's done a great job. As a person, I think he's found out that when you've made everyone dislike you there is no one to have your back.
I don't know anything about Lt Gov Hochul except that she is from the Buffalo area.
Still, a pretty surprising development to me that he went voluntarily. I really thought he'd just agree to not run for reelection and eek out his term.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:00 pm
Andrew Cuomo announced he will step down as Governor of New York State in two weeks. I've said here many times that as Governor, especially during Covid, he's done a great job. As a person, I think he's found out that when you've made everyone dislike you there is no one to have your back.
I don't know anything about Lt Gov Hochul except that she is from the Buffalo area.
Still, a pretty surprising development to me that he went voluntarily. I really thought he'd just agree to not run for reelection and eek out his term.
He doesn't strike you as that person who, when told the sun doesn't rise and set on their head, will storm out saying "you'll see"? A lot can happen in two weeks.
by dryrunguy Cuomo's statement, though, is alarming for a different set of reasons than the usual. His argument, basically, is that society changed the rules. Well, yeah, Dufus. The "rules" have evolved because of predators like YOU who are convinced they are entitled to women. And more and more women aren't tolerating it anymore and are speaking out. Be a decent human being who respects women, and then you won't have these problems anymore.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:00 pm
Andrew Cuomo announced he will step down as Governor of New York State in two weeks. I've said here many times that as Governor, especially during Covid, he's done a great job. As a person, I think he's found out that when you've made everyone dislike you there is no one to have your back.
I don't know anything about Lt Gov Hochul except that she is from the Buffalo area.
Still, a pretty surprising development to me that he went voluntarily. I really thought he'd just agree to not run for reelection and eek out his term.
He doesn't strike you as that person who, when told the sun doesn't rise and set on their head, will storm out saying "you'll see"? A lot can happen in two weeks.
Ah, you think this is, "I'll prove to you everything will break down without me and then I'll just run again." Perhaps.
Still, a pretty surprising development to me that he went voluntarily. I really thought he'd just agree to not run for reelection and eek out his term.
He doesn't strike you as that person who, when told the sun doesn't rise and set on their head, will storm out saying "you'll see"? A lot can happen in two weeks.
Ah, you think this is, "I'll prove to you everything will break down without me and then I'll just run again." Perhaps.
I really don't know. I just saw the following exchange on Twitter.
JMHO but there is no way James or AOC carry upstate NY and I think that is the key to whatever happens. AOC? Really?
If all Cuomo did was hug women or say stuff to them how does that compare with the former guy's alleged assaults?
by mmmm8 Oh, for sure Hochul or another "establishment" person will get elected... if James is nominated, the Republican would win (if GOP is smart about their nominee). I can't imagine AOC getting anywhere near that race.
by ti-amie
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:23 am
Oh, for sure Hochul or another "establishment" person will get elected... if James is nominated, the Republican would win (if GOP is smart about their nominee). I can't imagine AOC getting anywhere near that race.
So called progressives are still smarting from that Nina Turner loss and they're desperate for one of them to win something big. AOC would be a fool to chase after the governorship of NYS in my opinion but I think progressives will be trying to put someone in that race with name recognition. Unless Cuomo is found to be the victim of a witch hunt like Al Franken and runs again...
So called progressives are still smarting from that Nina Turner loss and they're desperate for one of them to win something big. AOC would be a fool to chase after the governorship of NYS in my opinion but I think progressives will be trying to put someone in that race with name recognition. Unless Cuomo is found to be the victim of a witch hunt like Al Franken and runs again...
I have been quiet about this subject because I care very little about NYC (because NYC will always do well). Also, this is one topic that I find hard to write about, as it is very complex and I feel you need pages to make your point.
But: is that a possibility? Another case of the DEMS being holier than the pope? I always felt they lost more than they gained when Franken was driven out.
So some comments from you New Yorkers would be welcomed.
(I am also staying away from the news, so right now I am only relying on TAT2 for information).
by ti-amie Kirsten Gillibrand, the Junior Senator from New York, played a major role in forcing Franken to resign. She's been very, very, very quiet this time.
The other issue bubbling under the surface here is Italian culture. Cuomo mentioned it during his initial remarks and then dropped it but I'm seeing references to it on the bird app. It's a difficult subject for obvious reasons but it is, for many, a valid point of reference. When I was working Italian men were known to be very touchy-feely. It wasn't seen as harassment of any kind. I'm not in the workplace now and at least publicly things seem to have changed and what was once acceptable, part of "how it was" isn't anymore. Because I'm not in the game now I can't speak to it but Cuomo is in his 60's now and maybe he should've been more aware of the cultural shift? I don't know. The fact remains he didn't rape anyone to my knowledge and if the most he did was hug people, double cheek kiss, and put his hands on people's shoulders compared to what Tiny is alleged to have done this is nothing. Not to mention Gaetz and what Jim Jordan is said to have ignored.
If the allegations stay where they are I don't know. He would have the cojones to run again.
by ponchi101 I wanted to give it a good thought because I know I am a minority here, regarding these opinions.
But if the USA is getting to the point in which people are losing their jobs because they hugged somebody, or kissed them on the cheek, then I believe that is extreme.
Reminds me of when I was in Egypt and we were warned not to extend our hand to our assistant, Fatima, because as a Muslim woman she would not shake it.
by patrick Speaking of Gaetz, what's the latest?
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:49 pm
I wanted to give it a good thought because I know I am a minority here, regarding these opinions.
But if the USA is getting to the point in which people are losing their jobs because they hugged somebody, or kissed them on the cheek, then I believe that is extreme.
Reminds me of when I was in Egypt and we were warned not to extend our hand to our assistant, Fatima, because as a Muslim woman she would not shake it.
A lot more than that occurred in Cuomo's case, ponchi. At least as I understand it. Case in point: the state trooper and another woman in the security detail. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-horri ... harassment). HIs behavior was super creepy, and he clearly felt he was entitled to behave that way because, "This is who I am."
But it's not complicated. Back when I used to make trips to the office, or even in cases where I run into people I haven't seen in a very long time, I didn't touch anyone, particularly women, unless they attempted to touch me first. This covers handshakes, hugs, kisses, and any other physical interaction. If someone wants to embrace me or kiss me on the cheek, they have to "make the first move" so to speak. Then I know it is not only welcome; it is encouraged. And I'll happily reciprocate.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:49 pm
I wanted to give it a good thought because I know I am a minority here, regarding these opinions.
But if the USA is getting to the point in which people are losing their jobs because they hugged somebody, or kissed them on the cheek, then I believe that is extreme.
Reminds me of when I was in Egypt and we were warned not to extend our hand to our assistant, Fatima, because as a Muslim woman she would not shake it.
Of course, as soon as I hit "submit", I had the idea to frame it a different way.
You're in the elevator with your boss, or your boss's boss, or your boss's boss's boss. This person runs his index finger down your back, kisses you on the lips, grabs your ass, grabs your crotch, and makes sexually suggestive comments.
How would you feel about it? And how optimistic would you feel about your chances to retain your employment if you reported it to the appropriate corporate channels?
by ponchi101 Your second scenario is a clear cut case. We would not disagree on that.
I disagree in the cases in which the offenses are things like: hugging, placing a hand on a shoulder, or kissing somebody on the cheek. They certainly may be not approved by the recipient, but to lose your job because of something like that, to me, is extreme. An entire career can be wiped out because of such a gesture and that, to me, is too much.
To me, it seems that too many of these cases are like trying to regulate humor, sexuality, manners or other human traits that have infinite shades of gray and then, if you did not behave in the "proper" manner, which was not defined, paying too high a price.
As I said, I know I am in the minority now.
by Suliso I think one would really need to see and hear to judge whether the given behavior is creepy or not. The line is thin and it's all so dependent on circumstances.
by Deuce It's all part of 'political correctness', people.
Boris Becker was crucified at Wimbledon this year because, as a commentator, he said that Karen Khachanov's girlfriend, who was being shown on the broadcast, is pretty. He was crucified mostly by women - who themselves are sure to make themselves pretty before leaving the house. But if anyone states that they are pretty, they object!
It's ridiculous.
The destructive 'political correctness' movement seeks to see cancer in every action, no matter how benign.
'Political correctness' is also largely responsible for discouraging interaction and honest relations between people, as everyone is terrified to say anything, for fear that someone might claim that it 'offends' them.
Seeing 'offensive behaviour' in everything - as 'political correctness' demands - also de-values legitimately unacceptable behaviour, in a 'crying wolf' type of way. When you equate a man saying that a woman is pretty with a man grabbing a woman's breast without consent, you have a clear (and twisted) agenda.
by mmmm8 I've decided on this subject matter that it's ok to err on the side of the offended than the offenders. It may be overkill in some situations but if the overcorrection helps set a better societal norm, I'm ok with living in a world where Cuomo is not the Governor.
by ponchi101
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 1:57 pm
I've decided on this subject matter that it's ok to err on the side of the offended than the offenders. It may be overkill in some situations but if the overcorrection helps set a better societal norm, I'm ok with living in a world where Cuomo is not the Governor.
Serious question, I am not teasing you.
Isn't that a bit similar to saying that the standard of the law will be that you are guilty until proven innocent? The offended part makes her claim and it is up to the "offender" to prove her wrong? It would be a turn of the standard.
I know that women need and deserve to be respected. Here in Colombia, we have a serious problem with femicides and "general" (I can't find a proper word for this) violence against women, but if a male is immediately guilty just by an accusation, the proper balance of justice is still not achieved.
Plus, the political aspect of it. It is something that currently only applies to democrats, in the USA. I really could not care less about Cuomo as governor, but if he was a good administrator of the state, his demise may be of consequences that are not good for the general public.
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 1:57 pm
I've decided on this subject matter that it's ok to err on the side of the offended than the offenders. It may be overkill in some situations but if the overcorrection helps set a better societal norm, I'm ok with living in a world where Cuomo is not the Governor.
Serious question, I am not teasing you.
Isn't that a bit similar to saying that the standard of the law will be that you are guilty until proven innocent? The offended part makes her claim and it is up to the "offender" to prove her wrong? It would be a turn of the standard.
I know that women need and deserve to be respected. Here in Colombia, we have a serious problem with femicides and "general" (I can't find a proper word for this) violence against women, but if a male is immediately guilty just by an accusation, the proper balance of justice is still not achieved.
Plus, the political aspect of it. It is something that currently only applies to democrats, in the USA. I really could not care less about Cuomo as governor, but if he was a good administrator of the state, his demise may be of consequences that are not good for the general public.
Let's distinguish between the law and MMMM8's opinion. I'd love to be the long arm of the law, but I'm not. My opinion doesn't rise to the level of a legal standard. No one should be convicted of a crime in a court of law without being proven guilty.
But in terms of the court of public opinion... meh. It's my personal opinion that I'm not going to disapprove of someone who can easily find another means of income losing their job because of multiple accusations of continued misconduct, even if it may be too severe a punishment for the type of misconduct committed.
To be clear, my opinion extends to misconduct by either gender. It would also extend beyond sexual harassments to various "isms." I'd rather someone accused of, say, racial discrimination by numerous people be fired from their job than keep it, even if there's not a recording of them going on a racist tirade. I don't think that's akin to saying "let's throw them in jail without evidence." I just think we're due some overcorrections, like I said.
To be clear, my opinion extends to misconduct by either gender. It would also extend beyond sexual harassments to various "isms." I'd rather someone accused of, say, racial discrimination by numerous people be fired from their job than keep it, even if there's not a recording of them going on a racist tirade. I don't think that's akin to saying "let's throw them in jail without evidence. I just think we're due some overcorrections, like I said.
I find that one fascinating. Hypothetical scenario:
Five people don't like the boss. He is sort of a jerk. So they decide to files unfounded complaints with HR, accusing him (as per your example) of racism.
By your example, the removal of the boss should proceed. That is where I have an issue.
To be clear, my opinion extends to misconduct by either gender. It would also extend beyond sexual harassments to various "isms." I'd rather someone accused of, say, racial discrimination by numerous people be fired from their job than keep it, even if there's not a recording of them going on a racist tirade. I don't think that's akin to saying "let's throw them in jail without evidence. I just think we're due some overcorrections, like I said.
I find that one fascinating. Hypothetical scenario:
Five people don't like the boss. He is sort of a jerk. So they decide to files unfounded complaints with HR, accusing him (as per your example) of racism.
By your example, the removal of the boss should proceed. That is where I have an issue.
In my experience, if 5 people don't like the boss to the point of trying to get them fired, there is a 99.9999999% chance the boss has committed enough actual offenses to get fired. I just don't buy the hypothetical of 5 people putting their own career and reputation at risk to make things like this up. One person or two people, maybe. 5 people? No.
by ti-amie I think NYS and especially NYC will suffer without Cuomo. Is he a bully, someone who governs by intimidation? Yes. So was Lyndon Johnson. I say that to say upstaters really don't like NYC and if Hochul consolidates power then our transit as well as other NYS agencies will suffer. The fact that everyone dislikes/disliked Cuomo doesn't mean he didn't perform a balancing act very well. If he had become a Republican he would probably still be in office.
by dryrunguy I don't know, ponchi. How much evidence do you need? There were multiple accusers, including a state trooper. State troopers tend to come with a presumed level of credibility due to their profession alone. (Whether they should or not is a different thread.) There was a huge Attorney General's Report that documented the allegations and provided what corroboration it could (e.g., the events could have plausibly occurred when and where an accuser said they did). Cuomo spent part of his time denying allegations and part of his time saying, "This is who I am. I'm just a touchy feely kind of guy."
As for this only happening to Democrats, I don't think that's true. We just notice it more when it happens to Democrats because Democrats are supposed to be better, particularly on this issue. Lots of Republicans get nailed for sexual misconduct. It happens all the time. We just don't bat an eye at it because it doesn't shock us.
by ti-amie
by ti-amieA QAnoner Posted One County’s Election Passwords. The County Clerk Allegedly Helped.
By Matt Shuham
|
August 13, 2021 2:44 p.m.
Colorado’s secretary of state on Thursday accused a Republican county official of allowing an unauthorized person to access the county’s voting machines — leading to a leak of sensitive information into the right-wing fever swamps.
After that alleged incident, video and photos of the county’s voting machines — and county-specific passwords — were posted online by an infamous QAnon promoter, Secretary of State Jenna Griswold (D) said at a press conference.
The district attorney’s office is investigating. The county will have to replace the voting machines.
And the Republican clerk, Tina Peters, isn’t backing down.
Speaking at MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s “Cyber Symposium” in South Dakota on Thursday — the event promised and then failed to deliver evidence of Chinese election hacking — Peters was unapologetic, and went on the attack against Griswold.
“She has come into my office several times already in the last two years since I’ve been the elected official because I am a Republican, I’m a conservative and she’s not, and she weaponizes her position to attack people that disagree with her,” Peters said, referring to Griswold.
“When I was on a plane to come see you kind folks, and to talk to you out there, guess what they did? They provided a search warrant and raided my office,” she added. “I don’t know what they did, but I can tell you I don’t trust them.”
The district attorney in Mesa County, Dan Rubinstein, confirmed to Colorado Public Radio that he’d assigned someone to investigate the alleged security breach, but offered no further detail.
“I can confirm that we have not entered into this investigation with any person or criminal act in mind and will reserve judgment on that until the investigation is complete,” Rubinstein said in an email to the outlet. “I also am unable to speculate on the length of time the investigation will take as we are too early in the investigation to have a good sense of the scope of it.”
At Griswold’s press conference Thursday, Matt Crane, a former Republican county clerk now serving as the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, expressed outrage at the situation.
“It was a solo, intentional and selfish act that jeopardized the conduct of, and integrity of, the elections in Mesa County, and affects the confidence of voters throughout the state and the country,” he said.
“To be very clear, Mesa County Clerk and Recorder allowed a security breach and, by all evidence at this point, assisted it,” Griswold said Thursday.
The trouble for Peters started last week, when a key figure in the QAnon movement, Ron Watkins, claimed to have heard from a “whistleblower” about Dominion voting machines.
Watkins is the former administrator of the messageboard 8chan and a major figure in the QAnon conspiracy theory world, thought by some to have authored at least some of the “Q” posts himself.
On his Telegram channel “CodeMonkeyZ,” Watkins claimed that his “whistleblower” was from a state other than Arizona that uses Dominion machines. Watkins then posted a document showing how to change the administrative password of the Dominion system.
What’s more, Watkins wrote, “The whistleblower reached out with footage filmed of the Dominion Election Management System inside an election center in one of the states that used Dominion software and hardware (not Arizona).” The far-right website Gateway Pundit posted Watkins’ claims in an article.
On Monday this week, Griswold announced in a press release that “Several items were published online that constituted a breach in the security protocols for Mesa County voting system components,” and specified that the items included “passwords specific to the individual hardware stations of Mesa County’s voting system.”
That same day, The Bulwark noted that Watkins had screwed up: the video he’d posted had included a unique password, one that had allowed the secretary of state’s office to identify the county in which the leak had occurred: “It turns out the election hacker was not Antifa or a Hugo Chavez apparition but a real live human in the office of Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters,” the outlet reported.
The breach didn’t constitute an imminent threat to Colorado’s elections, Griswold said, but she wanted to inspect the county’s equipment. Peters didn’t respond to that request. Griswold’s team showed up on Tuesday and began their inspection.
And on Thursday, she laid out what they’d found.
According to Griswold, investigators in her office found that someone had been given improper access to the county’s machines during a routine maintenance appointment — known as a “trusted build” — back in May. She pegged responsibility on the clerk’s office.
“On May 25, at the trusted build, Mesa County Clerk and Recorder authorized a non-employee into the trusted build after misleading my office on the person’s employment status,” Griswold said.
At that time, she said, video and photos were taken, including of the county-specific passwords, and then posted online “by a known conspiracy theorist.” Griswold later confirmed that she was referring to Watkins’ “CodeMonkeyZ” channel. Watkins appeared at Lindell’s symposium Wednesday to discuss purported material from Mesa County.
Perhaps more troubling in Griswold’s press conference was the news that video surveillance of the county’s voting machines had been turned off the week prior.
“It appears, a week before the trusted build, that Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s office directed Mesa County staff to turn off the video surveillance of their voting equipment,” Griswold said.
The video surveillance was not turned back on “until recently,” she said. As a result, the chain of custody for the county’s voting equipment could not be confirmed and the machines need to be replaced.
Peters’ office has not responded to TPM’s request for comment on the allegations.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 6:11 pm
I don't know, ponchi. How much evidence do you need? There were multiple accusers, including a state trooper. State troopers tend to come with a presumed level of credibility due to their profession alone. (Whether they should or not is a different thread.) There was a huge Attorney General's Report that documented the allegations and provided what corroboration it could (e.g., the events could have plausibly occurred when and where an accuser said they did). Cuomo spent part of his time denying allegations and part of his time saying, "This is who I am. I'm just a touchy feely kind of guy."
As for this only happening to Democrats, I don't think that's true. We just notice it more when it happens to Democrats because Democrats are supposed to be better, particularly on this issue. Lots of Republicans get nailed for sexual misconduct. It happens all the time. We just don't bat an eye at it because it doesn't shock us.
In reverse.
I should have explained better, What happens ONLY to democrats is that they get fired or removed from their jobs. Republicans remain at their positions, regardless of evidence.
The part in which we are in disagreement is not that Cuomo did or did not do these things. It seems very clear that he did. Our disagreement is whether this resignations are fit to the offense. I still say that, for example, the Democrats lost more by having Franken removed as a senator than keeping him.
by Suliso What is the basis in saying that Hochul will be bad for the state in general or NYC in particular?
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:17 pm
What is the basis in saying that Hochul will be bad for the state in general or NYC in particular?
Upstate New York is more rural than NYC and its environs. There are cites - Buffalo, Binghamton, Rochester, and yes Albany - but there is also a huge open pit mine I saw for the first time when we took the train to Niagara Falls. It's also poorer and unemployment is a problem. They feel NYC drains resources that could go to them. Upstate Dems are a bit more conservative than their compatriots from southern NYS. It's why Cuomo has been seen by NYC residents as more of an obstacle to our needs - better transit and infrastructure improvements for example - than he was by upstaters. And yet he is still seen as a downstater, which he actually is, being from Queens.
I think that the legislators deciding not to pursue impeachment is part of this dynamic. An impeached Cuomo can't run again. Unimpeached he can. Hochul's initial remarks seem promising but talk is cheap. We'll see.
by Togtdyalttai
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 6:50 pmA QAnoner Posted One County’s Election Passwords. The County Clerk Allegedly Helped.
By Matt Shuham
|
August 13, 2021 2:44 p.m.
Colorado’s secretary of state on Thursday accused a Republican county official of allowing an unauthorized person to access the county’s voting machines — leading to a leak of sensitive information into the right-wing fever swamps.
After that alleged incident, video and photos of the county’s voting machines — and county-specific passwords — were posted online by an infamous QAnon promoter, Secretary of State Jenna Griswold (D) said at a press conference.
The district attorney’s office is investigating. The county will have to replace the voting machines.
And the Republican clerk, Tina Peters, isn’t backing down.
Speaking at MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s “Cyber Symposium” in South Dakota on Thursday — the event promised and then failed to deliver evidence of Chinese election hacking — Peters was unapologetic, and went on the attack against Griswold.
“She has come into my office several times already in the last two years since I’ve been the elected official because I am a Republican, I’m a conservative and she’s not, and she weaponizes her position to attack people that disagree with her,” Peters said, referring to Griswold.
“When I was on a plane to come see you kind folks, and to talk to you out there, guess what they did? They provided a search warrant and raided my office,” she added. “I don’t know what they did, but I can tell you I don’t trust them.”
The district attorney in Mesa County, Dan Rubinstein, confirmed to Colorado Public Radio that he’d assigned someone to investigate the alleged security breach, but offered no further detail.
“I can confirm that we have not entered into this investigation with any person or criminal act in mind and will reserve judgment on that until the investigation is complete,” Rubinstein said in an email to the outlet. “I also am unable to speculate on the length of time the investigation will take as we are too early in the investigation to have a good sense of the scope of it.”
At Griswold’s press conference Thursday, Matt Crane, a former Republican county clerk now serving as the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, expressed outrage at the situation.
“It was a solo, intentional and selfish act that jeopardized the conduct of, and integrity of, the elections in Mesa County, and affects the confidence of voters throughout the state and the country,” he said.
“To be very clear, Mesa County Clerk and Recorder allowed a security breach and, by all evidence at this point, assisted it,” Griswold said Thursday.
The trouble for Peters started last week, when a key figure in the QAnon movement, Ron Watkins, claimed to have heard from a “whistleblower” about Dominion voting machines.
Watkins is the former administrator of the messageboard 8chan and a major figure in the QAnon conspiracy theory world, thought by some to have authored at least some of the “Q” posts himself.
On his Telegram channel “CodeMonkeyZ,” Watkins claimed that his “whistleblower” was from a state other than Arizona that uses Dominion machines. Watkins then posted a document showing how to change the administrative password of the Dominion system.
What’s more, Watkins wrote, “The whistleblower reached out with footage filmed of the Dominion Election Management System inside an election center in one of the states that used Dominion software and hardware (not Arizona).” The far-right website Gateway Pundit posted Watkins’ claims in an article.
On Monday this week, Griswold announced in a press release that “Several items were published online that constituted a breach in the security protocols for Mesa County voting system components,” and specified that the items included “passwords specific to the individual hardware stations of Mesa County’s voting system.”
That same day, The Bulwark noted that Watkins had screwed up: the video he’d posted had included a unique password, one that had allowed the secretary of state’s office to identify the county in which the leak had occurred: “It turns out the election hacker was not Antifa or a Hugo Chavez apparition but a real live human in the office of Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters,” the outlet reported.
The breach didn’t constitute an imminent threat to Colorado’s elections, Griswold said, but she wanted to inspect the county’s equipment. Peters didn’t respond to that request. Griswold’s team showed up on Tuesday and began their inspection.
And on Thursday, she laid out what they’d found.
According to Griswold, investigators in her office found that someone had been given improper access to the county’s machines during a routine maintenance appointment — known as a “trusted build” — back in May. She pegged responsibility on the clerk’s office.
“On May 25, at the trusted build, Mesa County Clerk and Recorder authorized a non-employee into the trusted build after misleading my office on the person’s employment status,” Griswold said.
At that time, she said, video and photos were taken, including of the county-specific passwords, and then posted online “by a known conspiracy theorist.” Griswold later confirmed that she was referring to Watkins’ “CodeMonkeyZ” channel. Watkins appeared at Lindell’s symposium Wednesday to discuss purported material from Mesa County.
Perhaps more troubling in Griswold’s press conference was the news that video surveillance of the county’s voting machines had been turned off the week prior.
“It appears, a week before the trusted build, that Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s office directed Mesa County staff to turn off the video surveillance of their voting equipment,” Griswold said.
The video surveillance was not turned back on “until recently,” she said. As a result, the chain of custody for the county’s voting equipment could not be confirmed and the machines need to be replaced.
Peters’ office has not responded to TPM’s request for comment on the allegations.
QAnon people in that Congressional district? Who would have thought?
by ti-amie Got it Tog.
by ti-amie They're not all below the Mason Dixon line or west of the Mississippi
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
I think she's sick of the MSM doing "both sides journalism". The fact is it's raining or it's not.
by Suliso If only it was so clear cut in most cases...
by ponchi101 How about MSM putting labels like: "These claims are not substantiated" or "The FDA has not validated these claims"? Would it be so hard to say "these claims are false"?
And she is saying Journalism 101. I gather further courses take into consideration the cases you would talk about.
by ti-amie
And looked damn good in it.
by ponchi101 The man has swagger. In Venezuelan, we have a word for which I really have no translation: "Tumbao". A combination of swagger, cool, presence.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 What was Kellyanne doing in a military academy board? Training dummy for how to spot a traitor?
by ti-amie
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:51 pm
What was Kellyanne doing in a military academy board? Training dummy for how to spot a traitor?
Came here from the WORLD OF ENTERTAINMENT topic and my initial thought was: Bieber? What does he have to do with this?
Of course, he is also Canadian, so both my neurons eventually connected.
Came here from the WORLD OF ENTERTAINMENT topic and my initial thought was: Bieber? What does he have to do with this?
Of course, he is also Canadian, so both my neurons eventually connected.
Well, hell... Even Justin Bieber would be an improvement over the Pennsylvania House...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Any questions?
by ponchi101 Actually, there are lots of questions. The sole answer here is that this person believes the KKK is too soft in its approach. But the questions start with:
1. How come this person is allowed in Twitter?
....
499. Genociding? (Spell checker does not recognize the word).
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:38 pm
Actually, there are lots of questions. The sole answer here is that this person believes the KKK is too soft in its approach. But the questions start with:
1. How come this person is allowed in Twitter?
....
499. Genociding? (Spell checker does not recognize the word).
But, apparently the definition of 'genociding' is what happens when one gender & race is left out of a photo-op.
But, apparently the definition of 'genociding' is what happens when one gender & race is left out of a photo-op.
(Thanks. I needed a laugh. It has been a really sucky day)
by skatingfan Coverage of today's election in Canada
by Togtdyalttai For our Canadian members: I've been catching up a bit in the last few days on what's going on and expected to happen in your election. To me, it seems like your Conservative Party, or at least its leader, is a sane, reasonable party that, while I wouldn't vote for them, I wouldn't lose sleep thinking about what they'd do with power. Is that what it seems like to you? I've heard that their platform was much less moderate in 2019.
by skatingfan
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:01 am
For our Canadian members: I've been catching up a bit in the last few days on what's going on and expected to happen in your election. To me, it seems like your Conservative Party, or at least its leader, is a sane, reasonable party that, while I wouldn't vote for them, I wouldn't lose sleep thinking about what they'd do with power. Is that what it seems like to you? I've heard that their platform was much less moderate in 2019.
I think you've summed up the Conservative Party platform pretty well. The current leader, Erin O'Toole, has moved the party to the centre during the past few months in an attempt to win over more centrist voters that rejected the previous direction of the party.
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:01 am
For our Canadian members: I've been catching up a bit in the last few days on what's going on and expected to happen in your election. To me, it seems like your Conservative Party, or at least its leader, is a sane, reasonable party that, while I wouldn't vote for them, I wouldn't lose sleep thinking about what they'd do with power. Is that what it seems like to you? I've heard that their platform was much less moderate in 2019.
I think you've summed up the Conservative Party platform pretty well. The current leader, Erin O'Toole, has moved the party to the centre during the past few months in an attempt to win over more centrist voters that rejected the previous direction of the party.
Would he honor the platform being run on or is he trying to pull a fast one on the public, just trying to get elected?
by skatingfan
JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:21 am
Would he honor the platform being run on or is he trying to pull a fast one on the public, just trying to get elected?
Canadian politicians are kind of weird - generally speaking they do the thing they say they're going to do - not always all of them, or as quickly as some would like - but traditionally a party platform does become governing policy. In this case it's unlikely to matter because the Conservatives aren't likely to form a majority government, and the other parties are left of centre parties so they're unlikely to support their positions. The most likely result is a sizeable Liberal minority government that will be supported by the NDP.
by Togtdyalttai If the Conservatives win a plurality, who would they turn to in order to prop up their government? Bloc Québécois? Or does that not make political sense?
by skatingfan
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:47 am
If the Conservatives win a plurality, who would they turn to in order to prop up their government? Bloc Québécois? Or does that not make political sense?
That's not really clear. 15 years ago then Prime Minister Stephen Harper kept a Conservative minority government going by splitting the opposition parties, but it's not clear that the same thing could happen now. The Conservatives don't have a natural ally or partner among the other major parties so if they stay in government they will be doing deals with the other parties on a case by case basis. I think the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc would defeat such a government in short order & try to form a coalition government, but it remains to be seen whether any this will be necessary.
by ti-amie I read that Trudeau will form a government. What does this mean for Canada going forward?
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:29 pm
I read that Trudeau will form a government. What does this mean for Canada going forward?
The election decided nothing. The seat counts are almost identical to what they were before the election. The Liberals will continue to govern as they have with the support of the NDP, and we'll probably be back at the polls again in two years. Typically a minority government will stay in power for two years before either the opposition gets tired of supporting them, or, like this year, the governing party thinks they can win a majority. This might have been Trudeau's last election - 3 wins is traditionally the most a leader will do, and that means we might be into a Liberal leadership campaign in 2 years followed by an election. Personally, if that happens, I will be supporting the current Deputy Prime Minister Christa Freeland. She has been fantastic as a minister in the government for the past 6 years - first as Foreign Affairs Minister, and now as Finance Minister. If you're not familiar with her you should be able to find some clips on YouTube from her appearances as a guest on Bill Maher's show.
by ti-amie As was widely predicted the GQP is interested in the national debt again.
by ti-amie
by the Moz After 16 years, Angela Merkel is standing down as German Chancellor tomorrow. Her style of leadership and governance is sorely lacking across many Western democracies these days. Yet she was an effective national leader, a measured de facto leader of Europe and a principled defender of the liberal democratic order. She will be missed.
by Suliso Difficult to predict who'll replace her... As for being a leader of EU that kind of comes out naturally from Germany being the largest economy in that block. If the next German chancellor is inept maybe Macron could challenge for this "title", but nobody else really.
by the Moz The fascinating aspect to German leadership of Europe is to see how their understandable ambivalence to the role has evolved over the decades following two disastrous wars.
by Togtdyalttai
the Moz wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:10 pm
After 16 years, Angela Merkel is standing down as German Chancellor tomorrow. Her style of leadership and governance is sorely lacking across many Western democracies these days. Yet she was an effective national leader, a measured de facto leader of Europe and a principled defender of the liberal democratic order. She will be missed.
She's not actually standing down tomorrow. She'll still be the caretaker chancellor because it will be months in all likelihood before a coalition is formed.
by ponchi101 I have been wondering how to start a "petition" or "sign up" requesting, or rather, demanding that Angela Merkel becomes Prime Minister of all of Latin America, from the Rio Grande to the Patagonia. I just don't know how to do those things.
Germany may veer a bit more to the left, with the Green Party/ies gaining more power. It would be an interesting experiment as they would make a huge push for CO2 emissions reduction but without the nuclear option available. Could a country such as Germany, which is a major industrial power, really power itself solely with wind, solar and geothermal?
Also. With Merkel out, there will be not one single scientific-trained leader of any of the G7 countries. The sole non-lawyer in a position of power for the most important countries in the world would Xi-Jinping, who is an engineer. Precisely at the time in which two of the most pressing problems in the world, CC and Automation, will require technical solutions.
the Moz wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:10 pm
After 16 years, Angela Merkel is standing down as German Chancellor tomorrow. Her style of leadership and governance is sorely lacking across many Western democracies these days. Yet she was an effective national leader, a measured de facto leader of Europe and a principled defender of the liberal democratic order. She will be missed.
She's not actually standing down tomorrow. She'll still be the caretaker chancellor because it will be months in all likelihood before a coalition is formed.
Yes! Standing down in the sense that there is a General Election tomorrow to elect a new Chancellor, but her term doesn't end tomorrow.
by Suliso The best educated one in a major European country is now probably Mario Draghi who has PhD in economics from MIT. That is if we still count Italy as import
I think he's doing quite well in his country with the cards he's been dealt.
by ponchi101 I did not know that about the Italian PM. So, I have to change my position. You don't get a PhD in economics without a considerable understanding of math. At least, not one from MIT.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:46 pm
I did not know that about the Italian PM. So, I have to change my position. You don't get a PhD in economics without a considerable understanding of math. At least, not one from MIT.
He had an illustrious academic career before going into public service. For example, was a professor of mathematical economics at university of Venice. Later a governor of bank of Italy (2006-2011) and President of the European central bank (2011-2019). Actually probably the smartest guy in that group even with Merkel around. Of course one should note that for most of her tenure she had to deal with Silvio Berlusconi not this guy...
by the Moz Silvio, the worst of Italian politics and that's saying something
by Suliso Since ponchi started to talk about it I looked up the education of G7 leaders + half a dozen others of at least some regional importance (omitted kingdoms).
USA: JD Syracuse University
Canada: BSc literature, McGill university
France: MSc philosophy, university of Paris-Ouest
Germany: PhD quantum chemistry, Academy of Sciences, Berlin
Italy: PhD economics, MIT
Spain: BSc economics, Complutense University of Madrid
Australia: BSc economic geography, university of new South Wales
UK: BSc classics and philosophy, Oxford
Japan: BSc Law, Hosei University
Brazil: Military academy
Mexico: BSc political science, national university of Mexico
Russia: BSc Law, St Petersburg State university
India: BSc political science, university of Delhi
China: BSc chemical engineering, Tsinghua university
Indonesia: BSc forestry, Gadjah Mada University
by ti-amieMatt Gaetz campaign hires Jeffrey Epstein lawyer in connection to Justice Department investigation, report claims
The probe has reportedly expanded from sexual misconduct to include campaign finance issues
Justin Vallejo
New York
The campaign for Matt Gaetz has reportedly hired the defence attorney of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, drug lord ‘El Chapo’, and Nxivm sex cult leader Keith Raniere in connection to a Department of Justice investigation.
Quoting a "person familiar with the matter", The Daily Beast reports that Marc Fernich is representing the campaign in connection with the investigation into the Republican Congressman, which reportedly includes sex trafficking, prostitution, obstruction of justice, and campaign finance issues.
The Friends of Matt Gaetz paid $25,000 to the Law Office of Marc Fernich in June, according to FEC filings.
Mr Gaetz has repeatedly and strenuously denied any allegations of wrongdoing since The New York Times first reported on 31 March that the US Department of Justice was investigating allegations of sexual misconduct.
No charges have been brought against Mr Gaetz, who says the allegations are part of a $25m plot to extort his family.
In August, Florida developer Stephen Alford was indicted on charges over an alleged $25m plot to extort Mr Gaetz’s father in exchange for a presidential pardon that would make the DOJ investigation into the Congressman go away.
While the hiring of Mr Fernich for “legal consulting” was first revealed by The Washington Post in July, The Daily Beast is the first to report that the $25,000 in legal fees are in "connection" to the DOJ’s investigation.
Mr Fernich specialises in "subtle, novel and creative arguments that other attorneys may miss", according to his website.
"These arguments can make potential winners out of seemingly hopeless cases, spelling the difference between victory and defeat," it says.
Among those seemingly hopeless cases, Mr Fernich lists former mafia boss John A "Junior" Gotti as his most notable, followed by “El Chapo” Joaquin Guzman Loero, and Epstein.
"Friends of Matt Gaetz" is listed just after Epstein and before Raniere, who was sentenced to 160 years in prison for sex trafficking and other crimes.
Gotti, son of the so-called “Teflon Don” gangster John J Gotti, was was investigated in several racketeering cases before prosecutors said they would no longer pursue them. El Chapo was sentenced to life, plus 30 years, and Epstein died in prison while awaiting trial.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into Mr Gaetz is looking into whether the Congressman paid women, including a 17-year-old, in exchange for sex, according to The New York Times.
An attorney familiar with the investigation told The Daily Beast that Mr Gaetz’s defence team illustrates the seriousness and scope of the investigation, which reportedly includes the DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit.
Neither the offices of Mr Fernich nor Mr Gatez responded to The Independent’s request for comment by the time of publication.
A spokesman for Mr Gaetz told the Post in July that their FEC filings "speak for themselves".
“Despite an endless stream of lies from the media, Congressman Gaetz continues to be among the most prodigious fundraisers in Congress and is the only Republican who doesn’t accept donations from federal lobbyists or PACs. He thanks his tens of thousands of donors and promises to always fight for them,” the spokesman said.
by ponchi101 My god, when they make the movie it will start with a monologue of a Cuban man saying "I believed in America..."
by Suliso I think this is an interesting graph which shows vote distribution for major parties in Germany.
Legend:
SPD - center left social democrats
Union - CDU/CSU conglomerate (Merkel's party). Center right
Grüne - green party. On other issues generally center left
FDP - liberal party. Generally pro business, in favor of free markets etc.
AfD - far right party (anti immigrants etc)
Linke - far left party (nationalize everything etc).
Numbers below show municipalities where the party received the most and the least votes. As you see no party got the absolute majority anywhere. For the hard right and hard left one can also nicely see borders of the former East Germany.
by JazzNU
by Suliso It will all be on Democrats this time if there is a shutdown. They have votes to prevent it.
by ponchi101 Indeed, but McConnell's disregard for the well being of his country is truly off the scale.
And he got re-elected. But, of course, it is the Dems that are bent in destroying the country. I forgot which political analyst said it: 1/3 of the people in the USA are insane.
by ti-amie The markets have expressed an opinion. Add this to the Evergrande situation in China and you have to wonder just who the Republicans are fighting for.
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:34 pm
The markets have expressed an opinion. Add this to the Evergrande situation in China and you have to wonder just who the Republicans are fighting for.
Short sellers.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Chyron of the week?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by JazzNU Another one that was forcefully against him until her political ambitions trumped her morals. That or the blackmail got to be too intense. Either way, there is a lot of her saying he's everything I never want my children to be, nothing our party should aspire to, etc. etc. out there. So this is beyond pitiful.
by ti-amie
This seems like a pretty good idea to me.
by mmmm8 1. This person underestimates the length it will take to implement the programs
2. And then how long it may take for the effects/positive results to be seen
3. This would allow the GOP to argue in 2022 and 2024 about how "empty" the Dems' promises had been and how they're wasting money.
4. If the GOP wins in 2024, they'll take all the credit for the good this does and then not extend.
by ti-amie This ad ran during the baseball game last night. I was literally sputtering in anger.
by dryrunguy The ad I see here all the time is the one about how Democrats in Congress don't want to reduce prescription drug prices. But what makes that one infuriating is that it's partially true for congressional Democrats who are owned by big pharma.
by JazzNU WTH? I definitely haven't seen that ad, how ridiculous. This is quite the twist, in trying to add dental, vision, and hearing aids to Medicare, Conservatives are trying to spin it as a "squeeze" as if the entire thing is going to be a lesser service? Who knew?
Remind me of all that the GOP did to lower prescription drug prices over the last 4 or heck, 20 years, let's take it back to the Bush years. I think I missed their many contributions if someone wants to offer up the highlights.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
He's 100% right
by Suliso To be honest Democrats have a pretty weak mandate to make major changes to how the country works.
by ponchi101 Good for Bernie.
That is the difference between the GOP and the DEMS. The GOP steps in line. DEMS remain independent. And nothing ever gets done by either (except GOP'ers slashing taxes).
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:13 pm
Good for Bernie.
That is the difference between the GOP and the DEMS. The GOP steps in line. DEMS remain independent. And nothing ever gets done by either (except GOP'ers slashing taxes).
I understand what you're saying, but Bernie is not now and never has been a real Democrat. It's part of the reason most Democrats have never been on board with him as a presidential nominee. He caucuses with the Dems and he wants their resources, but he's always been independent or a member of some fringe left wing political party.
@Suliso, the Dems have a pretty strong mandate for recent political history.
by Suliso
JazzNU wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:24 am
@Suliso, the Dems have a pretty strong mandate for recent political history.
If 50-50 in the Senate and a handful of votes majority in the Congress is a pretty strong mandate one wonders what would a weak one look like.
by Suliso It is very likely that in the next few election cycles US will turn sharply to the right. I I were a Republican in US I'd look eagerly ahead to 2022 and even more 2024.
Abandoning white working class voters as well as rural areas could turn out very badly for Democrats unless they do something about it very soon.
by Togtdyalttai
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:40 am
It is very likely that in the next few election cycles US will turn sharply to the right. I I were a Republican in US I'd look eagerly ahead to 2022 and even more 2024.
Abandoning white working class voters as well as rural areas could turn out very badly for Democrats unless they do something about it very soon.
Having not read that article (since it's behind a paywall), I would say Democrats haven't abandoned white working class voters or rural areas. Rather, the political environment has changed to the point where economic issues are not what is most important to those voters. Big spending used to help get that sort of person's vote, but now what is more important to them are social issues such as immigration, anti-woke stuff like opposing critical race theory, and generally whatever Trump supports. Democrats can't appeal to that kind of voter.
by ponchi101 Bill Maher's editorial last night was about that. It rang true.
by ti-amie Tog is right. Here's Noel Casler's latest Friday Night Car Rant.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
This is what Noel Casler was talking about in his car rant.
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy In fairness, if Mitch had his way, no one anywhere would receive food stamps, disability, or Medicaid. Because... socialism. And because... those populations are disposable. At least in his pea-sized brain.
by ti-amie Clooney is from Kentucky?! I did not know that.
Sounds very Elon, not unlike how he talks about California now.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Suliso Biden's approval ratings (NBC). It looks pretty bad, fortunately for him elections not this year.
by ti-amie
by MJ2004 Democrats must look beyond Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for 2024
The party’s historic deference to establishment candidates invites losing to Donald Trump
For weeks after she was sworn in as vice-president, an Italian restaurant in Washington displayed no fewer than 10 portraits of Kamala Harris across its patio. Spread over half a block, the pictures tracked her life from student to state office holder to next in line for the grandest job on Earth. Older Washingtonians can tell you if Dan Quayle received the same billing.
Harris’s case is an odd one. Democrats dearly want to believe she is a plausible winner of the White House in 2024, when Joe Biden will turn 82. At the same time, whispered qualms abound. Bad reviews of her public performances can be put down to taste. Gossip about strained relations with the president could be idle.
Harder to forget is the fact that she quit the party’s 2020 primaries early for lack of funds — some feat for a California senator. Among those who outlasted her was the mayor of Indiana’s fourth-largest city. At times, it is hard to know what is more troubling: that her presumptive-nominee status is fading, or that it is holding up.
It is not too soon for Democrats (and democrats) to start worrying about 2024. Absent health or legal trouble, a twice-impeached Donald Trump is the likeliest Republican candidate. If he is to lose again, the alternative will have to sell well in Michigan, Wisconsin and other decisive states. It is not clear that Harris or, after three more years of wear and tear, even Biden will meet that test. Everything about the Democratic party’s ingrained culture suggests it will field one of the two regardless.
In its internal politics, the party is not so much left or right as deferential. Biden and Hillary Clinton, its past two White House hopefuls, were the establishment or at least default picks. Al Gore in 2000, the outgoing vice-president, was another whose turn it simply was. John Kerry was the grandee in the so-so field of four years later. It took the lustre of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to buck the party’s innate drift to convention. No one of their gifts is likely to show up before 2024.
The liberal urge to curtsy goes beyond politics to culture. It was there in the fawning over “Camelot”, that tellingly feudal shorthand for the Kennedys in the 1960s. It was there in the idealised president of The West Wing, a Founding Father-descended moral giant and crack linguist who no doubt took stray cats in, too.
As odd as it was to walk past, the Harris portraits were of a piece with the wider need of liberals to make heroes of their leaders. For the most part, it is harmlessly weird. Every four years, it can cause political ruin. This is a party that would let Harris or a shrunken Biden fight the next election to avoid the unconscionable lèse majesté of a contested primary.
In normal times, the Democrats might be left to get on with it. But an election in which Trump is on the ballot is existential for the whole system of constitutional government. Exactly a year on from his defeat to Biden, he still disputes it. Were he to repeat the trick in 2024, there might be a Republican Congress to assist him. What passes for the party’s anti-Trump wing thins out by the month. Of the 10 Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted to impeach him in January, two are standing down (“Eight to go,” says Trump).
In other words, mere victory over Trump is not certain to be enough: an incontestably large margin might be necessary. The Democrats have to put themselves in the minds of those legion voters who want to avoid a Trump revanche, but not at any cost. In the near term, that means taking immigration as seriously as the eternal saga of Biden’s spending bills. Before long, it will mean confronting the question of personnel.
A hotly contested primary in the incumbent party would be rare. A better candidate than Harris or a then octogenarian Biden (Trump, just three years younger, wears his age better) may not even be on hand. Whatever the teleologists say, a nation’s history can hinge on the right person showing up at an opportune time, or failing to. Senator Amy Klobuchar, transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, congresswoman Ayanna Pressley: none of the mooted challengers emits a “person of destiny” aura.
But that has to be tested, not assumed. The alternative is that Trump faces a beatable opponent through sheer Democratic inertia. In scouting for a candidate, the party must be open-minded. The hopefuls must be sharp-elbowed. The stakes are as large as anything the party might legislate before then. Tuesday’s Virginia governor election has revived the trope that US politicians campaign too much and govern too little. Democrats should beware the inverse sin.
by ti-amie This would normally go in the "Dante" thread but after reading the above I thought it would work here. This is so scary.
by ti-amie
steven monacelli
@stevanzetti
I'm leaving now. Not sure why JFK Jr. or JFK Sr. didnt show up. Maybe they will at the Rolling Stones concert later tonight in Dallas.
by JazzNU JFK Jr. was supposed to show himself last summer and become his official running mate for 2020. I was confused by the mere idea and stumbled upon some Q BS on Twitter that was so convoluted that my brain is still struggling to recover the brain cells it lost from reading through their "logic" on this nonsense.
by ponchi101 So, the Dems have to win by 20 million and have to rack 30 states, or the election is not legit?
Because nothing like that is bound to happen. Which means that the American experiment, very successful for over 200 years, will be over. One of the most successful empires in the history of the world will go down due to one psychopath, because the Q's and the other lunatics will show up with weapons.
---0---
I agree that Biden should be one term. But don't go for an extreme candidate either. Sorry, a lot of people in the USA are not ready for that. Sometimes, real-politicks have to be understood.
by Suliso It's not just the candidate... All that progressive stuff, abolish the police, soft on border protection and so on has to be toned down in a major way. There is no majority support for that. Not even close. Also it would help in a big way if Biden could actually get something through the Congress and Senate. I think he went for way too much given how many votes his has and what kind.
by JazzNU More appropriate here or in national? Wasn't sure, but it's a political appointment that requires senate approval, so putting here.
by dmforever A Black woman who had formerly been incarcerated but who is of age tries to vote, not realizing that it's illegal for her to do so, and goes to prison. This white Senator's son knows for effffing sure that he's doing something illegal, does it twice, but miraculously isn't breaking any laws.
Sigh
Kevin
by ti-amie
There is no excuse for this vote. Once again she's not serving the interests of her district.
by ponchi101 Why mix topics? Why are these people so dim?
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 7:07 pm
Why mix topics? Why are these people so dim?
They are not.
by dryrunguy This is a very interesting watch. I have to admit, if what I heard is true, I learned a few things.
by ponchi101 Interesting indeed. But there are very biased opinions.
"Blue States is where the housing problem is". Well, because Blue States have an influx of people, as opposed to Red States, where populations are leaving.
There were other items I would like to think about. One last: the fact that the State is BLUE, does not mean everybody is a dem. So, maybe those people voting for less public housing also include the REPs that live there.
it seems to me like a very well research piece on "let me find exceptions to what Dems say, within Dem states".
by Suliso There is a lot of truth there. Look at California. Democrats have all the marbles there at all levels.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 And what was expected, after injecting a few trillion dollars of inorganic money (just print the stuff) into the economy?
If the laws of economics were followed properly, the USA and China would be bankrupt. Greece went belly-up when their debt reached a 1:1 ratio with its GDP. The USA and China are way above that, yet they are not bankrupt because the world knows what happens if either one of them goes that way.
Inflation was to be expected. Profits by these corporations too.
The Laws of Economy are not like the laws of physics. But they are laws. You simply can't wave them away and hope that nothing will happen. That is what every single L. America dictator or corrupt government always does, and it never works.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie This is the person who created an anime where he is portrayed killing AOC.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy Dr. Oz is seriously contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate--and in Pennsylvania, no less. He'll be running as a Republican.
That's all we need... Another faux physician in the Senate.
by JazzNU
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:44 pm
Dr. Oz is seriously contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate--and in Pennsylvania, no less. He'll be running as a Republican.
That's all we need... Another faux physician in the Senate.
A few things about this for those not in PA.
1. He's not a PA resident, but a multi-decade resident of New Jersey that has apparently been using his in-laws address in PA to vote in the last election. WTF.
2. GOP's previous attempt that I can remember in a statewide election with a name was not successful, lost by a large margin despite his general popularity in other parts of his life (Super Bowl winning NFL player).
3. PA voters don't like fake PA people, which is why Santorum went down in flames in his re-election campaign by a very large margin after it was found out he was basically no longer living in PA except for show and his kids were enrolled in Virginia schools. GOP is putting forth a lot of fake PA residents this cycle, and they'll be going against an actual PA resident on the Dem side.
4. Dr. Oz is getting tapped because the Senate candidate that the Grifter fully endorsed and was pushing withdrew from the race last week after he lost custody of his kids after the judge found his ex-wife's spousal and child abuse claims valid and very believable and awarded her sole custody.
by ti-amie NYC just elected a Mayor who lives in New Jersey. We need to get off of our high horse.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:44 pm
Dr. Oz is seriously contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate--and in Pennsylvania, no less. He'll be running as a Republican.
That's all we need... Another faux physician in the Senate.
A few things about this for those not in PA.
1. He's not a PA resident, but a multi-decade resident of New Jersey that has apparently been using his in-laws address in PA to vote in the last election. WTF.
2. GOP's previous attempt that I can remember in a statewide election with a name was not successful, lost by a large margin despite his general popularity in other parts of his life (Super Bowl winning NFL player).
3. PA voters don't like fake PA people, which is why Santorum went down in flames in his re-election campaign by a very large margin after it was found out he was basically no longer living in PA except for show and his kids were enrolled in Virginia schools. GOP is putting forth a lot of fake PA residents this cycle, and they'll be going against an actual PA resident on the Dem side.
4. Dr. Oz is getting tapped because the Senate candidate that the Grifter fully endorsed and was pushing withdrew from the race last week after he lost custody of his kids after the judge found his ex-wife's spousal and child abuse claims valid and very believable and awarded her sole custody.
Thanks for that!!!
Does number 1 not immediately disqualify him from running? How does one actually prove where one lives and what actually defines where one lives? These seem like idiotic questions but I guess they aren't. Or maybe I'm an idiot.
Kevin
by dmforever
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:53 pm
NYC just elected a Mayor who lives in New Jersey. We need to get off of our high horse.
Again, sorry for my ignorance, but how can that happen?
Kevin
by ti-amie You're not an idiot. This is how they did it in NYC.
Reporters dug up the fact that Adams has a condo in New Jersey. He said he has an apartment in Brooklyn that he stays in most of the time. There were reports of a former neighbor of his in Brooklyn also having a place in the same condo development as Adams in New Jersey. Adams invited the media to the apartment in Brooklyn and said that it was lived in and that the person living in it was him.
The matter was dropped.
Mmmm8 if I got some of this wrong please correct me.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:53 pm
NYC just elected a Mayor who lives in New Jersey. We need to get off of our high horse.
I didn't know about this, but I should've been more specific. Dr. Oz is a resident of Northern New Jersey, in Bergen County. That is very much not part of the Philadelphia region so can't even pretend, well I just live across the river but everything I do, I do in Philly. He's going to be completely unfamiliar with localese of PA.
And I'm pointing this out because of how PA people are, which can be very insular. They very much love their own. If you genuinely adopt it as your home for many years, then that's another story, but barely living here and moving for the purpose of running for office? That's more likely to be okay with those in Philly and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh, and even they aren't crazy about it, and yet, that's hardly the pool of voters GOP needs on their side.
Kevin, you're not missing anything other than very suspect residency requirements for running. I was living in Illinois when the GOP did this nonsense against Obama when he ran for Senate. Thought enough people wouldn't' be able to tell the black men apart.
by ti-amie Wait I thought he lived in Southern NJ, right across the river or something. BERGEN COUNTY?! Hey, maybe he should've run for NYC mayor.
by mmmm8 He is/was a professor at Columbia Medical School for many years (very contentious issue as he makes money selling pseudoscience products), so he definitely lives in the Tri-State area
by mmmm8
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:08 pm
You're not an idiot. This is how they did it in NYC.
Reporters dug up the fact that Adams has a condo in New Jersey. He said he has an apartment in Brooklyn that he stays in most of the time. There were reports of a former neighbor of his in Brooklyn also having a place in the same condo development as Adams in New Jersey. Adams invited the media to the apartment in Brooklyn and said that it was lived in and that the person living in it was him.
The matter was dropped.
Mmmm8 if I got some of this wrong please correct me.
What you omitted is that the whole thing is very comical because of how staged that apartment visit was. Also, he s the Brooklyn Borough President (!).
by mmmm8 Anyway, New York also elected Hillary Clinton who was kind of carpetbagging as well...
by Togtdyalttai Jazz, I hope you're right about Pennsylvanians, and I hope Georgians feel similarly.
by JazzNU Dr. Oz ad buy during the Big 10 Championship Game. Doesn't mention Pennsylvania once. Could've aired in literally any state.
by ti-amie
by ti-amieChris Wallace picked the right week to quit Fox News
The Murdoch debacle
Eric Boehlert
Dec 15
Forget about the homeless man who burned down Fox News’ metal Christmas tree last week. The network’s real troubles began Sunday morning when longtime host Chris Wallace announced his resignation on live TV, in order to jump to rival CNN. The network’s woes then exploded into full view Monday night when it was revealed a laundry list of Fox News hosts anxiously texted Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, on January 6, begging Trump to stop the deadly mob that was laying siege to the U.S. Capitol.
“Please get him on TV,” the network’s Brian Kilmeade messaged. “Destroying everything you have accomplished.” Pleaded Laura Ingraham: “Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.” And from Sean Hannity, “Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol?”
For hours, Trump did nothing to stop the insurrection, before eventually issuing a bland, irrelevant statement on that very dark day.
The Sunday news flash about Wallace was a punch in the gut for Fox, mostly because it robs the network of its ability to point to the morning host as supposedly a ‘serious journalist’ when trying to knock down the obvious claim that the network is nothing more than a bigoted propaganda outlet.
“The abrupt departure of “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace stripped the network of its foremost fig leaf, and gave reality-based journalists clear license to stop the lame euphemisms and call Fox what it is: a propaganda and disinformation operation,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin.
The second, more serious newsflash about the text messages ripped away the Fox veneer that’s been constructed since January 6, that the insurrection was no big deal (i.e. a bunch of grandparents marching around with placards), and that any investigation today represents a partisan witch hunt. Just last week, Kilmeade, who was privately beseeching for action on January 6, mocked news outlets for spending too much time reporting on the revelations that keep tumbling out about Trump’s coup attempt last winter, and about the widespread obstruction of justice on display.
Since everyone at Fox News operates without a moral compass, none of the millionaire hosts will have trouble sleeping despite their insurrection hypocrisy making headlines this week. Still, the network privately hates episodes like this, because it puts them on the defensive and it chips away at the preferred fantasy they push on Madison Avenue and within the Beltway that Fox is merely a conservative media outlet and that it actually employs a “news” division.
It was an awful 36 hours for Fox, and Wallace definitely picked a prime time to leave. I wonder if he knew the release of the Insurrection Day texts from his colleagues was imminent, and if that sped up what appeared to be his hasty exit from his TV home for 18 years. Either way, his move was a stinger for the network, for lots of reasons.
The exit, and how it was choreographed, came with an unmistakable scent of F.U. directed to Wallace’s former bosses. According to reports, virtually nobody inside Fox’s Washington D.C. bureau knew about the departure before Wallace announced it live on television. Worse, he’s jumping straight to Fox News’ most hated rival — CNN. That’s a poke in the eye for the right-wing network, which hates the fact that CNN doggedly details Fox’s dishonest ways. It’s unheard of for a high-profile Fox player like Wallace to pack their bags and head directly to CNN.
When Rupert Morduch’s network on Sunday released a perfunctory statement about Wallace, it was clear the two did not leave on good terms, which is rather stunning considering he’s been among their most recognizable faces for nearly two decades.
That personnel headache was soon superseded by the insurrection controversy, when Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the vice chair of the House select committee investigating January 6, read the Fox News texts aloud Monday night during a primetime hearing. Of course Fox News stonewalled the insurrection text news for 24 hours, refusing to acknowledge that its horrified hosts desperately communicated with Trump’s top aide in real time on January 6, trying to get the president to stop the deranged coup attempt.
They ignored the blockbuster news because Fox employees today are paid to whitewash the insurrection. Last summer, Ingraham openly mocked Capitol Police officers who testified before Congress about the chaos and trauma of Insurrection Day, when law enforcement was attacked and many thought they would die.
And just last month, “Fox News host Tucker Carlson produced a documentary, “Patriot Purge,” for the Fox Nation streaming platform that included the baseless claim that the deadly attack was a “false flag” operation intended to demonize conservatives,” Huff Post notes. Carlson infamously told viewers in September that the Capitol rioters “don’t look like terrorists. They look like tourists.”
The lingering, pungent stench from episodes like this might be why Wallace walked away this week. His timing was impeccable.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
He should've tried to run in Pennsylvania where Dr Oz, who lives in Northern NJ, is running for office.
Keep in mind that this is not the congressional maps, only the ones used for state legislature elections. However, the Ohio Supreme Court is due to rule on those soon too, and I don't know why they would rule differently.
Now the congressional map has been overturned as well:
This is a huge deal in redistricting. Ohio's current congressional makeup is 12 R-4 D. The overturned map would have probably resulted in 13 R-2 D. Now it's back to the legislature to pass a another map, but it will probably be 10 R-5 D or 9 R-6 D.
Wow, the deep roots (pun intended) of misogyny. How very very demoralizing.
Kevin
by dryrunguy DirecTV has announced it will no longer air OAN once its current contract expires. David Pakman read most of the press release during this segment.
Rand Paul has announced he is cancelling his DirecTV service. The former occupant of the White House is urging a boycott.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy Good grief. And in related news, DeSantis released his plan for redistricting the state of Florida. He announced it the night before MLK Jr. Day.
by ti-amie I think his timing is perfect for what he wants to do. Apparently Laura Ingraham and other GOP'ers are going after TFG because they want to run DeSantis in 2024.
by JazzNU
by ti-amie I wonder who paid/is paying her? She fooled a lot of people and I'm pretty sure she will be a one term Senator but what a lot of damage she will do in that one term.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:23 pm
I wonder who paid/is paying her? She fooled a lot of people and I'm pretty sure she will be a one term Senator but what a lot of damage she will do in that one term.
I've seen a lot of speculation it's the Koch brothers, which absolutely tracks. They are plenty diabolical enough to insert a Trojan Horse.
by Suliso There is also a possibility that nobody is paying and she actually believes in preserving the filibuster at all costs.
by ponchi101 And this idea that you censor your own people is getting out of hand. So yes, she has turned out to be not a regular democrat. She seems fairly on the right. But she was elected by her people.
If you censor people when they disagree with you, then why have Senators? Have two senators, one dem one GOP, and they vote.
I know, she has been disappointing. That is part of the business. So kick her out reelection is due, but this is the same as Liz Cheney being censored by the GOP.
Maybe they can trade places.
by JazzNU Big difference between censor and censure. What she's doing is not business as usual, she's being censured by the people in Arizona that voted for her and that thought she was telling the truth when she said she'd represent their interests well in DC. Nothing here is out of order.
And that's a massive joke about Liz Cheney. She's as conservative as they come, breaking on one particular issue, and in only one particular way I might add, doesn't change that.
Sinema is bought and paid for. You're not paying attention all that much if you think this is about her having a strong moral compass on filibusters. That's not the case for her or Manchin.
by ti-amie Manchin wakes up every day thankful that Mississippi and Alabama exist.
by ti-amie Shameless
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 It is no news that the DEMS have no idea how to market anything.
Just came back from the supermarket (I am in Colorado at the moment). Avocados at $2.29 (last week, 4 for $5). So somebody had a little sticker made, with Trump pointing with his finger up, and a legend that reads "BIDEN DID THIS". And they stuck it next to the price of the avocados.
They are truly as childish as can be.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan "The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it “legitimate political discourse,” and rebuked two lawmakers in the party who have been most outspoken in condemning the deadly riot and the role of Donald J. Trump in spreading the election lies that fueled it."- New York Times.
I don't know how to think this way.
by ponchi101 For the 1,000th time: it is not a political party, it is a cult.
And not 1,000th time by me, I mean most everybody.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 It is a simple message: "Either we are the government, to implement our destructive policies, or we will sabotage any other government, the country be damned".
They are what, 7 years old?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
No policy initiatives just high school pranks they find funny.
by ti-amie Imagine if this was Beto or either of the Castro brothers. Faux would be screaming about it 24/7. Instead...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy This makes me laugh every time I see it on TV. Mike Huckabee used to have trouble sleeping. Gee, I wonder why???
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Well, it IS Georgia. so they may be right. Perhaps their voters really don't care if Herschel Walker has lied or can become their senator, or his abilities to be that person. They simply care about who is behind him.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Got totally lost on the "grooming", "groomer" tweets. I have no idea what that meant.
by dryrunguy According to this poll (haven't studied the sample), the most trusted news source in the U.S. is... the Weather Channel.
by ponchi101 The most incredible part is: if you don't trust almost any news outlet, where do you get your news from?
by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:17 am
According to this poll (haven't studied the sample), the most trusted news source in the U.S. is... the Weather Channel.
by ponchi101 Yes. If news outlets were mistrusted equally regardless of party affiliation, you could at least claim that Americans trust news depending on discretionary skepticism. When the outlets are trusted or not, based on political affiliation, it simply means that no thought process has been given to THE NEWS PER SE, acceptance or rejection is simply a matter of which persona is speaking or who has endorsed such organization.
If no critical thinking is done in deciding when any news is true or false, then the people can be blamed.
by ti-amie Critical thinking disappeared about 20 years ago. Some of us dinosaurs are holding on but damn it's a fight.
by ti-amie This is a long article so I'm going to only post some of it. Knowing someone is an idiot and puppet is one thing. Having it spelled out for you is totally different.
‘This Was Trump Pulling a Putin’
Amid the current crisis, Fiona Hill and other former advisers are connecting President Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to Jan. 6. And they’re ready to talk.
By Robert Draper
April 11, 2022, 5:00 a.m. ET
Fiona Hill vividly recalls the first time she stepped into the Oval Office to discuss the thorny subject of Ukraine with the president. It was February of 2008, the last year of George W. Bush’s administration. Hill, then the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia for the National Intelligence Council, was summoned for a strategy session on the upcoming NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania. Among the matters up for discussion was the possibility of Ukraine and another former Soviet state, Georgia, beginning the process of obtaining NATO membership.
In the Oval Office, Hill recalls, describing a scene that has not been previously reported, she told Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that offering a membership path to Ukraine and Georgia could be problematic. While Bush’s appetite for promoting the spread of democracy had not been dampened by the Iraq war, President Vladimir Putin of Russia viewed NATO with suspicion and was vehemently opposed to neighboring countries joining its ranks. He would regard it as a provocation, which was one reason the United States’ key NATO allies opposed the idea. Cheney took umbrage at Hill’s assessment. “So, you’re telling me you’re opposed to freedom and democracy,” she says he snapped. According to Hill, he abruptly gathered his materials and walked out of the Oval Office.
“He’s just yanking your chain,” she remembers Bush telling her. “Go on with what you were saying.” But the president seemed confident that he could win over the other NATO leaders, saying, “I like it when diplomacy is tough.” Ignoring the advice of Hill and the U.S. intelligence community, Bush announced in Bucharest that “NATO should welcome Georgia and Ukraine into the Membership Action Plan.” Hill’s prediction came true: Several other leaders at the summit objected to Bush’s recommendation. NATO ultimately issued a compromise declaration that would prove unsatisfying to nearly everyone, stating that the two countries “will become members” without specifying how and when they would do so — and still in defiance of Putin’s wishes. (They still have not become members.)
“It was the worst of all possible worlds,” Hill said to me...As one of the foremost experts on Putin and a current unofficial adviser to the Biden administration on the Russia-Ukraine war, Hill, 56, has already made a specialty of issuing warnings about the Russian leader that have gone unheeded by American presidents. As she feared, the carrot dangled by Bush to two countries — each of which gained independence in the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and afterward espoused democratic ambitions — did not sit well with Putin. Four months after the 2008 NATO summit, Russian troops crossed the border and launched an attack on the South Ossetia region of Georgia. Though the war lasted only five days, a Russian military presence would continue in nearly 20 percent of Georgia’s territory. And after the West’s weak pushback against his aggression, Putin then set his sights on Ukraine — a sovereign nation that, Putin claimed to Bush at the Bucharest summit, “is not a country.”
Hill would stay on in the same role in the Obama administration for close to a year. Obama’s handling of Putin did not always strike her as judicious. When Chuck Todd of NBC asked Obama at a news conference in 2013 about his working relationship with Putin, Obama replied, “He’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom.” Hill told me that she “winced” when she heard his remark, and when Obama responded to Putin’s invasion and annexation of the Ukrainian region Crimea a year later by referring to Russia as “a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness,” she winced again. “We said openly, ‘Don’t dis the guy — he’s thin-skinned and quick to take insults,’” Hill said of this counsel to Obama about Putin. “He either didn’t understand the man or willfully ignored the advice.”
(...)
(In response to queries for this article, Trump said of Hill: “She doesn’t know the first thing she’s talking about. If she didn’t have the accent she would be nothing.”)
Her assessment of the former president has new resonance in the current moment: “In the course of his presidency, indeed, Trump would come more to resemble Putin in political practice and predilection than he resembled any of his recent American presidential predecessors.”
...During our lunch, we discussed what it was like for her and others to have worked for Trump after having done the same for George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Her meeting in the Bush White House in 2008, Hill told me, offered a sharp contrast to the briefings she sat in on during her tumultuous two years of service in the Trump administration. Unlike Trump, President Bush had read his briefing materials. His questions were respectful. She offered him an unpopular opinion and was not punished or frozen out for it. Even the vice president’s dyspeptic behavior that day did not unnerve her, she told me. “His emphasis was on the power of the executive branch,” she said. “It wasn’t on the unchecked power of one executive. And it was never to overturn the Constitution.”
Of her experience trying to steer policy during her two years in the Trump White House, Hill said: “It was extraordinarily difficult. Certainly, that was the case for those of us who were serving in the administration with the hopes of pushing back against the Russians, to make sure that their intervention in 2016 didn’t happen again. And along the way, some people kind of lost their sense of self.”
...As a kid, I was a great fan of Tolkien and ‘Lord of the Rings.’ So, in the Trump administration, we’d talk about the ring, and the fear of becoming Gollum” — the character deformed by his attachment to the powerful treasure — “obsessing over ‘my precious,’ the excitement and the power of being in the White House. And I did see a lot of people slipping into that.” When I asked Hill whom she saw as the Gollums in the Trump White House, she replied crisply: “The ones who wouldn’t testify in his impeachment hearing. Quite a few people, in other words.”
Raised in economically depressed North East England, ..she moved to the United States in 1989 after a year’s study in Moscow. Hill received a Ph.D. in history from Harvard and later got a job at the Brookings Institution. In 2006, she became the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia.
P1
by ti-amie P2
...The dissemination by Trump and his allies in 2019 of the Russian propaganda that it was Ukraine that meddled in the 2016 election, in support of the Clinton campaign. Trump’s pardoning of Manafort and Stone in December 2020. And most recently, on March 29, Trump’s saying yet again that Putin “should release” dirt on a political opponent — this time President Biden, who, Trump asserted without evidence, had received, along with his son Hunter Biden, $3.5 million from the wife of Moscow’s former mayor.
(...)
Just four months into his presidency, Trump welcomed two of Putin’s top subordinates — Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — into the Oval Office. Their meeting became public only because a photographer with the Russian news agency Tass released an image of the three men laughing together.
As N.S.C. senior director for European and Russian affairs, Hill was supposed to be in the Oval Office meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak. But that plan was scotched after her previous sit-down with Trump did not go well: The president had mistaken her for a secretary and became angry that she did not immediately agree to retype a news release for him. Just after the Russians left the Oval Office, Hill learned that Trump boasted to them about firing James Comey, the director of the F.B.I., saying that he had removed a source of “great pressure” — and that he continued to do so in his next meeting, with Henry Kissinger, though the former secretary of state under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford had come to the White House to discuss Russia.
(...)
Trump’s ignorance of world affairs would have been a liability under any circumstance. But it put him at a pronounced disadvantage when it came to dealing with those strongmen for whom he felt a natural affinity, like President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Once, while Trump was discussing Syria with Erdogan, Hill recalled: “Erdogan goes from talking about the history of the Ottoman Empire to when he was mayor of Istanbul. And you can see he’s not listening and has no idea what Erdogan’s talking about.” On another occasion, she told me, Trump cheerfully joked to Erdogan that the basis of most Americans’ knowledge about Turkey was “Midnight Express,” a 1978 movie that primarily takes place inside a Turkish prison. “Bad image — you need to make a different film,” Hill recalled Trump telling Turkey’s president while she thought to herself, Oh, my God, really?
When I mentioned to Hill that former White House aides had told me about Trump’s clear preference for visual materials over text, she exclaimed: “That’s spot on. There were several moments of just utter embarrassment where he would see a magazine story about one of his favorite leaders, be it Erdogan or Macron. He’d see a picture of them, and he’d want it sent to them through the embassies. And when we’d read the articles, the articles are not flattering. They’re quite critical. Obviously, we can’t send this! But then he’d want to know if they’d gotten the picture and the article, which he’d signed: ‘Emmanuel, you look wonderful. Looking so strong.’”
...she came to see in Trump a kind of aspirational authoritarianism in which Putin, Erdogan, Orban and other autocrats were admired models. She could see that he regarded the U.S. government as his family-run business.In viewing how Trump’s coterie acted in his presence, Hill settled on the word “thrall,” evoking both a mystical attraction and servitude... Hill recalled for me a time in 2019 when Trump was visiting London and she found herself traveling through the city in a vehicle with Miller. “He was talking about all the knife fights that immigrants were causing in these areas,” she said. “And I told him: ‘These streets were a lot rougher when I was growing up and they were run by white gangs. The immigrants have actually calmed things down.’” (Miller declined to comment on the record.)
...Hill was dismayed, but not surprised, she told me, when President Trump carried on about a Democratic rival, Senator Elizabeth Warren, to a foreign leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — referring to Warren as “Senator Pocahontas,” while Merkel gaped in astonishment. Or when, upon learning from Prime Minister Erna Solberg of Norway of her country’s reliance on hydropower, Trump took the opportunity to share his standard riff on the evils of wind turbines.
But she was alarmed, Hill told me, by Trump’s antidemocratic monologues. “He would constantly tell world leaders that he deserved a redo of his first two years,” she recalled. “He’d say that his first two years had been taken away from him because of the ‘Russia hoax.’ And he’d say that he wanted more than two terms.”
“He said it as a joke,” I suggested.
“Except that he clearly meant it,” Hill insisted. She mentioned David Cornstein, a jeweler by trade and longtime friend of Trump’s whom the president appointed as his ambassador to Hungary. “Ambassador Cornstein openly talked about the fact that Trump wanted the same arrangement as Viktor Orban” — referring to the autocratic Hungarian prime minister, who has held his position since 2010 — “where he could push the margins and stay in power without any checks and balances.” (Cornstein could not be reached for comment.)
by ti-amie P3
During Trump’s first year in office, he initially resisted meeting with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine. Obama received Poroshenko in the Oval Office in June 2014, and the United States offered Ukraine financial and diplomatic support, while stopping short of providing requested Javelin anti-tank missiles, in part out of concerns that Russian assets within Ukraine’s intelligence community would have access to the technology, according to a 2019 NBC News interview with the former C.I.A. director John Brennan. Now, with Trump’s refusal to meet with Poroshenko, it instead fell to Vice President Mike Pence to welcome the Ukrainian leader to the White House on June 20, 2017. After their meeting, Poroshenko lingered in a West Wing conference room, waiting to see if Trump would give him a few minutes.
Finally, the president did so. The two men shook hands and exchanged pleasantries in front of the White House press corps. Once the reporters were ushered out, Trump flatly told Poroshenko that Ukraine was a corrupt country. Trump knew this, he said, because a Ukrainian friend at Mar-a-Lago had told him so.
...Trump shared another observation. He said, echoing a Putin talking point, that Crimea, annexed three years earlier through Putin’s act of aggression, was rightfully Russia’s — because, after all, the people there spoke Russian.
Poroshenko protested, saying that he, too, spoke Russian. So, for that matter, did one of the witnesses to this conversation: Marie Yovanovitch, then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was born in Canada, later acquiring U.S. citizenship. Recalling Trump’s words to me, Yovanovitch laughed in disbelief and said, “I mean, in America, we speak English, but it doesn’t make us British!”
What happened next was that Trump began to treat Ukraine as a political enemy. Bridling at the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in hopes of damaging his opponent or helping his campaign, he was receptive to the suggestion of an appealing counternarrative. “By early 2018, he began to hear and repeat the assertion that it was Ukraine and not Russia that had interfered in the election, and that they had done so to try to help Clinton,” Tom Bossert, Trump’s former homeland security adviser, told me. “I knew he heard that from, among others, Rudy Giuliani. Each time that inaccurate theory was raised, I disputed it and reminded the president that it was not true, including one time when I said so in front of Mr. Giuliani.”By 2019, a number of once-obscure Trump foreign-policy aides — among them Fiona Hill; her successor, Timothy Morrison; Yovanovitch; Yovanovitch’s deputy, George P. Kent; her political counselor, David Holmes; her successor, William B. Taylor Jr.; the N.S.C.’s director for European affairs, Alexander Vindman; the special adviser to the vice president on European and Russian affairs, Jennifer Williams; and the U.S. special representative to Ukraine, Kurt D. Volker — would be tugged into the vortex of a sub rosa scheme. It was, as Hill would memorably testify to Congress later that year, “a domestic political errand” in Ukraine on behalf of President Trump. That errand, chiefly undertaken by Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, would garishly illustrate how “Trump was using Ukraine as a plaything for his own purposes,” Hill told me.
by ti-amie P4
The first notable disruption in U.S.-Ukraine relations during Trump’s presidency came when Yovanovitch was removed from her ambassadorial post at Trump’s orders. Though she was widely respected in diplomatic circles, Yovanovitch’s ongoing efforts to root out corruption in Ukraine had put her in the cross hairs of two Soviet-born associates of Giuliani who were doing business in the country. Those associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, told Trump that Yovanovitch — who had served in the State Department going back to the Reagan administration — was critical of Trump. She soon became the target of negative pieces in the publication The Hill by John Solomon, a conservative writer with connections to Giuliani, including an allegation by Yuriy Lutsenko, the prosecutor general of Ukraine, that the ambassador had given him a “do not prosecute list” — which Lutsenko later recanted to a Ukrainian publication. The same month that he did so, April 2019, Yovanovitch was recalled from her post.
The career ambassador and other officials urgently requested that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who had replaced Tillerson, issue a statement of support for her. Pompeo did not do so; according to a former senior White House official, he was eager to develop a closer bond with Trump and knew that Giuliani had the president’s ear. Subsequently, a top adviser to the secretary, Michael McKinley, resigned in protest. According to a source familiar with the matter, Pompeo responded angrily, telling McKinley that his resignation stood as proof that State Department careerists could not be counted on to loyally support President Trump’s policies. (Through a spokesman, Pompeo declined to comment on the record.)
By the spring of 2019, Trump seemed to be persuaded not only that Yovanovitch was, as Trump would later tell Zelensky, “bad news” but that Ukraine was demonstrably anti-Trump. On April 21, 2019, the president called Zelensky, who had just been elected, to congratulate him on his victory. Trump decided that he would send Pence to attend Zelensky’s inauguration...
(...)
On May 23, 2019, Charles Kupperman, Trump’s deputy national security adviser, and others discussed Ukraine with Trump in the Oval Office. Speaking to the press about the matter for the first time, Kupperman told me that the very subject of Ukraine threw the president into a rage: “He just let loose — ‘They’re [expletive] corrupt. They [expletive] tried to screw me.’”
Because Kupperman had seen how disdainfully Trump treated allies like Merkel, Macron, Theresa May of Britain and Moon Jae-in of South Korea, he knew how unlikely it was that the president could come to see the geopolitical value of Ukraine. “He felt like our allies were screwing us, and he had no sense as to why these alliances benefited us or why you need a global footprint for military and strategic capabilities,” Kupperman told me. “If one were to ask him to define ‘balance of power,’ he wouldn’t know what that concept was. He’d have no idea about the history of Ukraine and why it’s in the front pages today. He wouldn’t know that Stalin starved that country. Those are the contextual points one has to take into account in the making of foreign policy. But he wasn’t capable of it, because he had no understanding of history: how these countries and their leadership evolved, what makes these countries tick.”
(...)
Fiona Hill and most of the others who testified in 2019 during Trump’s first impeachment hearings were unknown to ordinary Americans — and, for that matter, to Trump himself, who protested on Twitter that his accusers were essentially nobodies. It was their fidelity to their specialized labors that made them such effective witnesses. “One benefit to our investigation,” said Daniel Goldman, who served as the lead majority counsel to the House impeachment inquiry, “was that these were for the most part career public servants who took extensive contemporaneous notes every day. As a result, we received very detailed testimony that helped us figure out what happened.”
In reality, however, what happened in the Ukraine episode was not evident to much of the public....The Senate’s acquittal of Trump in his first impeachment trial “clearly did embolden him,” Bolton said. “This is Trump saying, ‘I got away with it.’ And thinking, If I got away with it once, I can get away with it again. And he did get away with it again.” (Bolton did not testify before the House committee; at the time, his lawyer said he was “not willing to appear voluntarily.”)
(...)
In Trump’s failed efforts to overturn the election results, Vindman told me, the president revealed himself as “incompetent, his own worst enemy, faced with too many checks in a 240-plus-year-old democracy to be able to operate with a free hand.” At the same time, he went on: “I came to see these seemingly individual events — the Ukraine scandal, the attempt to steal the 2020 election — as part of a broader tapestry. And the domestic effects of all this are bad enough. But there’s also a geopolitical impact. We missed an opportunity to harden Ukraine against Russian aggression.”
Instead, Vindman said, the opposite occurred: “Ukraine became radioactive for the duration of the Trump administration. There wasn’t serious engagement. Putin had been wanting to reclaim Ukraine for eight years, but he was trying to gauge when was the right time to do it. Starting just months after Jan. 6, Putin began building up forces on the border. He saw the discord here. He saw the huge opportunity presented by Donald Trump and his Republican lackeys. I’m not pulling any punches here. I’m not using diplomatic niceties. These folks sent the signal Putin was waiting for.”
Trump, Bolton went on to say, “is a complete aberration in the American system. We’ve had good and bad presidents, competent and incompetent presidents. But none of them was as centered on their own interest, as opposed to the national interest, except Trump. And his concept of what the national interest was really changed from day to day and had a lot more to do with what his political fortunes were.” This was certainly the case with Trump’s view of Ukraine, which, Bolton said, describing fantasies that preoccupied the president, “he saw entirely through the prism of Hillary Clinton’s server and Hunter Biden’s income — what role Ukraine had in Hillary’s efforts to steal the 2016 election and what role Ukraine had in Biden’s efforts to steal the 2020 election.”
But Bolton seems to regard the former president’s abuses of power as validation of America’s institutional strengths rather than a warning sign. “I think he did damage to the United States before and because of January the 6th,” Bolton told me. “I don’t think there’s any question about that. But I think all that damage was reparable. I think that constitutions are written with human beings involved, and occasionally you get bad actors. This was a particularly bad actor. So with all the stress and strain on the Constitution, it held up pretty well.”
When I asked whether he believed Trump could be viewed as an authoritarian, Bolton replied, “He’s not smart enough to be an authoritarian.” But had Donald Trump won in 2020, Bolton told me, in his second term he might well have inflicted “damage that might not be reparable.” I asked whether his same concerns would apply if Trump were to gain another term in 2024, and Bolton answered with one word: “Yes.”...
One former foreign-policy official who played a role in the Trump-Ukraine tensions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely about the former president, was unsettled but also unsurprised by Biden’s account. “In the back of their minds,” this former official said of America’s allies, “if Trump is elected again in 2024, where will we be? I think it would be seen among struggling democracies as a disaster. They would see Trump as someone who went through two impeachment inquiries, orchestrated a conspiracy to undo a failed election and then, somehow, is re-elected. They would see it as Trump truly unbound. But to them, it would also say something about us and our values.”
Hill agreed with that assessment when I described it to her. “We’ve been the gold standard of democratic elections,” she told me. “All of that will be rolled back if Trump returns to power after claiming that the only way he could ever lose is if someone steals it from him. It’ll be more than diplomatic shock. I think it would mean the total loss of America’s leadership position in the world arena.”
by ponchi101 About the debates. Actually, GOOD! The level of intellectuality of those things was appalling, and they never said anything about any candidate.
I mean, you could watch The Beverly Hillbillies and learn more.
by ti-amie
Full stop
by ponchi101 The problem is that that decision is starting from the premise that: a) the debates are informative, and b) voters can be swayed by a candidate that is articulated and gives a proper exposition of his agenda.
The average voter has the discerning power of a salted snail. Giving the dems 90 minutes to expose their plan is meaningless if the voters simply have their minds made up by now.
(I wrote about how well this administration is doing, and yet their approval rating keeps going down because, you know, gas is at $4.50, but you can't see that McDonalds is paying $16/hr plus benefits.)
by ponchi101 Indeed. He accused them of having orgies. He never said he did not go.
by dryrunguy My head hurts.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Madison Cawthorn is Exhibit A as to why the rest of the GOP stays quiet about Tiny and the crime-ing in plain sight. If you don't know what is going on just Google him and his "cousin". I guess he FaFo'd. Literally. "The first rule of coke fueled drug orgies is..."
by JTContinental I think that video will bring his political aspirations to a close
by ponchi101
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 5:19 pm
I think that video will bring his political aspirations to a close
Nah. He is a republican. They can find them with an underage, transvestite indigenous prostitute, maxing out his credit cards in a cheap motel in Las Vegas, and they will still vote for him because that is fake news.
by ti-amie I dunno. They went HAM on him again today...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
I guess she found her way out. I don't know how any of them sleep at night.
by ponchi101 She sleeps like a baby. She has her job, by now surely a few millions, and, if you really want to know the trick: no scruples. You should try it. I hear you sleep until noon like a baby. Don't even have to wake up mid-night to go to the bathroom.
by JazzNU I could write a book on the ish candidates in the PA Senate race that are most likely to win but don't want to bore anyone, so I'll just say. The Dems are set to nominate an incredibly problematic Bernie Bro candidate that white people are pushing hard for (and literally no one else in the party is) and in true Bernie fashion, his fans are telling black people that he's good for them so in their minds, he must be and are making the assumption the votes will be there when he needs them. And there's a non-revolting Connecticut hedge fund guy who seems like the most likely to win the GOP primary that will be a tough out in the general, he's the kind of guy in normal times that would've appealed to independents and some moderate Dems.
The leaked abortion doc changed my calculations on this and unlike last week, I think the Dems may be able to win it again as they always were going to, but not because of the pitiful candidate, but because this might be enough to get turnout and something that supersedes his weak candidacy. Historically, Dems struggle winning statewide election when turnout is poor in Philly (majority black) and Pittsburgh. And the Dem candidate has a major black voter problem that could doom him in the general election. The abortion issue might be enough to overcome tepid turnout, but like Bernie, the polling that they expect in the general, is almost surely not going to wind up being accurate.
Dr. Oz still has a lot of red flags - residency, being seen as a RINO, Turkish citizenship - so it's unclear if he can beat hedge fund guy in the primary. He's spending like crazy, but hedge fund guy is too. Coming down to the wire, they seem to mostly be neck and neck with hedge fund guy typically getting a bit of an edge in polling. There's also a black woman running third and gaining steam in recent weeks who is trying to spoil it for both of them, she's not well funded at all, but has been running a successful grassroots campaign that has seen her rise in the polls in the last few weeks.
by ponchi101 Serious here. I can't see any other topic of discussion in any next election other than the SCOTUS. I understand that people are going to be frustrated but, when I hear E. Warren saying "we will not go back", all I hear is somebody that sounds a bit delusional on what is happening. How precisely are you NOT going back? The SCOTUS is the final arbiter in the land and there will be nothing for the Dems to do.
Except: how can the Dems regain control of the Senate to the point that they can pass CONSTITUTIONAL amendments? Because Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB are very young and you can expect the SCOTUS to be dominated by right-wing justices for the next 30 years. Unless, said constitutional amendment would impose limits on justices.
In the SCOTUS topic we have mentioned it. Overturning RoeVWade is just a start. Voting rights can be gutted, making it almost impossible for Dems to gain ground. And, if you say (JazzNu) the Dems continue to push extreme agendas, that will only make it harder.
So: what can the Dems really do?
When the history of 21st century USA will be written, the most important figure will be Mitch McConnel. This unscrupulous creature delivered the SCOTUS and therefore the USA to a party that can't win a general election and that is rooted in everything that was bad in the 1950's. One single man determined the politics for the nation for the first half of the century.
by JazzNU PA Primary is next week and the GOP is only now realizing they have a massive issue on their hands with the GOP frontrunner for Governor, who is by any measurement, (expletive) crazy when measured on the MTG scale. Literally present at the Insurrection and funded buses to go there, but swears he left before anything happened. So now they are scrambling realizing he's the least electable of the PA GOP Gubernatorial candidates and that his winning could not just lose them the Governor race, but that it could weigh down the PA GOP ticket as a whole come fall (though we no longer have straight ticket voting, so I assume they just don't like the optics of him appearing with the others).
They're trying to convince some of the also-rans to drop out to consolidate some votes for the other top contenders. But ballots are already printed, so how much good will that do? I have no idea why it's only now occurring to them except that few seem like they are dealing with a full deck these days.
Jokes a bit on them. The guy polling second is truly a heinous individual, maybe that hasn't become clear to the national journalists now covering the race, but it will become crystal clear in the general, he's a racist asshole who has been unsuccessful previously in winning a statewide election. The #3 guy, he's respectable sort of as the former US Attorney here in Philly, but after showing his ass on the regular here being a lapdog for Chief Insurrectionist for 4 years, that seemingly wasn't enough to buy him any loyalty as he's been thrown under the bus since he didn't help to overturn the election in PA. So, he's I guess a different kind of a problem for the GOP, because TFG has been saying loudly that he shouldn't be the nominee despite not actually backing anyone else.
by JazzNU He's lucky he's a Democrat. Very likely a healthy amount of primary votes have already been cast via mail-in ballot. So not the same problem this would be if he was in the GOP Primary where I'm assuming they are pushing the idea of same-day voting since they are pretending like they didn't wholeheartedly agree in 2019 that mail-in voting was a great change. It'll be a shame if he wins with a lesser amount than predicted and they explain it away on this, because I really don't think that will be an accurate depiction of why the polling was off if that comes to pass.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU And they're in a dead heat with a black woman who ran a grassroots campaign and spent less than $2 million. She's got these other campaigns shook, they attacked her nationally (I think it might have been Hannity that got that ball rolling) thinking they were helping Oz mostly and McCormick to a lesser extent, but it's only raised her profile considerably. Now she's everywhere and getting all kinds of publicity from it to the point that PACs supporting Oz and McCormick have begun running attack ads against her since about Friday. It's a mess.
She presents very well and so she could seem like she's not that bad. But she's a RWNJ for real, in lockstep with the guy in the lead for the GOP Governor nominee here that I mentioned the other day that was at the Insurrection.
by ti-amie There are all of a sudden pics of her at Jan 6.
Found them.
by Deuce I pay as little attention to politics (from any country) as possible - because it is rife with BS, lies, manipulations, and greed.
But without creating a new topic, there was nowhere else to put this, as it deals more with the subject of politics than with any other subject...
This is at once humorous, sad, and frightening.
It's about truth, and the lack of it, in the United States.
I think it's worth watching, so I'm posting it here. (You can skip the first 2 minutes and 50 seconds if you wish, as that is the introduction, which is too loud.)
It's worth noting that all of this is a product of the internet, which enables the spreading of BS much further, wider, and faster than at any other time in the history of mankind.
Again - the human animal will abuse absolutely everything it comes into contact with for self gain. Thus something which has the potential to be a tremendously positive element (television, the internet, etc.) very quickly becomes a profoundly negative element.
by ti-amie He forgot the first rule of coke filled orgies...
by ti-amie
I hope our resident Pennsylvanians comment on this. Returns are still early though...
by ponchi101 Is the Edwards guy any better? Because in US politics, you could be going from CRAZY to DERANGED.
(Talking about the GOP election above)
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 12:30 am
Is the Edwards guy any better? Because in US politics, you could be going from CRAZY to DERANGED.
(Talking about the GOP election above)
I don't know Chuck Edwards very well. Pro-2nd amendment, pro-Christianity, pro-police. But he also seems to acknowledge COVID, claims to be pro-economy, pro-jobs, pro-education, etc. I don't know.
I guess my take is that it's hard to go much further below Madison Cawthorn. (Hi, Marjorie, Matt, and Lauren.)
by dryrunguy I am fascinated by the PA Senate Republican primary. We all know about Oz. Jazz posted the other day about Barnette.
But McCormick is (expletive) crazy. I am disturbed by the fact he is winning with 55% of the vote in.
Seriously, the man is nuts. I have to mute his ads where I can actually make it through the ads with Trump endorsing Oz without vomiting. Go figure.
Y'all should have seen McCormick's earlier ads. They were even worse. I guess they realized how bad they were because they pulled them and replaced them with something that was just slightly less (expletive) crazy.
by JazzNU With the way Fetterman went about misleading people for the last 5 days, I'm not sure this race is as settled as it will seem with just him winning tonight. We'll see. But other than that, you should see the way white people are caping for this man, especially online. It's really something to see from a group of people who act like they are BLM supporters (the movement, not the org). It's just real special to watch. Not remotely shocking to me, but interesting nonetheless. Will he be okay (if healthy) in the fall? Maybe. If he keeps trying to spin the incident, then he could find himself in trouble. It is rather pitiful the way his supporters keep saying "he's addressed it." His addressing it is quite laughable (I can post it for anyone interested). It's spin, plain and simple. Literally every black leader that has spoken about him garnering support has said plainly, he needs to address it truthfully and apologize. The handling of it has been comically bad and feels like they have very few black people in the room to tell him the truth about how all of this is coming off. The GOP was worried Conor Lamb would win, they were never worried about Fetterman winning, they wanted him to win, they have a attack playbook ready for him.
The GOP race has gone about as I expected it to go given the weakness of the field. Oz and McCormick neck and neck, both are barely residents but McCormick's ties to PA are legitimate and that always seemed to give him an edge.
by JazzNU
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 2:31 am
I am fascinated by the PA Senate Republican primary. We all know about Oz. Jazz posted the other day about Barnette.
But McCormick is (expletive) crazy. I am disturbed by the fact he is winning with 55% of the vote in.
Seriously, the man is nuts. I have to mute his ads where I can actually make it through the ads with Trump endorsing Oz without vomiting. Go figure.
Y'all should have seen McCormick's earlier ads. They were even worse. I guess they realized how bad they were because they pulled them and replaced them with something that was just slightly less (expletive) crazy.
Crazy feels real relative on the GOP side of the ticket. I'm not sure what makes you say McCormick is more nuts than the others honestly. I might have missed something about him, I didn't look that closely. But I know his financial background is going over well with conservatives in the greater Philly area. I was under the impression he was less of a nut than Kathy, but more of one than Dr. Oz. But Dr. Oz is in lockstep with TFG, so he's taken on many of his positions.
McCormick's ads have been hilariously bad. He can buy and improve every single down on it's luck town and company he's visiting in these commercials, and yet he wants to come off as "one of the regular guys". The hard hat and mom and brother gun commercial have been two of the most pitiful of the bunch.
by dryrunguy In other news, Madison Cawthorn has been defeated.
by JazzNU
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 2:31 am
Y'all should have seen McCormick's earlier ads. They were even worse. I guess they realized how bad they were because they pulled them and replaced them with something that was just slightly less (expletive) crazy.
I'm also remembering the one with them on motorcycles that was so bad. If you tell me which ones you're thinking about, I'll see about finding it tomorrow.
by ti-amie
by ti-amieFinger-pointing after a far-right candidate prevails
By Blake Hounshell
Editor, On Politics
The aftershocks of Tuesday’s big primaries are still rumbling across Pennsylvania, but one impact is already clear: Republican voters’ choice of Doug Mastriano in the governor’s race is giving the G.O.P. fits.
Conversations with Republican strategists, donors and lobbyists in and outside of Pennsylvania in recent days reveal a party seething with anxiety, dissension and score-settling over Mastriano’s nomination.
In the run-up to Tuesday night, Republicans openly used words and phrases like “suicide mission,” “disaster” and “voyage of the Titanic” to convey just what a catastrophe they believed his candidacy will be for their party.
An adviser to several Republican governors, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said there was wide displeasure with the outcome, calling him unelectable. The Mastriano campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Some in Pennsylvania blame Jeff Yass, a billionaire options trader and the state’s most powerful donor, for sticking with Bill McSwain for governor despite Donald Trump’s blistering anti-endorsement; others point the finger at Lawrence Tabas, the state party chairman, for failing to clear the field; still others say that Trump should have stayed out of the race altogether instead of endorsing Mastriano. Tabas did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
An 11th-hour effort to stop Mastriano failed when both McSwain and Dave White, a self-funding candidate who spent at least $5 million of his own money, refused to drop out and support former Representative Lou Barletta, whose supporters insisted he was the more viable option.
Many Republicans thought that idea was futile and far too late; several said a serious effort to prevent Mastriano from winning should have begun last summer, while others said that Yass and his allies could have dropped McSwain sooner.
“Had they kept their powder dry, they could have seen the lay of the land, when Mastriano’s lead was 8-10, and backed Barletta,” said Sam Katz, a former Republican candidate for governor who now backs Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee.
“Had they spent $5 million in three weeks, they might have forced Trump to make a different choice and changed everything,” Katz added.
Mastriano had amassed nearly 45 percent of the vote as of Wednesday afternoon.
Matthew Brouillette, head of Commonwealth Partners, which bankrolled McSwain’s campaign, noted that his organization also backed Carrie DelRosso, who won the lieutenant governor’s race. He said the criticism was coming largely from “consultants and rent-seekers who don’t like us as we disrupt their gravy trains.”
Ties to Jan. 6 and QAnon
Mastriano’s vulnerabilities are legion, G.O.P. operatives lament.
The state senator and retired U.S. Army colonel has taken a hard line on abortion, which he has said should be illegal under all circumstances. He organized buses to Washington for the Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington and can be seen on video crossing police lines at the Capitol as the rally became a riot. He has also been a leading advocate of the baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
Mastriano’s name has appeared in documents released by the committee investigating the Capitol riot, and he claims to have been in close personal contact with Trump about their shared drive to overturn President Biden’s victory. In February, the committee demanded “documents and information that are relevant to the select committee’s investigation” in a letter to Mastriano. He has refused to say whom he would appoint as secretary of state, a critical position overseeing election infrastructure and voting.
Mastriano has appeared at events linked to QAnon, the amorphous conspiracy theory that alleges there is a secret cabal of elite pedophiles running the federal government and other major U.S. institutions. He also has made statements that veer into Islamophobia.
He is likely to be an especially weak candidate in the crowded suburbs around Philadelphia, the state’s most important political battleground. On the other side of the state, the editorial page of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has already all but officially endorsed Shapiro as “the only statewide candidate who did everything the Pennsylvania way.”
Operatives in both parties expect Shapiro to blitz Mastriano with advertising portraying him as a dangerous extremist while Mastriano’s shoestring organization struggles to raise money.
Even before Mastriano clinched the nomination, Shapiro’s campaign aired an ad highlighting his views on abortion and the 2020 election as well as his ties to Trump, who lost the state to Biden by 80,000 votes.
Mastriano gave scant indication during Tuesday’s victory speech that he was ready to shift toward a more palatable general election message. Listing his early priorities as governor, he said, “mandates are gone,” “any jab for job requirements are gone,” critical race theory is “over,” “only biological females can play on biological female teams” and “you can only use the bathroom that your biological anatomy says.”
The Mastriano matchup also plays to Shapiro’s carefully cultivated image as a fighter for democracy, though his campaign plans to focus primarily on bread-and-butter economic issues such as jobs, taxes and inflation.
As attorney general, Shapiro was directly involved in the Pennsylvania government’s litigation after the 2020 election, and oversaw at least 40 cases of alleged voter fraud — winning every single one.
Wait-and-see mode
Will national Republicans help Mastriano or shun him? Right now, the major players in governor’s races appear to be waiting to see how the race develops before making that determination.
Some Republicans believe the national “tailwinds” blowing in their favor might help Mastriano win despite all of his weaknesses, but for now, Democrats are thrilled to be facing him in November. They note that Shapiro performed better than Biden did in Pennsylvania during his re-election race as state attorney general, and expect Shapiro to be flooded with donations from in and outside the state.
On Tuesday night, the Republican Governors Association issued a lukewarm statement acknowledging Mastriano’s victory, but suggesting he was on his own for now.
“Republican voters in Pennsylvania have chosen Doug Mastriano as their nominee for governor,” Executive Director Dave Rexrode said. “The R.G.A. remains committed to engaging in competitive gubernatorial contests where our support can have an impact.”
The statement left room for the possibility that the G.O.P. governors might help Mastriano should the Pennsylvania race be close in the fall.
“We make those decisions based on where we think we can be effective,” Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, the co-chairman of the governors’ group, said on CNN on Sunday. “Our policy has long been we get involved in races where we think we can win. So, that candidate, whoever gets elected in Pennsylvania, will have to show that they’re going to make it a good race.”
From NYTimes subscriber newsletter
by ponchi101 But, this IS the Republican party. This is what they stand for: a time machine to go back to 1905.
Why not choose a candidate that truly represents their platform?
by dryrunguy Just an observation of the part of PA where I live. The Mastriano signs in yards around here have been there for several months. But they didn't increase in recent weeks as the primary approached. And no other Republican governor candidate signs started popping up. Mastriano won my county by the second largest margin (77%) in Commonwealth of PA voting results.
The only county in PA that he won by a larger margin was Fulton County, which neighbors us to the south (80%).
Meanwhile, Oz appears to have won my county by a narrow margin over Barnette (!!!!!!!). I don't get it. It's more than just a Trump thing here.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU The GOPs in PA are delusional about that governor race. Lou Barletta, who they are mad other candidates didn't drop out and endorse, got his hat handed to him he last time PA elected a senator. He's aggressively racist, did all kinds of ish to weed out immigrants in Hazelton when he was the mayor there. That they think that he was the key to winning against a very likable and well known Democratic candidate with overwhelming support in the most populous part of the state is a joke. Lou couldn't beat the solid, but very boring Bob Casey Jr.. Bill McSwain was the guy they needed to rally around as the most palatable to independents, but will they admit that? I assume doing so would draw the ire of TFG since he blames Bill for not doing something (which he didn't have the power to do) to overturn the PA results.
And it's truly laughable that they started panicking in the last 3 weeks, when this has been in the cards for months. Even the people they convinced to drop out of the race were convinced to do so so late in the game they were still on the ballot. They really didn't think much through, it's rather bizarre how they were caught unaware about any of this.
by ti-amie There was a map last night that showed all the counties Fetterman won. The opted to use purple. It reminded me the children's book about the purple crayon.
They vote against laws to fight domestic terrorism because that is what they themselves do.
By that I mean: the GOP has two positions. Vote for us and lets us be the government, which implies all the lunatic policies or lack of real policies to govern, or don't vote for us and we will block all legislation that would make the country better.
It is basically holding the country hostage.
But... her e-mails and Hunter Biden's laptop.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 If this is not a call for arms and violence, I don't know what is.
The USA is basically in a cold-civil war. This is a schism of society. Perhaps the sole good thing will be that the GOP will be fractured and will melt for a while.
But of course, none of that will work unless people start looking at this administration properly, and see what they have done. Which is not insignificant.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 And, excuse be, why should the Saudis or for that matter, anybody else that produces oil, start pumping more oil to DROP the prices? In 2020, when the price of oil went into negative, the reply from all consumer countries was "that's the way of the market". And in 2015, when the price first dropped below $100, crashing all the way to $25, the consumers said "that's the way of the market". Producers had to fend for themselves.
Well, with a war going on in Ukraine, this is the way of the market too.
People have to ask themselves: why is it that in 2022, with the price at $110, gas in the USA is at $4.50, but in 2014, with the price at $135, the price of gas was at $3.25. How is that the fault of MBS and all the other bastard producers?
Don't get me wrong. MBS is a despicable human being, as is the entire Saudi regime. But, who is he going to talk with about cheap oil? The countries of Europe and the USA, constantly talking about cutting consumption, or with fellow criminal climate change deniers?
I can't be objective here; my last job was in Dec 2019, and in Feb this year, 4 projects were proposed to me. NONE came through. Why? Because oil companies have decided not to invest anything else on exploration or development of fields, anywhere in the world. Colombia's production is down to 600K BB/Day (from 1MM). Argentina's last exploration project was the one I was in, in Dec 2019. The main exploration company there is in Chapter 11, bankrupt due to lack of work. Bolivia is running out of gas; no projects are planned.
Yes, it is political. But the world is still consuming 100MM BB/day, and the producers are recouping their "losses" from the last two years. Because that is the way of the market. The USA decided not to invest anymore on land. The EU has not done more in the North Sea. S. America simply is a place where you can't do business. It is not so simple as "Tiny et al are criminals". It goes deeper than that statement (which is true).
The Saudi refusal, I think, go back when Russia, Saudi Arabia and 45's administration made an agreement to slow or stop production as oil prices were going down due to people staying home during the heights of the pandemic.
by ti-amie irony is truly dead.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:00 pm
irony is truly dead.
GOP is losing their ish over this and the RNC is even filing to intervene on this motion to stop the votes from being counted. Because of course they are, heaven forbid you count votes you know with 100% certainty were received on time.
These republicans are always so gleeful when they take your money.
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan Oprah made some really poor choices for who she elevated in the medical field.
by ponchi101 She promoted several bogus medical practices. Not to the level of Gwyneth Paltrow, but some were unsound.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Some people are truly schizophrenic.
by ti-amie From Dr. Danna Young @dannagal
My teen told me something that’s been haunting me for weeks.
He said “I think almost every white middle school boy is in the alt-right pipeline -at some point-until something/someone pulls them out.”
Between gaming culture, social media, niche online spaces, and reinforcement through friends… they are swimming in it until it gets disrupted.
Talk to your tween sons. Ask them to show you their IG and texts. Talk openly… many are unaware of the insidiousness of the language, memes, and themes they are seeing and sharing.
Good news is that if disrupted actively and supported with inclusive programming/content in school and engaged discursive parenting models, male teens seem to quickly gravitate to more thoughtful and inclusive norms….
Note that this is in part- what outrage-engulfed rw protesters at school board meetings are railing against: inclusive programming and a critical historical lens.
Some are asking what disrupts it... For us, there was a brief middle school moment when I realized the the IG "follow back" norms were flooding his feed w "funny" or "ironic" (tho totally unironic) hateful memes. We spent a couple hours discussing what they actually meant.
Having to articulate in words that "this meme means that the best girl at the party is the drunkest because she's most easily sexually assaulted."
OR "this meme means that black people are less than human" ... is an EYE opening activity for a 13 year old kid.
Note these were literal examples that I recall from that activity.
He immediately unfollowed every account by anyone he didn't personally know - and it started a wonderful dialogue about the dangerous power of dehumanization.
It was also followed soon thereafter by huge jumps in maturity and interest in politics and world events.
NOT because of our conversation, of course lol, but just normal trajectory of adolescence in the face of an environment that encouraged self-reflection and inclusion.
via @threadreaderapp
by dryrunguy At first I read "Donald Young" as the author and was, for a bit, quite confused. Reading is fundamental.
by ponchi101 The kind of thing that should be followed up by the police and then prosecute this person to the fullest.
And what beautiful, christian things to say (by the sender).
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:51 pm
The kind of thing that should be followed up by the police and then prosecute this person to the fullest.
And what beautiful, christian things to say (by the sender).
In other news, what kind of an intellectual idgit sends a handwritten note with such threats? One who is unaware that handwriting analysis is actually a thing.
by ponchi101 Isn't that a common quality in these people? They send hand-written notes, they film themselves storming the capitol and put it on-line, they leave recorded messages. It says so much about their intellectual capacities.
by ponchi101 This is one of the reasons the dems simply cannot get things done:
'Fed up' Debra Messing says she got Biden elected during White House call about abortion rights: Report
From the article (I am not posting the link):
Messing said she'd gotten Joe Biden elected and wanted to know why she was being asked to do anything at all, yelling that there didn't even seem a point to voting.
To which one can reply:
What the (expletive) can Biden do? Executive Order? Which will be repealed, immediately, by the same SCOTUS? The Senate can codify abortion as a law? Sure, good luck getting those 51 votes (there might be some Republicans that would join), for the SCOTUS to declare such a law in-constitutional.
You LOST. It is that simple, and the sole response now is to actually go out there and VOTE, and see if you can elect Dems as governors and representatives and they can implement proper abortion laws at state level.
And about voting. Sure, don't vote. Let Ron De Santis be the next president (or Trump) and see how you like that.
---0---
I am not for blind obedience; that is deadly. But one issue about Dems: they attack their own even more fiercely than the GOP. Biden has NO senate majority, has no SCOTUS to back him, and is dealing with an enemy (the GOP) that will resort to anything and everything to bring him down. Messing should understand these issues, instead of coming after him and setting up the table even more for another Tiny four years.
by ti-amie She is following the "progressive" handbook. Sometimes it seems that it's the GOP handbook minus the MAGA.
by ti-amie Truth bomb
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Uh, why is he running under an alias?
Ryan Dark White, 54, was jailed at the Harford County Detention Center following his arrest on Friday, the county sheriff said in a statement. White is running under the alias Jon McGreevey in Tuesday’s GOP primary seeking to challenge Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who also faces a primary contest.
The Harford County Sherriff’s Office said White, an employee at an adult bookstore in Edgewood, Maryland, falsely reported in April that a girl aged 10 to 12 was being trafficked by a man at the bookstore and forced to perform sex acts on male customers. The sheriff’s office identified both the male and the young girl, and said investigators found no evidence supporting White’s allegations.
by dryrunguy Dr. Anthony Fauci has announced his plans to retire from federal service before the end of the Biden Administration's term.
by ti-amie Anything Collins and Manchin cook up is suspicious in my opinion.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 In the meantime:
Sig Sauer, a manufacturer of WMD's, is releasing a new rifle that (from an article, which I don't want to link because I don't want to run the 0.001% chance that the FBI will target us as some looney organization fond of this insane machines):
Quote:
IG Sauer’s new MCX-SPEAR fires bullets with twice the kinetic energy of those from an AR-15. That means double the horrifying force that mangled the victims of the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and left one youngster essentially decapitated.
“It’ll shoot through almost all of the bulletproof vests that are worn by law enforcement in the county right now,” said Ryan Busse, a former firearms company executive who is now a senior policy analyst with the Giffords Law Center and author of Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry that Radicalized America.
End Quote.
TWICE the kinetic energy of an AR-15. Because, who the (expletive) needs this for self protection?
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:48 pm
In the meantime:
Sig Sauer, a manufacturer of WMD's, is releasing a new rifle that (from an article, which I don't want to link because I don't want to run the 0.001% chance that the FBI will target us as some looney organization fond of this insane machines):
Quote:
IG Sauer’s new MCX-SPEAR fires bullets with twice the kinetic energy of those from an AR-15. That means double the horrifying force that mangled the victims of the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and left one youngster essentially decapitated.
“It’ll shoot through almost all of the bulletproof vests that are worn by law enforcement in the county right now,” said Ryan Busse, a former firearms company executive who is now a senior policy analyst with the Giffords Law Center and author of Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry that Radicalized America.
End Quote.
TWICE the kinetic energy of an AR-15. Because, who the (expletive) needs this for self protection?
Republicans are so hateful, yet they think have some kind of moral hold over everyone. The GOP is just a shallow breath away from being Nazis.
They have a few traits:
1. The End ALWAYS justifies the Means. Any means.
2. If it does not affect them, it does not matter.
3. They are particularly solipsistic. THEIR rights are unquestionable: YOUR rights are questionable to the point of removal.
4. They are uncapable of following logical conclusions. The right for a person to own a WMD (an AR15) poses no danger to society. The right for two men to love each other in a private setting will lead to the destruction of said society. The logical fallacy escapes them.
5. And, ponchi101's favorite one: their religious zealous keeps them from introspection. So much of what they do is ordered from God himself. Their rights are god given, their policies follow a divine order, they are protecting their souls for a future life, this one not being important at all.
Sure, I can see them as close to Nazis. And other cults.
by ti-amieRussian Man Recruited U.S. Groups from Florida, Georgia and California to ‘Sow Discord’ and Push Anti-U.S. ‘Agitprop’: DOJ
ADAM KLASFELD Jul 29th, 2022, 3:51 pm
A Russian man spent nearly a decade recruiting U.S. citizens and groups in Florida, Georgia and California to “sow discord” and push political “agitprop” against the United States and favoring the Kremlin, U.S. authorities said on Friday.
According to his 25-page indictment, Moscow resident Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov founded the Kremlin-funded Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia and worked under the “supervision” and with the “support” of Russian intelligence agents as far back as October 2013.
Together, prosecutors say, they recruited political groups within the United States and Ukraine, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Ireland to attend conferences in Russia. Ionov is charged with conspiring to have U.S. citizens act as illegal agents of the Russian government.
“Brazen Influence Campaign”
The scope of the influence campaigns described in the indictment are startling in their aims and diversity, allegedly targeting U.S. elections, boosted a California succession movement, and recruiting groups on both poles of the political spectrum. Court papers also link Ionov to convicted Russian agent Maria Butina, whose ties to prominent Republicans came to light during investigations into the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
“As court documents show, Ionov allegedly orchestrated a brazen influence campaign, turning U.S. political groups and U.S. citizens into instruments of the Russian government,” Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division said in a statement.
Ionov allegedly worked behind the scenes to circulate a Change.org petition to charge the United States with genocide against African peoples, a campaign that gathered more than 113,000 signatures by press time.
Posted by the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based group International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement — a pan-African and socialist group — the petition allegedly began with an overture from Ionov to two unindicted co-conspirators.
On Aug. 13, 2015, Ionov emailed the alleged co-conspirators, who have not yet been identified, asking them to create the petition “ASAP” and sent it to the “UN office in New York and to the websites of the White House and change.org.”
Some 13 days later, prosecutors say, the petition came into being. Ionov allegedly sent an email to one of his unindicted co-conspirators shortly after stating that the petition had been translated into Russian and disseminate through that country’s outlets.
Tampa Bay-based CBS affiliate WTSP captured federal authorities raiding the Uhuru House, quoting defiant words of Akile Anai, the director of the African People’s Socialist Party’s Department of Agitation and Propaganda.
“What we know this to really be, one, is a propaganda war is being waged against Russia every single day throughout the news,” Anai told the station.
“There You Go”
Prosecutors also saw Ionov’s machinations behind the California secession movement, which went viral that year under the hashtag #Calexit.
In April 2017, CNN reported that the movement’s leader ditched the campaign to make his home in Russia shortly after former President Donald Trump’s election.
Ionov allegedly kept pushing the effort into the following year, emailing another unindicted co-conspirator in Russian to plan a demonstration outside the California Capitol in Sacramento that was ultimately held on Valentine’s Day of 2018.
Prosecutors say that emails show Ionov saying that he transferred $500 in support of the protest and paid for the posters.
After the demonstration, prosecutors say, Ionov passed on news articles to a Russian intelligence agent stating that he asked for “turmoil” and “there you go.”
The high-profile prosecution of Butina at the height of a Russia probe — though conducted by a different office — raised the spotlight on Ionov’s activities in early 2019, and a Russian intelligence officer allegedly warned Ionov about the possibility he would face sanctions.
Passing on an article printed on Aug. 20, 2019, the FSB officer told Ionov that the report identified him as a “patron of Butina, who admitted to interfering in the 2016 elections,” and warned that “sanctions would be imposed against him,” according to the indictment.
Federal prosecutors also accuse Ionov of machinations in a pair of local elections in St. Petersburg, Fla., in 2017 and 2019. Ionov continued to push the Kremlin’s line through his Florida contacts in the early stages of Russia’s war on Ukraine, falsely claiming “anybody who supported Ukraine was also supporting Naziism [sic] and white supremacy,” according to the indictment.
by ponchi101 A true patriot. The Russian guy.
All the others, true traitors.
by ti-amie Jon Stewart has not let up on the fist bumping GOP'ers
Ah dearest Theodore. I do appreciate you and @JesseBWatters trying to rally the forces of misinformation to try and kill more vets…but not tonite sweetie. I’ll go slow cuz I know you only went to Princeton and Harvard…
Show everyone where in the Pact Act is this 400 billion dollars blank check or unrelated spending that was added/snuck in…OR show section 805 c of the actual bill that explicitly states what the Toxic Exposure Fund can be used for. Next
Show everyone what was added/snuck into the Pact Act that YOU voted for on June 16, that made you change to No in July. Be specific. Or were you for the bill before you were against it Senator Kerry…I mean Cruz. Next
No one is playing politics with the Pact Act but you, Toomey and your band of merry monsters. Stop (expletive) around and pass the bill you already had passed. Thank you for coming to my TedCruz talk.
This isn’t a game. Real people’s lives hang in the balance…people that fought for your life. The PACT act you voted for, then inexplicably shot down is the same one Senators Tester and Moran posted online in MAY. Which you read cuz yer shmart.
by ponchi101 And now.
Can the decent people of the USA turn out in November and hand the Congress and the Senate to the Dems, so something can be done, as opposed to stay home because "gas is at $4.50/Gal and I can't drive my Corvette"?
Before the SCOTUS decides that civil rights are not in the constitution?
by ti-amie Who's gonna be the cut man because...
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Ok, what part a I missing?
My position about the Church is well known. But you cannot call yourself a catholic AND approve of abortion. The Catholic Church, and all churches, are not democracies; you don't get to be in disagreement with a church. You obey.
So, what were these people expecting? That the dioceses and archdioceses of any state or county were going yo vote FOR abortion rights? For them, this was money well spent; the catholic church is clear on this issue.
I am obviously in agreement of abortion; that is a woman's choice. But, again, if you are a catholic, please, make up your mind. It is one or another; you can't be both.
by ti-amie There are many millions of Catholics who are for choice. They just tend to keep their mouths shut. Remember when the norm for Catholic families was double digit children? You don't see that any more and it's not because people have stopped having sex. This group is just saying the quiet part out loud and have been for awhile now.
by ponchi101 Yes, I know these catholics. They use contraception, and good for them.
But that is still contradictory of the official doctrine. Which was like reason number 15 of why I left organized religion (and disorganized religion too).
by meganfernandez
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:32 pm
There are many millions of Catholics who are for choice. They just tend to keep their mouths shut. Remember when the norm for Catholic families was double digit children? You don't see that any more and it's not because people have stopped having sex. This group is just saying the quiet part out loud and have been for awhile now.
I'm Catholic and I'm pro-choice. I can live with not following every bit of the official doctrine. I haven't read any farther back than your comment above. Just piping up for pro-choice and pro-contraception Catholics.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:32 pm
There are many millions of Catholics who are for choice. They just tend to keep their mouths shut. Remember when the norm for Catholic families was double digit children? You don't see that any more and it's not because people have stopped having sex. This group is just saying the quiet part out loud and have been for awhile now.
I'm Catholic and I'm pro-choice.
So am I.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:29 pm
You cannot call yourself a catholic AND approve of abortion.
I can and I do. I don't follow every bit of the doctrine, just as I don't follow every single law in the U.S. to the letter or every rule at work to a T. I figure it's between me and God. I'm sure there are a lot of people in the same boat.
You can also be pro-choice and not approve of abortion (or under certain circumstances). You can approve of the government not being involved in the decision or taking away the freedom to choose.
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan Jackie Walorski (R), Indiana Congresswoman, Is Killed in Car Crash
Ms. Walorski, 58, was first elected to Congress in 2012. She was traveling in her district with two aides, who were also killed.
by ti-amie The outpouring of grief over her death from political twitter was overwhelming and sincere.
by Owendonovan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:48 am
The outpouring of grief over her death from political twitter was overwhelming and sincere.
Cynical me wonders if the grief is over the loss of her or her conservative vote. Republicans aren't particularly moral.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
I think Owen was right about the politics of the deceased btw.
by ti-amie
by ti-amieSenate approves Inflation Reduction Act, clinching long-delayed health and climate bill
The party-line vote marks a major achievement for Democrats, after more than a year of wrangling over a centerpiece of President Biden’s economic agenda. It now awaits a vote in the House.
By Tony Romm
Updated August 7, 2022 at 5:16 p.m. EDT|Published August 7, 2022 at 4:34 a.m. EDT
The Senate on Sunday approved a sweeping package to combat climate change, lower health-care costs, raise taxes on some billion-dollar corporations and reduce the federal deficit, as Democrats overcame months of political infighting to deliver the centerpiece to President Biden’s long-stalled economic agenda.
The party-line vote was a milestone in a tumultuous journey that began last year when Democrats took control of Congress and the White House with a promise to bring financial relief to ordinary Americans. With a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Harris, the 50-50 Senate sent the bill to the House, which aims to approve it and send it to the White House for Biden’s signature later this week.
Dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the package would authorize the biggest burst of spending in U.S. history to tackle global warming — about $370 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below their 2005 levels by the end of this decade. The proposal also would make good on Democrats’ years-old pledge to reduce prescription drug costs for the elderly.
In part by tweaking federal tax laws — chiefly to target tax cheats and some billion-dollar companies that pay nothing to the government — the bill is expected to raise enough money to cover its new spending. Democrats say the measure is also expected to generate an additional $300 billion for reducing projected budget deficits over the next 10 years, though they have not yet furnished a final fiscal analysis of their legislation.
“This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in a decade,” Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview before the bill’s passage in the Senate. “Things that Americans have longed for, and couldn’t get done.”
The package is the byproduct of the political realities in the narrowly divided Senate, where Republicans stood immovably opposed to the bill and Democrats had to negotiate among themselves to shepherd it to the chamber floor. It hinged on a breakthrough deal negotiated in late July between Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), a moderate who nearly eight months ago single-handedly scuttled a previous attempt to advance his party’s agenda. And its fate teetered at one point because of a last-minute snag with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).
To assuage Manchin, Democrats had to give up some of their more ambitious plans — free prekindergarten for all, paid family and medical leave for workers nationwide — and offer new support for fossil fuels. To satisfy Sinema, meanwhile, party leaders repeatedly dialed back their proposed tax policies, particularly those targeting wealthy investors.
In the final hours of debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tried unsuccessfully to restore some of the jettisoned proposals, including a significant expansion of Medicare to provide dental, vision and hearing coverage to the elderly. Delivering multiple fiery speeches, Sanders implored his colleagues to improve a bill that “does nothing” to address the greatest financial challenges facing families.
Repeatedly, though, Democrats rejected even ideas they once supported — leaving Sanders the lone aye vote on the amendments — as they labored to protect a compromise bill they saw as fragile. Many Democrats emphasized the need to overlook the losses and savor the gains in a package that weeks earlier had seemed out of reach.
“This is not Bernie’s bill. I understand that,” Manchin told reporters Sunday. “But it’s a piece of legislation that’s a tremendous piece of legislation. It’s a balanced approach.”
(...)
For Senate Democrats, though, the outcome marks the latest victory in a spate of legislative accomplishments, including bipartisan efforts to rethink gun laws, improve veterans’ health care and boost the manufacture of much-needed high-tech computer chips. It comes two days after a federal labor report showed the U.S. economy had recovered all the jobs it had lost since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a positive sign for the president as fears about a recession hover over Washington.
Even before the vote was final, Democratic lawmakers on the chamber floor rejoiced and cheered, shaking hands and hugging, as their Republican counterparts cast their votes and headed for the exits for a month-long summer break. Manchin made a beeline for Schumer’s desk, as the two men leaned their heads together and clasped their hands. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a proponent of climate change provisions, broke into tears.
The developments offer fresh political fuel for Biden and Democratic leaders as they make their case to voters ahead of the midterm elections. The fast-approaching November contest serves as a referendum on Democratic control of Washington over the past two years — injecting urgency into Democrats’ once-defunct push to pass an economic package.
In a statement, Biden hailed the outcome and praised Democrats for having “sided with American families over special interests.” Acknowledging the “many compromises” that led to the vote, he encouraged the House to act swiftly. Lawmakers could take up the bill Friday.
The prescription drug pricing reforms aim to help cut costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. It caps their out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 annually, while allowing the U.S. government to negotiate the price of a small set of medicines beginning in 2026. The landmark proposal is expected to save elderly Americans money and achieve billions in savings for Washington over the next decade. Pharmaceutical giants, which forcefully opposed the bill, also would be required to pay “rebates” to the federal government if they raise Medicare drug prices beyond the rate of inflation.
(...)
The precursor bill was vast in scope, provisioning child care, free community college for low-income Americans and subsidized health insurance, along with new provisions to ease immigration. Drawing its name from Biden’s 2020 campaign slogan, its backers — including Sanders, whose budget work helped enable the bill — saw it as the most ambitious legislation since the Great Depression.
But Manchin never supported the sky-high price tag, arguing that it might worsen the country’s fiscal health at a moment of great economic and political uncertainty. The House adopted the bill in November, but the Senate never considered it, as Manchin staked his public opposition — angering his party and drawing a rare rebuke from the White House.
“We were probably too aggressive,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), a behind-the-scenes negotiator over the past year, reflecting on what went wrong. “The idea we were going to solve virtually every issue in one bill … was probably a bridge too far.”
Schumer and Manchin ultimately worked out their differences, solidified an agreement and sold it to a caucus that had hoped for something more robust. And after a year of failure and countless hours of bickering — and with an election less than three months away — Democrats were eager to take it.
“You could always say, ‘I wanted this, I wanted that,’ but we battled for decades,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the leader of the tax-focused Senate Finance Committee.
Paul Kane and Maxine Joselow contributed to this report.
by ponchi101 I wonder if that is constructive. I wonder if you just keep feeding the "we are enemies" process.
by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:57 am
I wonder if that is constructive. I wonder if you just keep feeding the "we are enemies" process.
It's certainly constructive to me. I'd say that whomever was laughing is lucky they didn't get living brown word beat out of them. I fully endorse this approach to those disgusting right wing republicans masquerading as patriotic US citizens.
by ti-amie This is so bad it's laughable.
by ti-amie Salsa on a veggie platter?
Raw asparagus anywhere?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Who do they think has been paying Tiny's "lawyers"?
‘It’s a rip-off’: GOP spending under fire as Senate hopefuls seek rescue
A cash crunch at campaigns and the NRSC set off a panic as GOP candidates emerged from bruising primaries playing catch-up in polls and advertising
By Isaac Arnsdorf
Updated August 20, 2022 at 12:07 a.m. EDT|Published August 19, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. EDT
Republican Senate hopefuls are getting crushed on airwaves across the country while their national campaign fund is pulling ads and running low on cash — leading some campaign advisers to ask where all the money went and to demand an audit of the committee’s finances, according to Republican strategists involved in the discussions.
In a highly unusual move, the National Republican Senatorial Committee this week canceled bookings worth about $10 million, including in the critical states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona. A spokesman said the NRSC is not abandoning those races but prioritizing ad spots that are shared with campaigns and benefit from discounted rates. Still, the cancellations forfeit cheaper prices that came from booking early, and better budgeting could have covered both.
“The fact that they canceled these reservations was a huge problem — you can’t get them back,” said one Senate Republican strategist, who like others spokes on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. “You can’t win elections if you don’t have money to run ads.”
The NRSC’s retreat came after months of touting record fundraising, topping $173 million so far this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures. But the committee has burned through nearly all of it, with the NRSC’s cash on hand dwindling to $28.4 million by the end of June.
As of that month, the committee disclosed spending just $23 million on ads, with more than $21 million going into text messages and more than $12 million to American Express credit card payments, whose ultimate purpose isn’t clear from the filings. The committee also spent at least $13 million on consultants, $9 million on debt payments and more than $7.9 million renting mailing lists, campaign finance data show.
“If they were a corporation, the CEO would be fired and investigated,” said a national Republican consultant working on Senate races. “The way this money has been burned, there needs to be an audit or investigation because we’re not gonna take the Senate now and this money has been squandered. It’s a rip-off.”
The NRSC’s chairman, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, has already taken heat from fellow Republicans for running ads featuring him on camera and releasing his own policy agenda that became a Democratic punching bag — leading to jokes that “NRSC” stood for “National Rick Scott Committee” in a bid to fuel his own presumed presidential ambitions.
Other spending decisions, such as putting about $1 million total into reliably blue Colorado and Washington earlier this month sparked fresh questions after the committee turned around and canceled buys in core battlegrounds.
The NRSC invested heavily in expanding its digital fundraising and building up its database of small-dollar donors. But online giving to Republicans, not just the NRSC, sagged earlier this year from what consultants said was a combination of inflation, changes to Facebook advertising policies, concerns about emails caught in spam filters, and complacency with an anticipated Republican wave. Some Republicans also suspect former president Donald Trump’s relentless fundraising pitches and cash hoarding has exhausted the party’s online donor base.
The NRSC still has tens of millions of dollars in reserved airtime, and its next filing, which covers the month of July and is due to the FEC on Saturday, will show millions more in ad spending. The group said its total spending on TV so far topped $40 million. On Friday the NRSC said it added more than $4 million of airtime across Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona.
“Our goal was to keep our candidates afloat and get them to this point where they’re still in the game in all our top states,” NRSC spokesman Chris Hartline said. “So when the big spending starts now we have a fighting chance.”
That big spending is coming from a super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), which this week announced a whopping $28 million rescue effort in Ohio, where Republican candidate J.D. Vance raised a dismal $1 million in the second quarter and has spent less than $400,000 on ads.
The super PAC, known as the Senate Leadership Fund, also moved up by three weeks its spending in Pennsylvania and added $9.5 million there, for a total of $34 million. Recent surveys show the Keystone State’s Senate race drifting toward Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman over the Republican nominee, celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz.
McConnell himself acknowledged the challenge of reclaiming the chamber’s majority, telling reporters in Kentucky on Thursday that the House was likelier to flip. “Candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome,” he said, according to NBC News, a comment that was widely viewed as a swipe at some of the primary winners and their lagging fundraising performance.
The NRSC opted not to pick favorites in this year’s primary contests, a break from the past decade when the committee worked to avoid out-of-the-mainstream nominees who cost the party wins in 2010 and 2012. Many of this year’s Republican candidates haven’t run for office before and emerged from nasty, expensive primaries that left their favorable ratings underwater. A string of recent polls showed Republican candidates in many battlegrounds trailing or in a dead heat with well-funded Democratic opponents.
Democrats are outspending Republicans by more than double in the Arizona Senate race; by almost two-to-one in Nevada and by four-to-one in Ohio, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact. Republicans are also being outspent by about $14 million in Georgia.
“Everything came together at once, and everyone woke up like, ‘Oh my God,’” said one Republican consultant. “It’s been an absolutely disastrous two weeks for GOP Senate stuff on all fronts.”
After The Washington Post discussed this story with the NRSC on Friday, five Senate campaigns reached out to praise the committee’s help.
“They are focused on bringing the fight to the Democrats everyday,” said Gail Gitcho with Herschel Walker’s campaign in Georgia. “Whoever says otherwise is nuts.”
Zack Roday with Joe O’Dea’s Senate campaign in Colorado added, “The NRSC has been a great partner, everything we’ve asked for.”
Democrats point to signs of a newly energized base and a national political environment that is, at the very least, less bad for them. The party in power typically loses ground in midterms.
JB Poersch, president of the main Democratic Senate super PAC, pointed to the Jan. 6 hearings, recent mass shootings, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade as changing the dynamics in the past two months.
“It’s surprising and says a lot about the Republican brand that their candidates have struggled to raise money,” Poersch said. “With extreme candidates and extreme positions, maybe Republican donors are finding these candidates are out of step with where they are. Maybe voters are feeling the same way.”
Vance’s disappointing financial report touched off new urgency for air support from the McConnell-aligned super PAC, a person familiar with the planning said. The size of the buy reflects the expense of advertising statewide in Ohio with its multiple media markets, and that Republicans view the state as both winnable and as a must-win. An affiliated nonprofit known as One Nation is spending an additional $3.8 million to help Vance against his Democratic rival, Rep. Tim Ryan.
Several public polls recently showed Ryan leading, and internal Republican surveys found Vance with an even bigger deficit, according to people familiar with the findings.
A Vance campaign adviser rejected suggestions that the super PAC’s intervention showed weakness, saying the race was always going to be competitive.
“If the Washington punditry thinks Trump won the state by 8 so it should be a slam dunk, they’re sorely mistaken,” the adviser said, referring to Trump’s margin of victory in Ohio in 2020. “Them putting money in this race shows they believe this is a race they can win.”
Vance benefited in the primary from about $10 million by an allied super PAC funded by technology billionaire Peter Thiel. But people involved in the race said it’s unclear whether Thiel, whose style in the past has been to invest early and then bow out, will put money behind Vance in the general election. Thiel also funded the Arizona Senate bid of Republican nominee Blake Masters, his former employee.
A spokesman for Thiel declined to comment.
The Senate Leadership Fund, which typically expands spending in the final stretch after Labor Day, finished June with more than $100 million in the bank. Starting in September, the PAC has reserved $14.4 million in Arizona, $37.1 million in Georgia, $15.1 million in Nevada, $27.6 million in North Carolina, $15.2 million in Wisconsin and $7.4 million in Alaska.
As well! I especially love how it's a giant middle finger to all who criticized her when she exposed her shoulders.
by ponchi101 His mug shot would be great, but as I said, I was being serious. He broke too many traditions but if the country wants to recover any semblance of a respectable presidency (and that will take at least one generation), some traditions must remain.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Today
Last night
by ponchi101 The statements given by L. Boebert are equally frightening. Basically, calling for a religion-based government, but of course, only "Christians".
Unfortunately, it is not just the USA. Italy is about to elect a PM that opposes any and all immigration, all abortions, and will rely on a Christian creed to rule the country.
No moderate governments seem to be viable around the world.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 I say: indeed. Let's get rid of one gender.
Let's keep all women.
by dryrunguy I had to run over to Shirleysburg this afternoon. It's about a 40-minute drive through some of the most pro-Trump country you'll ever see. People love putting political signs in their yards during election years. I've written here before about the Trump flags and signs that have been so prominent in this part of Pennsylvania.
Obviously, there wasn't a single Shapiro or Fetterman sign to be seen during that drive.
But there aren't very many Mastriano signs--certainly much fewer than in previous PA Governor elections. And there were only two--yes, TWO--Oz signs. That's appallingly low for this area given the political landscape and the Trump endorsement. The lack of enthusiasm for Oz is quite striking. And the lack of enthusiasm for Mastriano is only slightly less striking.
That said, both will still win this part of PA in a massive landslide. Because folks here will still vote AGAINST Shapiro and Fetterman at all costs. But there's a clear paucity of enthusiasm around both of the Republican candidates for Governor and U.S. Senator. And compared to previous elections, it's really noticeable.
by dryrunguy Meanwhile, in reading about the latest Herschel Walker kerfuffle, I stumbled across his son, Christian Walker. That was... mindboggling.
by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:39 pm
Meanwhile, in reading about the latest Herschel Walker kerfuffle, I stumbled across his son, Christian Walker. That was... mindboggling.
He's being accused of misleading some of Walker's backers by coming out with his true life story. It also appears that NONE of Walker's family is supporting him in this grift, uh, run for the Senate.
Herschel Walker’s Battle With His MAGA-Influencer Son, Explained
Who is Christian Walker and why did he just go nuclear on his father’s campaign for Georgia senator?
BY HEATHER SCHWEDEL
OCT 04, 20224:19 PM
If you didn’t know any better, you might think that Christian Walker, a 23-year-old who has nearly a million combined followers on TikTok, Twitter, and Instagram, was just another midlevel right-wing influencer, prone to front-facing camera diatribes about modern life. Or maybe you first heard of Walker this week when he denounced his father, Herschel Walker, the Republican former NFL star who is running against Democrat Raphael Warnock for one of Georgia’s Senate seats, after it broke that a former girlfriend of the candidate’s said he paid for her to get an abortion. Either way, the younger Walker has quickly become an unlikely supporting player in one of the most-watched election races in the country, if one whose sincerity is sometimes hard to measure. Here’s what to know about him.
Why is Christian Walker in the news?
After the Daily Beast reported that the “pro-life” Herschel Walker paid for a woman to abort a pregnancy that he and she conceived together in 2009, his son (with his ex-wife, Cindy DeAngelis Grossman) wrote on Twitter, “I know my mom and I would really appreciate if my father Herschel Walker stopped lying and making a mockery of us. You’re not a ‘family man’ when you left us to bang a bunch of women, threatened to kill us, and had us move over 6 times in 6 months running from your violence.”
Herschel Walker, who has supported a ban on abortion with no exceptions, even for rape, has denied the report. Christian Walker also said that he and other family members had urged Herschel Walker not to run for Senate, “because we all knew (some of) his past.”
He has since posted a pair of follow-up videos in which he has responded to those who have “attacked” him and questioned his “authenticity.”
Why would anyone question his authenticity?
There are a couple of reasons, but when it comes to this particular story, some critics have pointed out that, in December, he introduced his father at an early campaign event, posting a video of the two sharing a hug.
Until recently, he also sold T-shirts that expressed support for his father’s campaign, though the merch reportedly did not actually financially benefit his father’s campaign.
Hm! Can we go back for a minute? Isn’t there a whole thing with Herschel Walker and secret children?
Yes. The candidate has publicly acknowledged Christian as his son throughout his campaign, but it came out in the months leading up to the election that he had three more children that he had not been publicly discussing. This is especially notable because the elder Walker has made a point of railing against the problem of “fatherless” homes—coincidentally also an issue that Christian Walker has weighed in on in his TikToks, and now Christian is saying that he speaks from personal experience.
How long has Christian been an influencer, and what are his videos like?
Walker has been prominent on social media, particularly TikTok, since 2020 or so, when he was a student at the University of California, Los Angeles, focusing on a familiar range of right-friendly topics, from “cancel culture” to election fraud. He gained a following as an up-and-coming conservative pundit mostly independently of his father, though Herschel Walker being a former Heisman Trophy winner who is also well-connected in the MAGA-verse must have played some role. In his videos, which frequently take place in his car in the Starbucks parking lot, Walker often seems like he must be doing satire, such is the extent of the drama he brings to his rants.
What do you mean his videos play like satire?
For a good example, see a recent one that started, “There’s a big elephant in the room and I’m just gonna to say it: I’m pissed about who they chose for Little Mermaid.”
Walker has also had a podcast, called Uncancellable, since last year. Some episode titles include: “COMMUNISM IS GHETTO,” “ITS ILLEGAL TO POOP ON THE STREET,” and “IF YOU OPPOSE ELON MUSK, YOU’RE A RACIST.”
So he’s a troll?
You might say so. On Twitter, Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz summarized Walker as “basically a Gen Z Milo [Yiannopoulos],” referring to the alt-right provocateur who it might actually be generous to call a troll. Last year, New York magazine described Walker and his place among conservatives thusly: “Walker cuts a rare figure: a gay Black man in Cartier and Gucci who also happens to be a two-time world-champion competitive cheerleader with a six-pack and perfectly plucked eyebrows.”
Hasn’t he said he isn’t gay, though?
Yup, he has bristled at being called the “G-word,” and this is another place where it can be hard to gauge his level of sincerity. While he is explicitly interested in men and frequently posts TikToks expounding on this interest, he also frequently says things like, “Do not put the G-word on me. I do not want to be lumped in with rainbow flags. … Just because I’m attracted to men doesn’t make me a G-word-er.” He has elsewhere claimed to be interested in men but not dating them. Walker seems to know this is a ridiculous stance to hold and has even parodied it by using audio of him talking about the “G-word” to accompany video footage of him being very excited about the “muscle men” at the Super Bowl.
Is there a quick rundown of some of his greatest hits and antics over the years?
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
Help! I’m Typically the Only Man at My Work Happy Hours. I Think I Enjoy It Too Much.
What Elon Musk Might Really Be Up to With Twitter
My Clueless In-Laws Think Their Backyard Is Perfectly Safe for My Toddlers
Glad you asked. Walker got into an entertaining fight with pop star Kehlani at his favorite place, Starbucks, over the summer. She apparently warned the employees that he was being an asshole and losing his (expletive) over the store having rainbow flags, which he then confronted her about, claiming that she in fact was the asshole. She recognized that he was probably trying to get a reaction out of her to go viral, and it seemed to have worked. More recently, Walker used his experience of being raised in a “broken home” to excoriate a woman who claimed to be having an affair with Maroon 5’s Adam Levine, calling her a homewrecker. One of the first videos of his to receive widespread attention was from summer 2020, when he criticized Joe Biden’s statement that Black people who vote for Trump “ain’t Black.” That video is actually a good example of Walker’s tendency to occasionally make something resembling a good point, whether it’s about Biden’s presumptions about Blackness, the modern tendency to play the victim online, or his father’s hypocrisy. (Not about Kehlani, though—he was just being an asshole there.)
So even though he turned on his father, we shouldn’t welcome Christian Walker to the Resistance?
by ti-amie Below is his pinned Tweet for his Twitter account.
by ti-amie If you've never watched Archer here's a peek at the kind of thing that goes on with that show. I thought about it when reading about Christian Walker.
Start at about 2m3s in
by dryrunguy Trying to process how things work and fit within Christian's brain is what I really have trouble with. He identifies as a "man who is attracted to men", which right there is a distinction from CDC's old and still prevalent categorization of "men who have sex with men". I don't think that's coincidental. So he actively scurries from anything gay, anything Pride, the LGBTQ flag, etc. Are we to presume that he is attracted to men but will not have sex with men because that's a sin? If so, how's that going. (None of which is really any of our business. But he goes out of his way to make it everyone's business.)
I respect his agency (his right to identify himself as he sees fit). And let's remember, he's only 23, so it's not like he's fully cooked yet.
Maybe the problem for me is that I have a pretty good grasp for what he's against. But I couldn't give you an example of anything he is... for.
Which begs the questions: What's real? What's garden variety cognitive dissonance? And what's a social media act to attract followers?
It's all just very confusing.
by ponchi101 One thing that puzzles me.
H. Walker is not a BAD candidate. It is more than that; the man is certifiably an idiot.
But, as that is America and, most importantly, Georgia, the focus is on his personal life, not the fact that this man truly holds unbelievable opinions.
I guess this is politics, today.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:19 pm
One thing that puzzles me.
H. Walker is not a BAD candidate. It is more than that; the man is certifiably an idiot.
But, as that is America and, most importantly, Georgia, the focus is on his personal life, not the fact that this man truly holds unbelievable opinions.
I guess this is politics, today.
Have you not been paying attention, ponchi? (And I know you have.) 30-35% of the U.S. population (larger percentages in Georgia) threw out personal life in 2016--because of Hillary and her emails. What matters most to that segment of the population are the candidates' beliefs: 1) abortion; 2) religious liberty; 3) unchecked 2nd amendment; 4) freedumb (a direct conflict with #1 and #2); 5) making sure racial and ethnic minority votes are not counted; 6) white fragility; 7) small government; 8) stacking the Supreme Court and lower circuits with extremely conservative judges... Just to name a few.
Of course, the order is debatable.
They don't care that Herschel emotionally and physically abused women, slept around, and spread his seed farther than an Iowa farmer. They haven't cared about any of those things since 2016 or so. That segment of the U.S. population only cares about what his votes on key legislation will deliver to them.
by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:55 pm
Trying to process how things work and fit within Christian's brain is what I really have trouble with. He identifies as a "man who is attracted to men", which right there is a distinction from CDC's old and still prevalent categorization of "men who have sex with men". I don't think that's coincidental. So he actively scurries from anything gay, anything Pride, the LGBTQ flag, etc. Are we to presume that he is attracted to men but will not have sex with men because that's a sin? If so, how's that going. (None of which is really any of our business. But he goes out of his way to make it everyone's business.)
I respect his agency (his right to identify himself as he sees fit). And let's remember, he's only 23, so it's not like he's fully cooked yet.
Maybe the problem for me is that I have a pretty good grasp for what he's against. But I couldn't give you an example of anything he is... for.
Which begs the questions: What's real? What's garden variety cognitive dissonance? And what's a social media act to attract followers?
It's all just very confusing.
Maybe it's confusing to us because we don't buy into the performative nature of RW politics? The young man puts on a good show and in the videos where he's "vehemently denouncing" his father he's presenting quite a persona. Did someone not pay him or cut him off from his source of money so now he's annoyed?
Nothing is real with them.
And Ponchi is right. Walker pere is a complete idiot.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:19 pm
One thing that puzzles me.
H. Walker is not a BAD candidate. It is more than that; the man is certifiably an idiot.
But, as that is America and, most importantly, Georgia, the focus is on his personal life, not the fact that this man truly holds unbelievable opinions.
I guess this is politics, today.
Have you not been paying attention, ponchi? (And I know you have.) 30-35% of the U.S. population (larger percentages in Georgia) threw out personal life in 2016--because of Hillary and her emails. What matters most to that segment of the population are the candidates' beliefs: 1) abortion; 2) religious liberty; 3) unchecked 2nd amendment; 4) freedumb (a direct conflict with #1 and #2); 5) making sure racial and ethnic minority votes are not counted; 6) white fragility; 7) small government; 8) stacking the Supreme Court and lower circuits with extremely conservative judges... Just to name a few.
Of course, the order is debatable.
They don't care that Herschel emotionally and physically abused women, slept around, and spread his seed farther than an Iowa farmer. They haven't cared about any of those things since 2016 or so. That segment of the U.S. population only cares about what his votes on key legislation will deliver to them.
I did say it puzzles me, didn't I?
It is insane, I know. I maybe, maybe, would shift some of your points (2nd amendment comes before religious freedom, maybe) but... I am puzzled.
by dryrunguy Accept perpetually puzzled status, ponchi, and don't bother trying to figure it out. There's not much reason to it. Keep your brain cells.
by Owendonovan
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:55 pm
Trying to process how things work and fit within Christian's brain is what I really have trouble with. He identifies as a "man who is attracted to men", which right there is a distinction from CDC's old and still prevalent categorization of "men who have sex with men". I don't think that's coincidental. So he actively scurries from anything gay, anything Pride, the LGBTQ flag, etc. Are we to presume that he is attracted to men but will not have sex with men because that's a sin? If so, how's that going. (None of which is really any of our business. But he goes out of his way to make it everyone's business.)
I respect his agency (his right to identify himself as he sees fit). And let's remember, he's only 23, so it's not like he's fully cooked yet.
Maybe the problem for me is that I have a pretty good grasp for what he's against. But I couldn't give you an example of anything he is... for.
Which begs the questions: What's real? What's garden variety cognitive dissonance? And what's a social media act to attract followers?
It's all just very confusing.
And how do you communicate with them in some kind of meaningful way?
And how do you communicate with them in some kind of meaningful way?
This.
It applies to so many things today. How do you talk to the people that fell down the rabbit hole, that hold contradictory opinions within themselves? This kid has a TRUMP T-shirt, yet everything about him is precisely what Trumpians are against.
Where do you start unraveling this ball of thread?
by ti-amie Normally I would've put this in the Dante thread but I put it here because how do you reason with this?
I don't know any drug dealers but from what I know of them giving away freebies is not their M.O.
by ti-amie
So the Russian soldiers are going to be deployed to the US/Mexico border to stop the fentanyl dealing "illegals" from setting up shop in the homes they've bought to distribute candy colored fentanyl for free to poor innocent US kids? Is that what this is about?
/s
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy Meanwhile, are we going to talk about Hunter Biden at all? Just asking...
by Owendonovan
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:22 am
Meanwhile, are we going to talk about Hunter Biden at all? Just asking...
I will. I think he's shady, 100% traded on who his father was at the time, and whatever illegal things he's done he should be held accountable. Him being sacrificed doesn't bother me much, he's part of the entitled set.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie What?
by ponchi101 Russia, as the Ukraine war shows, is not really a threat (except for covert assassinations).
China is.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan "This is the right move at the right time." Seeing as how there's an election coming up..........
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan "House Republicans have introduced legislation that some critics are describing as a national "Don't Say Gay" bill – inspired by the controversial Florida law that bans instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade classes." https://www.npr.org/2022/10/21/11302971 ... ation-bill
Such a hateful group of people. Grooming their children to hate every Sunday at the grooming center they call the house of the lord. The GOP has never, in my 55 years, given me a reason to respect anything they say or do.
by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:24 pm
"House Republicans have introduced legislation that some critics are describing as a national "Don't Say Gay" bill – inspired by the controversial Florida law that bans instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade classes." https://www.npr.org/2022/10/21/11302971 ... ation-bill
Such a hateful group of people. Grooming their children to hate every Sunday at the grooming center they call the house of the lord. The GOP has never, in my 55 years, given me a reason to respect anything they say or do.
Serious here, I want your opinion.
As you point out, "grooming" is done on a weekly or daily basis at churches and other religious locations. That is accepted by society (and something that I do not agree with, as you may guess).
But, about sexuality. At what age is it appropriate to start a conversation with young people regarding sex, gender, identities and sexuality? It is not an easy subject.
For example, in Venezuela, and during my high school years, there was a subject specifically about sex; but it centered on biology and reproduction (this was the 70's, after all) so no "modern" ideas were even in the book. But, as I was in an Opus Dei school, the "teaching" was done under a religious focus, meaning it was aimed and telling us that all about sex was wrong. Needless to say, it certainly caused more harm than good.
Again: when should children start having a conversation about sex?
Txs
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:24 pm
"House Republicans have introduced legislation that some critics are describing as a national "Don't Say Gay" bill – inspired by the controversial Florida law that bans instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade classes." https://www.npr.org/2022/10/21/11302971 ... ation-bill
Such a hateful group of people. Grooming their children to hate every Sunday at the grooming center they call the house of the lord. The GOP has never, in my 55 years, given me a reason to respect anything they say or do.
Serious here, I want your opinion.
As you point out, "grooming" is done on a weekly or daily basis at churches and other religious locations. That is accepted by society (and something that I do not agree with, as you may guess).
But, about sexuality. At what age is it appropriate to start a conversation with young people regarding sex, gender, identities and sexuality? It is not an easy subject.
For example, in Venezuela, and during my high school years, there was a subject specifically about sex; but it centered on biology and reproduction (this was the 70's, after all) so no "modern" ideas were even in the book. But, as I was in an Opus Dei school, the "teaching" was done under a religious focus, meaning it was aimed and telling us that all about sex was wrong. Needless to say, it certainly caused more harm than good.
Again: when should children start having a conversation about sex?
Txs
Sex and sexuality are 2 very different things and should be treated so. I personally think that sexuality can be discussed at any age. I don't think sex necessarily needs be discussed until it's asked about. There are enough 10 year olds, and some younger, who are starting puberty. I think if you're pubic, you should likely learn about sex, because that's where those little hairs are leading you.
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:24 pm
"House Republicans have introduced legislation that some critics are describing as a national "Don't Say Gay" bill – inspired by the controversial Florida law that bans instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade classes." https://www.npr.org/2022/10/21/11302971 ... ation-bill
Such a hateful group of people. Grooming their children to hate every Sunday at the grooming center they call the house of the lord. The GOP has never, in my 55 years, given me a reason to respect anything they say or do.
Serious here, I want your opinion.
As you point out, "grooming" is done on a weekly or daily basis at churches and other religious locations. That is accepted by society (and something that I do not agree with, as you may guess).
But, about sexuality. At what age is it appropriate to start a conversation with young people regarding sex, gender, identities and sexuality? It is not an easy subject.
For example, in Venezuela, and during my high school years, there was a subject specifically about sex; but it centered on biology and reproduction (this was the 70's, after all) so no "modern" ideas were even in the book. But, as I was in an Opus Dei school, the "teaching" was done under a religious focus, meaning it was aimed and telling us that all about sex was wrong. Needless to say, it certainly caused more harm than good.
Again: when should children start having a conversation about sex?
Txs
It was a LONG time ago--back when I was in college and taking an elective Government course. Each student had to pick a public policy topic, research it, and then present about it to the class. I chose sex education, just because it was a fundamentalist college. And I felt like ruffling features.
The general consensus at the time was that sex education should begin at a very young age, but the type of education changes over time as a child grows and develops. With very young kids, let's say around age 5 (if not sooner), they should be taught that it's okay to feel that your body is your private territory. It's okay not to want to let other children or adults touch you in a way that is uncomfortable or inappropriate. It's okay to establish boundaries about who can touch you. And of course, you should grant the same level of respect and privacy toward other children. And if someone touches you in an inappropriate way, it's okay to tell someone you trust. In today's age, I would add this is probably a good time to introduce the concept of respecting difference and acknowledging that not everyone is expected to be the same.
And then it goes from there. Perhaps around 10 or 12, children should have those same messages reinforced and then go a step further and introduce the topics of puberty, human anatomy, and reproduction. That's not too soon. This would probably be a good time to introduce the dangers associated with rigid, unmoving gender roles. (Boys aren't the only ones who will grow up to take out the garbage or do an oil change on the car, and girls aren't the only ones who will grow up to cook dinner or do the laundry.)
And so on. At some point, maybe around 14 or so, you could introduce the concept of gender identity, healthy and age-appropriate sexuality, what truly constitutes consent, why it's wrong to pressure another for sex, etc. And then you just keep reinforcing all of these things and answering questions without judgment as a young person continues to grow, develop, and process their own sexuality.
The main thing is to shift the mentality that sex is a dirty subject. Sex and sexuality are normal and healthy and can be a beautiful experience when two people equally share control over their sexual activity.
by Owendonovan That's well said, entirely sensible, and quite harmless, Dry. Unfortunately, religion.
by ponchi101 Txs to both. Which I did.
It is one subject I believe right now, can only be discussed in person. Too many nuances, and very complex. Dry, your post is very helpful, but I would not consider myself to be able to express my positions clearly in less than 5,000 words.
Roughly.
by dryrunguy In case you missed it, John Fetterman almost certainly lost his Senate race during last night's debate. There were times when he sounded exactly like someone who had a stroke. His brain is fine. But the average Pennsylvania voter probably will not be able to look past his lingering auditory and speech problems. He went into the debate, at best, only 1-2 points ahead in the polling. A lot of polls already had it 50/50 going in.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
by ti-amie Dry it seems that Dr. Oz said that abortion is between a woman, her doctor and her local politicians. That's all I'm seeing but maybe I follow the wrong people.
Fetterman's campaign just put this out.
by dryrunguy Yes, Oz said something to that effect. The Washington Post synopsis shows that both candidates had good moments. The lowest point for Fetterman was the fracking question. (Not to mention I'm not a fan of fracking so I don't like his answer.) Politico had a pretty good written synopsis as well that gets more into what's physically happening with Fetterman: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/2 ... z-00063467
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 The same people that will not pass ANY legislation regulating guns' ownership, will impeach somebody because he has shown "dereliction of duty" when fighting crime.
Ok. Whatever you say, Jack.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy
by ti-amie Who is on his staff? They're supposed to brief him on stuff like this.
by dryrunguy
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:19 pm
Who is on his staff? They're supposed to brief him on stuff like this.
I assume it was unscripted. If it was scripted, that's really, really bad.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:19 pm
Who is on his staff? They're supposed to brief him on stuff like this.
Given the number of similar sort of gaffes he's had especially about PA stuff, many have surmised that his staff hates him and I can't say they're wrong. There's been some seriously easy stuff that's been botched.
And botching anything Steelers related is more problematic than it would seem like it would be given how much he needs to pull votes from Western PA and the Steelers are a devout religion in the Greater Pittsburgh area.
by Owendonovan I've never felt the need to own a firearm until this election. The current extremist GOP is way too fringe for me to trust with anything, their lack of empathy allows for easy violence.
by ponchi101 1 in 3 people in the USA now say that violence will be needed to save the country. And then it cuts down by party lines; it is almost 1/2 of republicans, and about 1/5 for Dems.
I gather that is a basic ingredient for a civil war.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by JazzNU They've gone full Willie Horton with the ads in these parts. I haven't seen anything so aggressively obvious in a very, very long time.
by dryrunguy
JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 1:58 am
They've gone full Willie Horton with the ads in these parts. I haven't seen anything so aggressively obvious in a very, very long time.
Are you seeing any Mastriano ads, Jazz? I haven't seen one in weeks. From TV to YouTube to ads showing up on food recipes, all I am seeing is Oz, Oz, Oz. From where I sit and what's being thrown at me, all resources are being thrown at defeating Fetterman. Looks like they gave up on Mastriano weeks ago in terms of ad resource allocation in PA.
JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 1:58 am
They've gone full Willie Horton with the ads in these parts. I haven't seen anything so aggressively obvious in a very, very long time.
Are you seeing any Mastriano ads, Jazz? I haven't seen one in weeks. From TV to YouTube to ads showing up on food recipes, all I am seeing is Oz, Oz, Oz. From where I sit and what's being thrown at me, all resources are being thrown at defeating Fetterman. Looks like they gave up on Mastriano weeks ago in terms of ad resource allocation in PA.
I'm honestly not sure he has much money left. I haven't seen any in a month, but it could be closer to 6 weeks. He's been a lost cause for awhile, every thing you heard about him was more disturbing than the last. But I basically stopped seeing almost any ads for him after the pro-Shapiro ad (can't remember if it was him or a PAC) showed the one of him at the freaking QAnon convention getting an damn award. I think that was it for him and what little money he was getting dried up quick. My mom said she has heard a few ads for him on the news radio station, so that might be what his budget can manage.
One of the GOP PACs has pivoted to advocating essentially for a split ticket of Shapiro/Oz. It's well funded because I saw it for probably a 2 week period on different channels including during either football or playoff baseball games. Not sure you got those. But basically, they are commercials saying that Fetterman isn't a Shapiro kind of Democrat, that's he's far too left for PA. There was no mention of Oz at all in the commercial, but their meaning was clear. That felt like a waiving of the white flag on Mastriano to me.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU If Florida and Ohio aren't a Dem win or under 6% difference loss, I need them to stop being called battleground states because they aren't nearly enough in contention in recent cycles to warrant that title.
And Ohio desperately wanting tourism dollars during presidential campaigns isn't enough of a reason to give them one red cent if their results aren't in doubt.
by JazzNU
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
I wouldn't call NYS a "blue" state. Take NYC and it's suburbs out of the equation I'd say upstate if pretty red if not purple due to the number of college towns there.
Staten Island may as well be part of New Jersey or Long Island.
Josh is local, grew up in the same area I went to high school. So this is a win for our area that I'm sure will be celebrated. Very proud of him. Really nice guy, and his family is too. Met him several times well before he was at this point in his career, he started out as our State House Rep.
by dryrunguy
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:26 pm
In case you missed it, John Fetterman almost certainly lost his Senate race during last night's debate. There were times when he sounded exactly like someone who had a stroke. His brain is fine. But the average Pennsylvania voter probably will not be able to look past his lingering auditory and speech problems. He went into the debate, at best, only 1-2 points ahead in the polling. A lot of polls already had it 50/50 going in.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
I've never been so thrilled to be SO wrong.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Gov. Hochul won New York State 52.8% to 47.2%. Rounding up she won by 53% to 47% but the NYT is trying to say this was a close race. I don't get it.
Anyway Boebert lost.
by ponchi101 Which is one reason why, if I were able to move to the States, I would stick to my little town in Colorado.
They are not perfect, but they correct things. Sometimes.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:26 pm
In case you missed it, John Fetterman almost certainly lost his Senate race during last night's debate. There were times when he sounded exactly like someone who had a stroke. His brain is fine. But the average Pennsylvania voter probably will not be able to look past his lingering auditory and speech problems. He went into the debate, at best, only 1-2 points ahead in the polling. A lot of polls already had it 50/50 going in.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
I've never been so thrilled to be SO wrong.
I wasn't worried about that debate. People in PA weren't watching that debate like that. Out of state people, who influenced entirely too much of this race, the same who helped get Fetterman the nomination, not knowing a damn thing about PA, were way too focused on that debate.
If Dave McCormick had beaten Oz in the primary, I think it's likely he's the newly elected PA Senator today. Fetterman ran a shaky campaign with questionable decision-making from the get go and a better candidate who didn't make as many mistakes as Oz especially about basic PA stuff, likely would've honed in much better on Fetterman's obvious weaknesses. They are significantly more than just the current state of his health.
Out of state Bernie Bros are going to botch this one of these times and it's going to be costly. They do not understand instra-state politics in PA at all and their ignorance is going to catch up with them and the same is likely true elsewhere. Look at Fetterman's splits and look at Shapiro's. Fetterman''s victory is an outlier on what Shapiro, current governor Wolf, and current Senator Casey managed to garner in midterm years. That's people happily vote splitting even though there are some similar issues statewide, abortion restrictions and voting rights included.
It's amazing. GOP Legislature has been holding us hostage. It felt like the win of a lifetime when we got enough House and Senate seats into Dems hands to prevent a 2/3 override of the governor's veto. We made dents, but this wasn't even on the radar as a possibility until more recently.
I kid you not, the GOP House Reps are so dumb that they reminded voters just 2 weeks ago that they are going after the Philly DA to impeach him, an action being brought by Reps who live like 2 hours, 3 hours, and 5 hours away from Philadelphia. This is a DA in his second term who was re-elected just last year. A complete overreach and counter to their supposed ideologies, but they just can't help themselves. They want to "protect" Philly by overriding the DA they elected. And despite them starting this several months ago they were dumb enough to move for a formal action just before Halloween even though they couldn't do the trial before the session recessed, so they truly could've waited, but they didn't and it was in the news prominently here. Love the stupidity.
by ti-amie I love reading both Jazz and Dry when they talk about their home state. Thank you both for your insight.
As for Bernie Bros they're GQP in disguise. The man that runs Palmer Report has started calling them out for their nonsense.
by ti-amie I was debating whether or not to post this and I shouldn't have had to debate it. The GQP has made it impossible to talk about voter fraud.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by patrick If GOP controls the House by having 218-220 members, you can thank heavy handed DeSantis for making his own map after FL GOP Senate and House decided to keep status quo. DeSantis map change the dynamics from 16-12 GOP to 21-7 GOP which is huge. They split the FL pandhandle which was a Democrat stronghold. The rep in that area lost Tuesday. Also, they split the Orlando area where Demings resides with cutting a little from St Pete/Tampa which reduced Democrat stronghold.
by the Moz Biden and the Dems should be satisfied with their midterm report card, very modest gains in Senate and Governorships and a House still technically up for grabs. It will go GOP and, if by less than a 10-seat majority on the back of net losses in the other two branches, hardly a 'red wave' expected by the election deniers et al. DeSantis' impressive win in FLA also takes considerable wind - or bluster? - out of the Donald's 2024 'The World is Still Flat: Insurrection 2.0' aspirations.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Great.
by ti-amie Political fallout from a different perspective.
by JazzNU
by JazzNU Phil Knight is truly dead to me. Billionaires playing games with people's lives. I'm glad Nike is a different entity from it's co-founder and he's more of a figurehead these days. What an asshole.
► Show Spoiler
by JazzNU
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 7:44 pm
Political fallout from a different perspective.
"There is no one in the PA market that thinks Fetterman ran as a Bernie Progressive."
Because he didn't. He was for the "regular" guy, but that's about it. Went out of his way to stress he wasn't a socialist. Literally ran commercials with his "Trump voting" parents. People pretending he ran as a Bernie progressive are yet again likely going to be those clueless out-of-staters who think they know what's happening in-state but haven't the slightest idea or they are just trying to push that good ole Bernie's ideas are winnings ones narrative even though no such evidence exists outside of small samples in limited geographic areas.
Every single attack ad against him highlighted how much his record was Bernie like, "too progressive for PA" and went into detail most times in the ways he was and that definitely was problematic. Fetterman definitely wasn't highlighting his progressive causes regularly. Left leaning, yes, progressive, not so much.
by JazzNU Also with the Dems winning the PA House, we have a new speaker. First woman ever to hold the position. So, so proud!
by ponchi101 Serious here.
What is the difference (at least in the USA) between a "Progressive" and a "Liberal"? Never mind Bernie Progressive or regular progressive.
Txs
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:23 pm
Serious here.
What is the difference (at least in the USA) between a "Progressive" and a "Liberal"? Never mind Bernie Progressive or regular progressive.
Txs
I don't think that's easily quantified, ponchi. But in crude terms, a liberal typically supports the social safety net, Social Security, law enforcement, the environment, etc. A progressive supports many of the same things as a liberal but tends to take things several steps farther, e.g., guaranteed income, defund the police, Green New Deal, pay off our student loans for the education we couldn't afford, etc. Think of many progressives as a liberal on steroids.
But neither group is a one-size-fits-all for everyone who calls themselves a particular term.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:23 pm
Serious here.
What is the difference (at least in the USA) between a "Progressive" and a "Liberal"? Never mind Bernie Progressive or regular progressive.
Txs
I don't think that's easily quantified, ponchi. But in crude terms, a liberal typically supports the social safety net, Social Security, law enforcement, the environment, etc. A progressive supports many of the same things as a liberal but tends to take things several steps farther, e.g., guaranteed income, defund the police, Green New Deal, pay off our student loans for the education we couldn't afford, etc. Think of many progressives as a liberal on steroids.
But neither group is a one-size-fits-all for everyone who calls themselves a particular term.
Awesome answer.
by ponchi101 Thanks. Sounds a bit like "Liberals without a grasp of reality".
Which is what we have here.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:12 pm
Thanks. Sounds a bit like "Liberals without a grasp of reality".
Which is what we have here.
I don't know. It's not that they necessarily don't have a grasp on reality. What they don't have a grasp for is the broader public's lack of appetite or tolerance for significant change. Just as the far right has its bubbles, the far left does, too.
Yeah, it's his size that did it. Not that other thing. Come now. He ran on a touch on crime/crime reform message and embarrassingly could back it up. His getting sick actually aided him on this front, he wasn't truly grilled after the primary debates on his very shaky past actions and shifting storyline because he was MIA for a very long time and then clearly not in the best of health when he finally was out and it wouldn't have been a good look to attack him fiercely.
Glad he won. But the painting of him like he's some fantastic candidate who ran a great campaign is a complete joke.
by JazzNU
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 3:26 am
Seriously. Who woulda thunk it? I still want Warnock, though. Which from time to time could make Manchin or Sinema irrelevant.
And because Warnock is great and qualified and Walker has no business even sniffing a Senate seat. He desperately needs to spend his time addressing his CTE.
by patrick
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 5:38 am
Hopefully Trump still runs in 2024.
Why, other than to see him and DeSantis trade jabs?
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 5:38 am
Hopefully Trump still runs in 2024.
Why, other than to see him and DeSantis trade jabs?
Because Trump is beatable, DeSantis offers a slight veneer of "not lunacy".
Trump will run and most likely will hold the GOP hostage. If he runs as a GOP, he will tell them "you choose me or I will run as an independent, and will bring you down".
I agree with Suliso here. DeSsantis will beat Biden (or any other dem). But Biden will beat Trump, because this election proves that his persona has caught up with him. Only the most unhinged groups remain with him.
by Suliso I don't know if DeSantis would beat a Democrat candidate, but I'm pretty sure Trump would not.
by ponchi101 Who do the dems have, other than Biden? Bernie, Warren, Klobechar, Pete? Non viable.
Unless Biden rights up the economy, I don't think he wins reelection. And you know I have posted he has been very, very good. But I don't buy groceries in the USA.
by Suliso Sitting presidents are rarely defeated these days. One has to be as terrible as Trump to accomplish that. Anyway economic situation in late 2024 is completely unknown.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 3:21 pm
Who do the dems have, other than Biden? Bernie, Warren, Klobechar, Pete? Non viable.
Unless Biden rights up the economy, I don't think he wins reelection. And you know I have posted he has been very, very good. But I don't buy groceries in the USA.
We spent $533 on groceries last week. And we didn't buy anything extravagant. Just the usual stuff. Everything is crazy expensive. And everything is far cheaper here than you would find in major metropolitan areas. Honestly, I don't know how folks on limited or fixed incomes are managing.
by Suliso For how long will these groceries last you dry? Here in Switzerland we pay ca 150 $ per week (two people). We do eat out 1-2 days per week + me in the company canteen (8 $ for a lunch). That would be in addition to these 15 $/week.
by ponchi101 I would not know about Switzerland. But, here in L. America, inflation is running at a higher pace than the USA. Colombia is looking at 20% this year, with the added problem of a devalued currency. Venezuela is not even worth talking about, as it is a special case. Argentina is in dire straits, and the rest of the continent is the same.
It is a worldwide problem, based on issues other than internal politics. But, of course, the believe that the GOP will be able to handle inflation better is ludicrous. We know what they will do: another tax cut for the rich, and nothing else.
by Suliso Switzerland still not so bad - about 3% this year, expected ca 2% next year.
At this rate US will soon be more expensive than here.
by dryrunguy
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 5:12 pm
For how long will these groceries last you dry? Here in Switzerland we pay ca 150 $ per week (two people). We do eat out 1-2 days per week + me in the company canteen (8 $ for a lunch). That would be in addition to these 15 $/week.
We generally go about 2 1/2-3 weeks between trips to the grocery store. But between that time, we do have to stock up on additional fresh produce from the Mennonite store (onions, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, etc.). We have started eating out again, but we only do that about once or twice a month. So we cook a lot.
But compare that to what we were spending on average about 2 years ago. We used to be able to do a full grocery shopping for about $250-$350. And that was without paying much attention to prices. Now, we're watching prices like hawks.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 3:21 pm
Who do the dems have, other than Biden? Bernie, Warren, Klobechar, Pete? Non viable.
Unless Biden rights up the economy, I don't think he wins reelection. And you know I have posted he has been very, very good. But I don't buy groceries in the USA.
We spent $533 on groceries last week. And we didn't buy anything extravagant. Just the usual stuff. Everything is crazy expensive. And everything is far cheaper here than you would find in major metropolitan areas. Honestly, I don't know how folks on limited or fixed incomes are managing.
$85 at Trader Joes gets me 2 brown bags of groceries which consists of mostly frozen vegetables, salmon, chicken, root vegetables, dairy, eggs, some microwavable TJ products and a few assorted snacks. $85 at my local grocery store gets me maybe 3/4 of a brown bag of groceries.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Interesting
by ponchi101 I hope he gave it to them in Crypto.
by ti-amieFTX Turmoil Raises Risk That Two Huge Political Donors Will Fade
Sam Bankman-Fried and Ryan Salame spent more than almost anyone else on the US midterms. On the day of the vote, Binance moved to buy FTX amid a liquidity crunch.
By Laura Davison and Sonali Basak
November 8, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC
The end of crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX.com exchange may also wipe out two major US political donors.
Bankman-Fried, known as SBF, threw more money at Democrats this cycle than anyone but George Soros, according to OpenSecrets data. One of his top lieutenants, Ryan Salame, has been bankrolling Republicans at almost the same pace as Steve Schwarzman and Peter Thiel
The two men spent a combined $61.3 million in this election cycle. But on Election Day, when they might’ve been watching to see how their investments in the political process were playing out, FTX found itself caught in a firestorm of speculation and outflows. That culminated in a bombshell announcement from Bankman-Fried: FTX was being bought by rival crypto exchange Binance.
The latest earthquake to rock the crypto world raises fresh concerns about whether the industry’s newly minted ultra-rich will follow through on their plans to give large sums in the 2024 elections. Bankman-Fried, who had been likened to Warren Buffett, already backtracked last month on a statement that he would spend up to $1 billion in the next presidential election.
It’s a sharp departure from earlier in this midterm election cycle, when it looked as if the crypto bros were growing their political influence. Despite the collapse in the price of Bitcoin, boldface names in the world of digital assets — Mike Novogratz, Barry Silbert and the Winklevoss twins — opened their (physical) wallets to Washington with their industry at a crossroads and regulations looming large.
“Sam’s political engagement sort of triggered in my mind that there must be some value here, where previously I might have been under the assumption that you couldn't have as much impact with spending on the political side,” Salame, co-chief executive officer of FTX Digital Markets, said in an interview last week.
He declined to comment Tuesday on the events surrounding FTX.
As Salame tells it, crypto has yet to become deeply partisan. The decentralized technology naturally appeals to those with a libertarian streak, but left-leaning adopters also tout its ability to expand finance to those shut out from traditional banking. It’s new enough that few voters consider it a political issue, resulting in joint efforts in Congress by Democrats and Republicans to write crypto legislation.
That’s borne out when looking at the giving of others in the crypto industry.
Digital Currency Group Chairman Silbert has directed about two-thirds of his political giving to Republicans and one-third to Democrats. Galaxy Digital’s Novogratz gives exclusively to Democrats. Gemini crypto exchange co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss give mostly to GOP causes, but occasionally donate to crypto-friendly Democrats including senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Kyrsten Sinema.
“We are avoiding a full-fledged polarized debate on crypto, which is great,” Salame said.
Yet there’s almost zero overlap between how Salame and Bankman-Fried have directed their money.
Salame has allocated $15 million, or 63% of his $23.6 million spending this cycle, to his political action committee, American Dream Federal Action, which has produced at least a dozen ads in support of Republicans including Alabama Senate candidate Katie Britt and Florida House hopeful Aaron Bean. Those commercials cite the candidates strong ties to former President Donald Trump, as well as anti-abortion and pro-Second Amendment stances.
The remainder has gone directly to other candidates and groups, including Republican Senate candidates Blake Masters and Lisa Murkowski and the non-partisan GMI PAC, which advocates for the crypto industry.
Bankman-Fried, for his part, has directed $27 million of his almost $40 million in political spending to the Protect Our Future PAC. He’s the primary donor to the political action committee, which endorsed candidates including New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez and Peter Welch, a Democrat running for Senate from Vermont. (Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates gun-safety measures and is backed by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg LP, has also contributed to Bankman-Fried’s PAC.)
That money has already been spent. Whether the two will continue to rank among the top US political donors come 2024 will remain a pressing question — for both parties.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:38 pm
We spent $533 on groceries last week. And we didn't buy anything extravagant. Just the usual stuff. Everything is crazy expensive. And everything is far cheaper here than you would find in major metropolitan areas. Honestly, I don't know how folks on limited or fixed incomes are managing.
$85 at Trader Joes gets me 2 brown bags of groceries which consists of mostly frozen vegetables, salmon, chicken, root vegetables, dairy, eggs, some microwavable TJ products and a few assorted snacks. $85 at my local grocery store gets me maybe 3/4 of a brown bag of groceries.
Agreed. Also, I'm not quite sure that living in or near a big city is bad when it comes to this (NYC prices not included - we've been over this, you don't want to get me started on the outrageous prices and what I had to pay for a small box of Better Cheddars at the damn supermarket on the Upper East Side a million years ago - I remain bitter). We have competition in a way that a rural market doesn't. I can't easily go to one single store and expect to walk out paying the same as I did 20 years ago, but it's been that way for several years, not just the last year when inflation has gotten bad.
I mix regular local grocery chain (earn gas rewards), independent grocery store with great produce section, Wegman's, Trader Joe's and Target (earn cash back and gift cards) on the regular with some trips to Costco mixed in. And actually got a discounted BJs membership recently too because something I got regularly at Costco was costing $10 over what it used to, and was still the lower price at BJs and the membership cost would be paid for easily in the difference.
There are savings to be had when there are more options. But you have to work for it a little more.
As for those on limited or fixed incomes - in this area, many lean on food pantries for help - but again, food insecurity has been a growing problem for several years, not remotely a new thing because of recent inflation. It's why there's a decent number of cupboards and pantries already up and running.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 These people are so unhinged that maybe they did not vote for HIS candidates. But I still say they will vote for him.
There's something cruel to his candidacy. It's a little like messing with someone who has mental challenges. It's never sat well politically or humanely.
There's something cruel to his candidacy. It's a little like messing with someone who has mental challenges. It's never sat well politically or humanely.
There's something cruel to his candidacy. It's a little like messing with someone who has mental challenges. It's never sat well politically or humanely.
Do you think he has some mental handicaps? By that I mean some syndrome or something along that line.
He certainly is a man of great ignorance, to say the least. But I am not sure this is what you refer to.
by ti-amie This is how many in the GQP see African Americans. It was the same with Clarence Thomas. Neither Walker nor Thomas understand that.
There's something cruel to his candidacy. It's a little like messing with someone who has mental challenges. It's never sat well politically or humanely.
Do you think he has some mental handicaps? By that I mean some syndrome or something along that line.
He certainly is a man of great ignorance, to say the least. But I am not sure this is what you refer to.
Most people think he has CTE.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Via Wiki
About
Gisele Barreto Fetterman is a Brazilian-American activist, philanthropist and nonprofit executive. She is a founder of the non-profit Freestore 15104 and a co-founder of the non-profits For Good PGH and 412 Food Rescue. Wikipedia
Born: February 27, 1982 (age 40 years), Rio de Janeiro, State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Party: Democratic Party
Children: Grace Fetterman, Karl Fetterman, August Fetterman
Spouse: John Fetterman (m. 2008)
There's something cruel to his candidacy. It's a little like messing with someone who has mental challenges. It's never sat well politically or humanely.
Do you think he has some mental handicaps? By that I mean some syndrome or something along that line.
He certainly is a man of great ignorance, to say the least. But I am not sure this is what you refer to.
I can't say for sure he does, but likely some CTE. I do feel he's a very simple, ignorant man who seems easily led.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 NO, NO, NO. "WE" is too big a group. SOME Americans are better than that. MOST Americans. But there is a particular group that is not.
by ti-amie
I never post these but since the MSM is more interested in racing TMZ et al to the bottom and treating politics like some celebrity bake off The White House is getting more aggressive in posting its accomplishments.
by ponchi101 And he is unpopular.
And the dems lost congress.
Don't get it.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan Rick Caruso's developments aren't all that well liked in LA.
Yeah, I don't think he has the mettle (or ability to appropriately dominate) to make the right choice of bill to put up for vote at the right time.
by ponchi101 Who says he will be there to put up votes or bring proper legislation to the floor?
He will be there to torpedo this administration. That will be is sole purpose, the same way that McConnel was there solely to obstruct Obama. And that, he can do very well.
Prepare for 2 years of Hunter Biden being on the floor every other day, plus Fauci giving the same testimony over and over again.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:39 pm
Who says he will be there to put up votes or bring proper legislation to the floor?
He will be there to torpedo this administration. That will be is sole purpose, the same way that McConnel was there solely to obstruct Obama. And that, he can do very well.
Prepare for 2 years of Hunter Biden being on the floor every other day, plus Fauci giving the same testimony over and over again.
Ponchi's Psychic Hot Line is now up and running. Inflation? Crime? Y'all went for that?
Oh and thanks to corrupt and petty former NYS Governor Cuomo for subjecting the country to this for another two years.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Rex Chapman
@RexChapman
Jim Jordan and Jamie Comer are from Ohio and Kentucky respectively. Their constituencies are FLOODED WITH DRUG ADDICTS.
They have no shame.
by ti-amie
It should also be mentioned that if the Dems in the House elect Jeffries as their Leader New York State elected officials will control both the Senate and the House.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 No, he won't.
Because you have a "only two parties" system, when one of them is in power, the other has none. Zero.
So this man may be as eloquent as can be. As smart as can be. And the GOP could not care less. That's how the system works.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:35 pm
No, he won't.
Because you have a "only two parties" system, when one of them is in power, the other has none. Zero.
So this man may be as eloquent as can be. As smart as can be. And the GOP could not care less. That's how the system works.
I vehemently disagree, ponchi. If Republicans get the likely 5-vote majority that's predicted, then Democrats in the House only need to find 6 reasonable Republicans to go along with their...
Oh, wait...
Scratch that.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Tax cuts for everybody. That's the plan.
Everybody that makes $1MM/year, that is. Everybody else is a nobody, after all.
by ti-amie And the msm will treat these shenanigans as real news because the GQP has no platform and they want to maintain the fiction that they are a real political party.
I would like the GOP to explain how this has harmed the American people to such the degree that it requires a congressional investigation. I'm also fine with sacrificing him to shut the republicans up about this nonsense.
by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:39 pm
Who says he will be there to put up votes or bring proper legislation to the floor?
He will be there to torpedo this administration. That will be is sole purpose, the same way that McConnel was there solely to obstruct Obama. And that, he can do very well.
Prepare for 2 years of Hunter Biden being on the floor every other day, plus Fauci giving the same testimony over and over again.
This is probably the best time for a small/medium cadre of republicans dump the extremism, go back to mildly rational legislators, and maybe help fully take trumpism down. folks seem to have soured somewhat on him. Like Dry said it's only a likely 6 votes.....(Liz Cheney and Adam Ratzinger can't have been the only ones, there's gotta be a couple more spines)
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:35 pm
No, he won't.
Because you have a "only two parties" system, when one of them is in power, the other has none. Zero.
So this man may be as eloquent as can be. As smart as can be. And the GOP could not care less. That's how the system works.
I vehemently disagree, ponchi. If Republicans get the likely 5-vote majority that's predicted, then Democrats in the House only need to find 6 reasonable Republicans to go along with their...
You mean 6 Republicans who don't want to be reelected in two years, right?
Yes, sure. Those bad people that stopped talking to you when you became part of a criminal enterprise, and it came clear that you are part of the most corrupt family in the USA.
The poor darling.
Yes, sure. Those bad people that stopped talking to you when you became part of a criminal enterprise, and it came clear that you are part of the most corrupt family in the USA.
The poor darling.
To be fair, she's been a member of a criminal enterprise for a long time, and it didn't bother her 'friends' then, and probably most of them are part of criminal enterprises of their own.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 And that is news, Seth?
by ti-amie He's making sure the folks in the back heard him?
I used to live right by the Kushner's home in the DC, so when I ran by their house on my daily run, I would yell F-Trump every time. On the few occasions I would actually see the Kushners, I would yell loudly that they were criminals, and sometimes their children were with them. That was one way I got through living through those 4 years.
by ti-amie Guys the exclusive school they were sending their kids to asked them to leave, they being the Kushners.
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump moved their kids to a new school after parents complained about the couple not following coronavirus protocols
Ashley Collman Nov 12, 2020, 12:10 PM
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:12 am
Guys the exclusive school they were sending their kids to asked them to leave, they being the Kushners.
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump moved their kids to a new school after parents complained about the couple not following coronavirus protocols
Ashley Collman Nov 12, 2020, 12:10 PM
I know some of juniors kids were counseled out as well.
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy Fulton County is, basically, the county south/south southwest of where I live.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie The reason his residence came up.
by ponchi101 In a normal country, that disqualifies him, right?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Philip Bump
@pbump@journa.host
That article gave me a chance to revisit my graph looking at Fox News's amplification of crime prior to the election — and then afterward.
by ponchi101 Excuse me?
"Sends a clear sign that the white power movements are infiltrating the far right flank of the GOP"
And in which way is this news? And infiltrating? The Far Right flank of the GOP IS a white power movement.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie MeidasTouch :verified:
@MeidasTouch@mstdn.social
This photo gets better and better the more you look at it (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
by ponchi101 Don't get it.
Unless it is the simple fact that the three dems are smiling and the other two are waiting for the healing powers of the Preparation H to kick in.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:45 pm
Don't get it.
Unless it is the simple fact that the three dems are smiling and the other two are waiting for the healing powers of the Preparation H to kick in.
See, you do get it - the look on McCarthy's face.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie There's a county in Pennsylvania that is also refusing to certify election results.
by Owendonovan The hills some people choose to die on......
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Ms. Clark is from Massachusetts
Mr. Jeffres is from NYC
Mr. Aguilar is from California
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Marc Elias
@marcelias BREAKING: Hours after an Arizona Court orders it to do so, Cochise County, AZ votes 2-0 to certify the election.
by dryrunguy Today's NY Times newsletter had a really good explanation of the averted railroad strike. I knew these folks had it bad. But I didn't know it was THIS bad. And still no paid sick leave.
::
The route ahead
Congress and President Biden imposed a labor agreement between major railroad companies and their workers last week, averting the possibility of a strike that would have disrupted the economy in the middle of the holiday shopping season. The agreement gives rail workers a pay raise and other benefits but not paid medical leave. I spoke to my colleague Peter S. Goodman, who covers supply chains, about what’s behind the workers’ discontent.
Ian: The deal that Congress enforced is one that the Biden administration helped negotiate earlier this year, which several unions rejected. Why were they against it?
Peter: The lack of paid sick leave caused the workers I spoke with to vote it down, that and draconian scheduling policies. Rail workers are constantly missing wedding anniversaries, funerals, birthday parties. It’s baked into the job. But in addition to that, there’s pressure to be at the job site even when they’ve got emergencies or sick children.
Here’s an example. I talked to a guy named Anthony Gunter, who’s based in eastern Tennessee and worked on maintenance crews repairing tracks for Norfolk Southern Railway. His dad had worked there for 40 years, and Gunter remembers trying to sneak into his duffel bag as a kid to join him on the road. Gunter regularly worked four 10-hour shifts in a row, swinging giant hammers, pounding stakes into railroad ties. His son had been born with a heart defect, and last year he stayed home for his son’s surgery. His supervisor pressured him to come back, saying: “You’re putting me in a tough spot. You have to be here.” Gunter was furious, so he quit.
Wow. That sounds like a difficult choice. What about workers who ended up supporting the deal?
There was unhappiness even among workers whose unions voted to ratify it. But their calculus was: Let’s be pragmatic. There’s no way in hell they’re going to let us strike, Congress is going to intervene and this is the best we’re going to get.
The deal did benefit workers on the issue of reimbursements for lodging on the road. Many rail workers spend long periods away from their families, with schedules subject to change. Maintenance gang workers like Gunter, who sometimes drove 12 hours from his home, have traditionally been given reimbursement rates so low that they eat terribly and stay two or three to a room in crappy motels. One worker told me he buys cheap clothes to sleep in and throws them away because he’s scared of bringing bedbugs home to his family. So higher reimbursement rates are a victory.
Have working conditions always been this bad for rail workers?
From the beginning, in the 19th century, the railroads were run by financiers who operated them as financial assets, often to the detriment of service. Union Pacific, one of the companies that built the Transcontinental Railroad, made a priority of securing land from the federal government instead of creating efficient routes. Another company pressed Chinese laborers into service to build the tracks to drive down wages. So railroads have always employed fairly ruthless techniques to keep a lid on costs while rewarding investors.
And you can argue that what they’ve done in recent years is about gratifying Wall Street. They laid off nearly a third of their work force before the pandemic, worsening freight service while increasing profits, and handed out handsome stock dividends. It’s good for shareholders. It’s good for investors. But shippers have complained, and it’s miserable for workers because there are fewer people to do the same amount of work.
It seems unusual for the president and Congress to have this much say over labor disputes.
Yeah, the Railway Labor Act, which gives them this power, is an outlier. It goes all the way back to tumultuous strikes in 1877 that shut down rail service and prompted the president to send in troops. Because there are now alternatives to shipping by rail, like trucking, many labor experts argue that it’s an outdated system that gives the railroads leverage over their work force. Rail workers can try to strike, but their only real play is to threaten to sabotage the American supply chain, to disrupt economic life for everyone.
As you noted, we now have trucks to move cargo. So how essential are trains today?
A hell of a lot of stuff still travels by rail — 40 percent of freight in the U.S. And it’s a central piece of the global supply chain. What we’ve learned through the great supply chain disruption during the pandemic is that if any part of that system slows down, we get backups everywhere else.
A strike would have produced a real economic shock. There would have been shortages of chlorine used in wastewater treatment plants and chemicals used to make paints and fertilizers. It would have meant higher prices for crops and other goods at a time when people are already paying more for groceries because of inflation. It would have disrupted jobs that depend on rail to move stuff, whether it’s retail workers or contractors working on houses.
It’s clear that the Biden administration recognized the political pitfalls of telling rail workers that the work they do is more important than the terms of their compensation. Biden was clearly spooked by the prospect of another supply chain crisis on his watch. And he opted not to force the railroads to swallow paid sick leave as the cost of averting a strike.
by patrick But Congress have unlimited sick leave while rejecting the rail proposal one,
by ti-amie
Brian Pritchard — a Republican talk show host and candidate for Georgia House — broke a state law against voting by people convicted of a felony.
The North Georgia conservative was on probation for felony forgery and theft when he illegally voted at least nine times while still serving his sentence.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by dryrunguy I am by no means an expert in such things. But with 82% of the Georgia vote in, only 55% of Fulton County in, only 68% of Cobb County in, only 59% of Chatham County in, the overwhelming majority of the rural conservative vote in, and Warnock currently 19,000 votes ahead, things are looking quite optimistic for Warnock. At least for now.
CNN reported a little while ago that an anonymous source in the Walker campaign stated the rural numbers weren't as good as they hoped. We'll see.
by dryrunguy I'm going to say Warnock will win by about 50K-75K votes. But I'm not good at math. I just don't know where or how Walker can recover. This map makes things pretty clear. There are hundreds of votes still to go his way in rural Georgia counties. But there are still thousands upon thousands of votes to be had in Fulton, Cobb, and DeKalb counties--all Democratic strongholds. That said, they all have conservative suburban areas too.
by dryrunguy And just like that, CNN calls it for Warnock.
Whew.
by ashkor87 Not being a US citizen, I should not comment but this rural-urban divide is quite disturbing...not good for the country..
by ponchi101 It is a characteristic of the USA hyper-divided political spectrum. City-dwellers = DEMS, Rural-Population = GOPS. Makes it for more division as you have that odd "electoral college" split, and you get delegates by county.
Of course, it is the sole way the GOP remains a force. So it will not change.
As you say, not good for the country.
by dryrunguy In other news, apparently police were called to Ted Cruz's home late last night because his eldest daughter, 14, had self-inflicted stab wounds. No serious injuries. This report also includes a detail about her I didn't not know. You have two wonder if the two things are related.
by ti-amie You would think that MAGAts would look at this and think about the effect their words have on young people but you'd be wrong. It's all a plot by the Democrats.
The family deserves privacy at this time.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101
by Owendonovan Seems odd that Ted Cruz's daughter's suicide attempt isn't really being called that.
by ponchi101 It hadn't dawn on me that that could be a possibility.
by ponchi101 Brittney Griner has been released from Russia and is on her way to the USA. The Biden Administration traded "The Merchant of Death" for her.
Because, you know, this is the worst administration ever.
by Deuce
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:59 pm
Brittney Griner has been released from Russia and is on her way to the USA. The Biden Administration traded "The Merchant of Death" for her.
Because, you know, this is the worst administration ever.
From a country that is obsessed with 'celebrity', and which has elected numerous 'celebrities' to high political office, this seems like yet another case of typical American celebrity favouritism, as Griner is more of a 'famous celebrity' than is Paul Whelan...
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:52 am
Seems odd that Ted Cruz's daughter's suicide attempt isn't really being called that.
Stumbled onto this debate since Ted is trending on my Twitter TL.
All families have issues and I still think that the family should be allowed privacy at this time. I can't help but think that if this was the child of a Democrat there would be people slamming the family and the child 24/7. As a parent of an adult child even if the child was pissed at me I would be there for them come hell or high water.
In response someone posted this video of Ted and his daughter from a few years ago. Awkward doesn't begin to describe it.
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:52 am
Seems odd that Ted Cruz's daughter's suicide attempt isn't really being called that.
Stumbled onto this debate since Ted is trending on my Twitter TL.
All families have issues and I still think that the family should be allowed privacy at this time. I can't help but think that if this was the child of a Democrat there would be people slamming the family and the child 24/7. As a parent of an adult child even if the child was pissed at me I would be there for them come hell or high water.
In response someone posted this video of Ted and his daughter from a few years ago. Awkward doesn't begin to describe it.
The incredibly strong biases of the people of the United States NEVER ceases to amaze me... There is so little objectivity in that country that it's despicable. Biases usually run along political lines (EVERYTHING your favourite political party does is wonderful, and EVERYTHING that the opposing political party does is horrible). But many other biases and prejudices exist, as well.
The incredible biases and complete lack of any degree of objectivity is truly astounding. And so glaringly obvious to those of us outside of the U.S. who can look at it objectively.
I can guarantee that every child has reacted that way many times when a parent has tried to hug and/or kiss them. Especially in a public setting. So posting this video in the context of an indication that Cruz and his daughter don't love each other is truly despicable. But it is also very typical of 'social media' - especially in the United States.
I don't give a load of dung about Ted Cruz. To me, he's a politician, and so is inherently manipulative and dishonest when it comes to anything related to political matters. But that doesn't mean that he's a terrible father.
Maybe he is a terrible father. Maybe he's a good father. I don't know - and neither do any of the people criticizing him who have never met him or his daughter. Just because he belongs to the political party that is not your favourite political party does not mean he is a terrible father.
I do care about his 14 year old daughter. It must be extremely difficult for her to have such a well known father... hearing and seeing people say all kinds of nasty things about him publicly... Imagine how difficult that must be to deal with at school, etc. (no matter if it's public or private school, other kids can be extremely cruel). She has apparently (I say 'apparently' because I know that the media cannot be trusted to tell the truth) come out as being attracted to girls/women - and that adds another element/layer of difficulty for her to deal with. She's not 42 years old - she's 14, for god's sake. Inflicting physical harm on herself was obviously a 'cry for help' - as cliché as that may sound, it's also true 99% of the time that teenagers harm themselves.
ti - you've stated several times (correctly) that the Cruz family deserves privacy and to be left alone at this time... but at the same time, you continue to post provocative things from 'social media' about the family and about this particular situation with the 14 year old daughter.
That's a contradiction.
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:55 pm
Was there ever any doubt?
No.
I can't even think of anybody else that would even enter the discussion.
Honorary mention. Small honorary mention. Tiny honorary mention. Remote honorary mention: Uncle Joe.
Look at the rest of the world. Look at South America. Sure, you guys have inflation. But this man has kept the USA steady, with millions of people rooting for nothing more than the utter failure of the country.
by Owendonovan Re; Ted Cruz's daughter. As a teenage out bisexual with a parent that publicly rallies and legislates against that teenager, though not specifically, has to really suck. If I didn't know better, I'd call that emotional and psychological abuse which can easily lead to self harm. This young girl needs help, no doubt. I'm not sure where one turns when your father is an outspoken politician. Americans love this grist.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 AH! NOW I get it...
by ti-amie
Palmer Report @PalmerReport
Replying to @PalmerReport
We'll see how those numbers shift over the next year-plus. But for now, to presume that Sinema would win a two way race is faulty. And to presume that Democrats' odds would be worse in a three way race is also faulty. Sinema is borderline non-viable for 2024 already.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 When has she been despised by the GOP? Ok, she is LGBT+, but she clicks with them very, very frequently.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 11:31 pm
When has she been despised by the GOP? Ok, she is LGBT+, but she clicks with them very, very frequently.
Is she though? LGBTQ+ ?
I put her in the same category as Tiny. If her lips are moving she's lying.
The GQP will use her but I hope the money she's raking in from special interests is being invested...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Prameela B @PrameelaB
Replying to
@bluestein
When is the special election to replace him?
by ti-amie This story has rocked New York State politics to put it mildly.
What happened to oppo research?
What can be done to make sure this person is never seated?
Journalists are saying this happened because "local" papers like the WSJ, NYTimes, Newsday (Long Island Centered newspaper) and the Daily News have either eliminated or severely cut back on reporters covering local politcs.
It also seems that the Dems did have information on this fraud but that no one ever sat down and connected the dots.
Personally I think they should either declare his victory null and void and seat the loser (A Democrat) or call for a special election. Governor Hochul has a big decision to make.
Who Is Rep.-Elect George Santos? His Résumé May Be Largely Fiction.
Mr. Santos, a Republican from New York, says he’s the “embodiment of the American dream.” But he seems to have misrepresented a number of his career highlights.
George Santos, at the Republican Jewish Coalition in November, said he worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, but neither firm had records of his employment.Credit...Mikayla Whitmore for The New York Times
By Grace Ashford and Michael Gold
Dec. 19, 2022
Updated 8:51 a.m. ET
George Santos, whose election to Congress on Long Island last month helped Republicans clinch a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, built his candidacy on the notion that he was the “full embodiment of the American dream” and was running to safeguard it for others.
His campaign biography amplified his storybook journey: He is the son of Brazilian immigrants, and the first openly gay Republican to win a House seat as a non-incumbent. By his account, he catapulted himself from a New York City public college to become a “seasoned Wall Street financier and investor” with a family-owned real estate portfolio of 13 properties and an animal rescue charity that saved more than 2,500 dogs and cats.
But a New York Times review of public documents and court filings from the United States and Brazil, as well as various attempts to verify claims that Mr. Santos, 34, made on the campaign trail, calls into question key parts of the résumé that he sold to voters.
Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, the marquee Wall Street firms on Mr. Santos’s campaign biography, told The Times they had no record of his ever working there. Officials at Baruch College, which Mr. Santos has said he graduated from in 2010, could find no record of anyone matching his name and date of birth graduating that year.
There was also little evidence that his animal rescue group, Friends of Pets United, was, as Mr. Santos claimed, a tax-exempt organization: The Internal Revenue Service could locate no record of a registered charity with that name.
His financial disclosure forms suggest a life of some wealth. He lent his campaign more than $700,000 during the midterm election, has donated thousands of dollars to other candidates in the last two years and reported a $750,000 salary and over $1 million in dividends from his company, the Devolder Organization.
Yet the firm, which has no public website or LinkedIn page, is something of a mystery. On a campaign website, Mr. Santos once described Devolder as his “family’s firm” that managed $80 million in assets. On his congressional financial disclosure, he described it as a capital introduction consulting company, a type of boutique firm that serves as a liaison between investment funds and deep-pocketed investors. But Mr. Santos’s disclosures did not reveal any clients, an omission three election law experts said could be problematic if such clients exist.
And while Mr. Santos has described a family fortune in real estate, he has not disclosed, nor could The Times find, records of his properties.
Mr. Santos’s eight-point victory, in a district in northern Long Island and northeast Queens that previously favored Democrats, was considered a mild upset. He had lost decisively in the same district in 2020 to Tom Suozzi, then the Democratic incumbent, and had seemed to be too wedded to former President Donald J. Trump and his stances to flip his fortunes.
His appearance earlier this month at a gala in Manhattan attended by white nationalists and right-wing conspiracy theorists underscored his ties to Mr. Trump’s right-wing base.
At the same time, new revelations uncovered by The Times — including the omission of key information on Mr. Santos’s personal financial disclosures, and criminal charges for check fraud in Brazil — have the potential to create ethical and possibly legal challenges once he takes office.
Mr. Santos did not respond to repeated requests from The Times that he furnish either documents or a résumé with dates that would help to substantiate the claims he made on the campaign trail. He also declined to be interviewed, and neither his lawyer nor Big Dog Strategies, a Republican-oriented political consulting group that handles crisis management, responded to a detailed list of questions.
The lawyer, Joe Murray, said in a short statement that it was “no surprise that Congressman-elect Santos has enemies at The New York Times who are attempting to smear his good name with these defamatory allegations.”
A criminal case in Brazil
Mr. Santos has said he was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Brazil and was raised in the borough. His father, he has said, is Catholic and has roots in Angola. His mother, Fatima Devolder, was descended from migrants who fled Jewish persecution in Ukraine and World War II strife in Belgium. Mr. Santos has described himself as a nonobservant Jew but has also said he is Catholic.
Records show that Mr. Santos’s mother, who died in 2016, lived for a time in the Brazilian city of Niterói, a Rio suburb where she was employed as a nurse. After Mr. Santos obtained a high school equivalency diploma, he apparently also spent some time there.
In 2008, when Mr. Santos was 19, he stole the checkbook of a man his mother was caring for, according to Brazilian court records uncovered by The Times. Police and court records show that Mr. Santos used the checkbook to make fraudulent purchases, including a pair of shoes. Two years later, Mr. Santos confessed to the crime and was later charged.
The court and local prosecutor in Brazil confirmed the case remains unresolved. Mr. Santos did not respond to an official summons, and a court representative could not find him at his given address, records show.
That period in Brazil overlapped with when Mr. Santos said he was attending Baruch College, where he has said he was awarded a bachelor’s degree in economics and finance. But Baruch College said it was unable to find records of Mr. Santos — using multiple variations of his first, middle and last names — having graduated in 2010, as he has claimed.
A biography of Mr. Santos on the website of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the House Republicans’ campaign arm, also includes a stint at New York University. The claim is not repeated elsewhere, and an N.Y.U. spokesman found no attendance records matching his name and birth date.
After he said he graduated from college, Mr. Santos began working at Citigroup, eventually becoming “an associate asset manager” in the company’s real estate division, according to a version of his biography that was on his campaign site as recently as April.
A spokeswoman for Citigroup, Danielle Romero-Apsilos, said the company could not confirm Mr. Santos’s employment. She also said she was unfamiliar with Mr. Santos’s self-described job title and noted that Citi had sold off its asset management operations in 2005.
A previous campaign biography of Mr. Santos indicates that he left Citi to work at a Turkey-based hospitality technology company, MetGlobal, and other profiles mention a brief role at Goldman Sachs. MetGlobal executives could not be reached for comment. Abbey Collins, a spokeswoman at Goldman Sachs, said she could not locate any record of Mr. Santos’s having worked at the company.
Attempts to find co-workers who could confirm his employment were unsuccessful, in part because Mr. Santos has not provided specific dates for his time at these companies.
He has also asserted that his professional life had intersected with tragedy: He said in an interview on WNYC that his company, which he did not identify, “lost four employees” at the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando in June 2016. But a Times review of news coverage and obituaries found that none of the 49 victims appear to have worked at the various firms named in his biography.
After two evictions, a reversal of fortunes
As he was purportedly climbing the corporate ranks, Mr. Santos claimed to have founded Friends of Pets United, which he ran for five years beginning in 2013. As a candidate, he cited the group as proof of a history of philanthropic work.
Though remnants of the group and its efforts could be found on Facebook, the I.R.S. was not able to find any record showing that the group held the tax-exempt status that Mr. Santos claimed. Neither the New York nor New Jersey attorney general’s offices could find records of Friends of Pets United having been registered as a charity.
Friends of Pets United held at least one fund-raiser with a New Jersey animal rescue group in 2017; the invitation promised drinks, donated raffle items and a live band. Mr. Santos charged $50 for entry, according to an online fund-raising page that promoted the event. But the event’s beneficiary, who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution, said that she never received any of the funds, with Mr. Santos only offering repeated excuses for not forwarding the money.
During that same period, Mr. Santos was also facing apparent financial difficulties. In November 2015, a landlord in the Whitestone neighborhood of Queens filed an eviction suit in housing court accusing Mr. Santos of owing $2,250 in unpaid rent.
The landlord, Maria Tulumba, said in an interview that Mr. Santos had been a “nice guy” and a “respectful” tenant. But she said that he had financial problems that led to the eviction case, declining to elaborate further. The judge ruled in favor of Ms. Tulumba.
In May 2017, Mr. Santos faced another eviction case, from a rent-stabilized apartment in Sunnyside, Queens. Mr. Santos’s landlord accused him of owing more than $10,000 in rent stretching over five months and said in court records that one of his tenant’s checks had bounced. A warrant of eviction was issued, and Mr. Santos was fined $12,208 in a civil judgment.
By early 2021, Mr. Santos was becoming vocal on housing issues but not from a tenant perspective. During New York’s pandemic-era eviction moratorium, Mr. Santos said on Twitter that he was a landlord affected by the freeze.
“Will we landlords ever be able to take back possession of our property?” he wrote.
Mr. Santos said that he and his family had not been paid rent on their 13 properties in nearly a year, adding that he had offered rental assistance to some tenants, but found that some were “flat out taking advantage of the situation.”
But Mr. Santos has not listed properties in New York on required financial disclosure forms for either of his campaigns; the only real estate that he mentioned was an apartment in Rio de Janeiro. Property records databases in New York City and Nassau County did not show any documents or deeds associated with him, immediate family members or the Devolder Organization.
It is unclear what might have led to Mr. Santos’s apparent reversal in fortunes. By the time he launched his first run for the House, in November 2019, Mr. Santos was working in business development at a company called LinkBridge Investors that says it connects investors with fund managers.
Mr. Santos eventually became a vice president there, according to a company document and a May 2020 campaign disclosure form where he declared earnings of $55,000 in salary, commission and bonuses.
Mr. Santos, campaigning before Election Day, captured the race for the Third Congressional District, a contest he lost in 2020. Credit...Mary Altaffer/Associated Press
Over the next two years, Mr. Santos bounced between several ill-fated ventures. As he ran for Congress, he moved from LinkBridge to take on a new role as regional director of Harbor City Capital, a Florida-based investment company.
Harbor City, which attracted investors with YouTube videos and guarantees of double-digit returns, soon garnered attention from the S.E.C., which filed a lawsuit accusing the company and its founder of running a $17 million Ponzi scheme. Neither Mr. Santos nor other colleagues were named in the lawsuit, and Mr. Santos has publicly denied having any knowledge of the scheme.
Two weeks later, a handful of former Harbor City executives formed a company called Red Strategies USA, as reported by The Daily Beast. Corporate filings listed the Devolder Organization as a partial owner — even though the papers to register Devolder would not be filed for another week.
Red Strategies was short lived: Federal campaign records show it did political consulting work for at least one politician — Tina Forte, a Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in November — before it was dissolved in September for failing to file an annual report.
The Devolder Organization seems to have flourished as Mr. Santos ran for office. According to Mr. Santos’s disclosures, his work there earned him a salary of $750,000. By the time it too was dissolved — also for failing to file an annual report — Mr. Santos reported that it was worth more than a million dollars.
A November win raises new questions
Mr. Santos announced his intent to make a second run at Congress almost immediately after the end of his first. He figured to again be an underdog in the district, which largely favored President Biden in 2020.
But things began to swing in his favor. Republicans in Nassau performed well in local elections in 2021. Mr. Suozzi opted to not run for re-election in 2022, instead launching an unsuccessful bid for governor. And with high turnout expected in a midterm election that also featured a governor’s race, Mr. Santos’s race became more competitive — and his campaign stance became more tempered.
During his first campaign, Mr. Santos, an adherent of Mr. Trump, opposed mask mandates and abortion access, and defended law enforcement against what he called the “made-up concept” of police brutality.
But during his second campaign, older posts on Twitter were suddenly deleted, including his claims of election fraud that he said cost Mr. Trump the election in 2020. In March 2021, he resurfaced the claim, writing on Twitter in a since-deleted post, “My new campaign team has 4 former loyal Trump staffers that pushed him over the finish line TWICE, yes I said TWICE!”
Mr. Santos also briefly claimed without evidence in another since-deleted tweet that he had been a victim of fraud in his first congressional race, at one point using the hashtag #StopTheSteal, a reference to a slogan associated with Mr. Trump’s false election claims.
And while he previously boasted that he attended the Jan. 6 rally (but, he has said, not the riot) in support of Mr. Trump in Washington, he has since ducked questions about his attendance and a prior claim that he had written “a nice check for a law firm” to assist some rioters with their legal bills.
Mr. Santos’s improved circumstances are evident on the official financial disclosure form he filed in September with the House of Representatives, though the document still leaves questions about his finances.
In the disclosure, Mr. Santos said that he was the Devolder Organization’s sole owner and managing member. He reported that the company, which is based in New York but was registered in Florida, paid him a $750,000 salary. He also earned dividends from Devolder totaling somewhere between $1 million and $5 million — even though Devolder’s estimated value was listed in the same range.
The Devolder Organization has no public-facing assets or other property that The Times could locate. Mr. Santos’s disclosure form did not provide information about clients that would have contributed to such a haul — a seeming violation of the requirement to disclose any compensation in excess of $5,000 from a single source.
Kedric Payne, the vice president of the watchdog Campaign Legal Center, and a former deputy chief counsel for the Office of Congressional Ethics, was one of three election law experts consulted by The Times who took issue with the lack of detail.
“This report raises red flags because no clients are reported for a multimillion-dollar client services company,” Mr. Payne said, adding: “The congressman-elect should explain what’s going on.”
The Times attempted to interview Mr. Santos at the address where he is registered to vote and that was associated with a campaign donation he made in October, but a person at that address said on Sunday that she was not familiar with him.
Material omissions or misrepresentations on personal financial disclosures are considered a federal crime under the False Statements Act, which carries a maximum penalty of $250,000 and five years in prison. But the bar for these cases is high, given that the statute requires violations to be “knowing and willful.”
The House of Representatives has several internal mechanisms for investigating ethics violations, issuing civil or administrative penalties when it does. Those bodies tend to act largely in egregious cases, particularly if the behavior took place before the member was inaugurated.
Campaign disclosures show that Mr. Santos lived large as a candidate, buying shirts for his staff from Brooks Brothers and charging the campaign for meals at the restaurant inside Bergdorf Goodman.
Mr. Santos also spent a considerable amount of money traveling — charging his campaign roughly $40,000 in flights to places that included California, Texas and Florida. All told, Mr. Santos spent more than $17,000 in Florida, mostly on restaurants and hotels, including at least one evening at the Breakers, a five-star hotel and resort in Palm Beach, three miles up the road from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence.
Manuela Andreoni contributed reporting from Rio de Janeiro, Jay Root contributed reporting from Albany, N.Y., and Susan C. Beachy contributed research.
And it is the DEMS that want to destroy America?
They are like 5 years old. "If I don't get a Twinkie, I will hold my breath forever!".
by ti-amie
I have to check and see if they've found "George Santos". As of yesterday no one knew where he lived.
by ti-amie
Are the Dems finally playing hardball with people like her?
by ti-amie Reports are "George Santos" lives in Florida.
Jon Cooper @joncoopertweets
GET THIS! It turns out the NY Congressman-elect is a FLORIDA resident!
So far off the top of my head only Hawley made it through and was seated. He lives in Virginia or Massachusetts I think. Oz and Walker didn't make it. Let's see what happens with "George Santos".
by ti-amieNew York's alleged GOP fraudster congressman reportedly a registered Florida resident
Story by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movem
George Santos, the Republican congressman-elect for a House seat based in Long Island and Queens, New York, was seemingly exposed as a fraudster by The New York Times on Monday, but even more questions are now arising after he appears to have filed paperwork on Tuesday stating his place of residence is in Florida.
That’s according to two investigative articles from Talking Points Memo.
On Tuesday evening TPM reported that in May of 2021 Santos registered his company, Devolder Organization LLC, which has no website and it’s unclear what the operation actually does, in Florida.
“On his congressional disclosure form he reported $750,000 in income from the company and between $1 million and $5 million in dividends,” TPM adds. “This compares with $55,000 in income he reported two years earlier from a different employer when he ran for the same seat in 2020. But the company was dissolved in September 2022, the same month as the disclosure form was filed, because the company never filed an annual report.”
One day after The New York Times bombshell that appears to show Santos’ claims about where he worked, lived, and went to college are false, the incoming GOP lawmaker “filed documents to have his company reinstated” in Florida.
Just before midnight, the sleuths at TPM added yet another bombshell to the Santos story.
When Santos filled those documents “he listed himself as the registered agent.”
TPM calls that “significant,” and explains why.
“A corporation operating in a jurisdiction needs a registered agent so people and courts will have someone to go to deliver summons, warrants, court filings, all manner of official stuff. You can either use a service that does this for a fee or you can list an individual. Under Florida law that individual must be a resident of Florida. So when Santos filed this form today he attested that he is in fact a resident of the state of Florida.”
by ponchi101 That's it.
I will find ONE county in the USA that has no representatives. I will run for Congress, claiming I LIVE THERE. And then, it will make no difference that I am not even American,
My green card awaits!
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan I've never heard the term "dead to rights". Now, I understand it basically means red-handed.
by ti-amie Here's the article from the local paper that is owned, ironically, by a MAGAt
The Leader Told You So: US Rep-Elect George Santos is a Fraud - and Wanted Criminal
By Niall Fitzgerald
In a story first broken by the North Shore Leader over four months ago, the national media has suddenly discovered that US Congressman-elect George Santos (R-Queens / Nassau) - dubbed "George Scam-tos" by many local political observers - is a deepfake liar who has falsified his background, assets, and contacts. He is fact a wanted petty criminal in Brazil.
The New York Times published a lengthy expose on Santos this week detailing that virtually everything Santos has said, filed and published about himself is a lie.
Santos claims to be a "wealthy man" in corporate finance, who owns mansions in Oyster Bay and the Hamptons; was a graduate of Baruch College and attended New York University; lost four co-workers in the 2016 mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub massacre; has millions in cash assets - and even spoke at local Synagogues claiming he is Jewish. All lies.
Instead, Santos is a really just a petty criminal from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He is currently wanted in Brazil on criminal charges of committing elder fraud and check forgery. He stole checkbooks from the elderly patients of his late mother - who was a home healthcare nurse - and forged the checks to steal merchandise, according to prosecutors in Brazil.
Santos owns no real estate according to the New York Times - and the Leader's earlier reporting. He claimed to own "a mansion" on Tiffany Lane in Oyster Bay Cove, and "a mansion" on Dune Road in the Hamptons. All lies.
Santos never graduated from Baruch College or NYU. Neither school has any record of him, according to the Times. He is a high school drop-out, who earned a High School equivalency diploma.
He claims to have worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup - neither firm has any record of him.
None of the victims of the Pulse mass shooting had any connection to Santos.
And Santos' mother - who passed away in 2016 - and whom Santos claimed was "Jewish" - was instead a devout Catholic named "Fatima" - named by her allegedly "Jewish" parents after a Catholic pilgrimage site in Portugal. Santos shed tears at local synagogues describing how his family "escaped the Holocaust."
Even more serious are the huge financial claims made by Santos in his Federal Election filings and Personal Disclosures filed with the US government. Many of the reports - including an alleged "$600,000 loan" from Santos to his campaign - appear to be fake.
As do huge "disbursements" to Washington DC "consulting firms" that experienced Washington DC professionals say they have never heard of.
"Santos declared his net worth in 2020 to be 'less than $5,000,' but then made a $600,000 loan just a few months later - and now in 2022 he claims he's worth $11 million... it doesn't add up," stated one Long Island political operative.
Lying on federal financial disclosures is a federal criminal felony, with each violation facing up to five (5) years in federal prison.
According to the NYC Courts, Santos was evicted twice in the past five years from rented apartments in Queens - for non-payment of rent.
He claims to now live in a rented apartment in a row house in Queens, however the Times reports that no one knows him at that address.
More disturbing are the connections that Santos does have. A recent report in the Daily Beast, Santos took some $56,000 from a Russian money man named Andrew Intrater - a cousin of Putin crony Viktor Vekselberg, who is under international sanctions.
After receiving the Russian money, Santos attacked Ukraine, claiming the government of Ukrainian President Zelensky was "fascist" and "totalitarian" and implicitly supporting the invasion by Russia. Under criticism, Santos later backtracked and then claimed he was actually "Jewish" and "Ukrainian."
The Leader has previously described Santos as "a Fabulist - a Fake..." who makes "fantasy claims and lies to everyone."
Local political observers have characterized Santos as being like the pathologically-lying con-artist protagonists from the films "Six Degrees of Separation" starring Will Smith, or "The Talented Mr. Ripley" starring Matt Damon. He fools gullible wealthy people into giving him money - and has now conned himself into the US Congress.
Santos will be sworn-in on January 1st, as the new Congressman for New York's 3rd congressional district, which consists of the Towns of Oyster Bay and North Hempstead, and a small portion of northeast Queens.
by Owendonovan I wonder if Santos is actually a US citizen or gay.
by ponchi101 Regardless of where this will end, there has to be some new methods to verify that a candidate is who s/he says s/he is.
Between this guy, and Hershel not even living in Georgia, and Dr Oz not living wherever he was running for, the GOP systematically lies about what they are. Some sort of checks should be in place.
by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:38 pm
Regardless of where this will end, there has to be some new methods to verify that a candidate is who s/he says s/he is.
Between this guy, and Hershel not even living in Georgia, and Dr Oz not living wherever he was running for, the GOP systematically lies about what they are. Some sort of checks should be in place.
It's kind of in line with how TFG said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible." Sadly, it is incredible that that seems to be the mentality of the current GOP.
If someone did this to dogs or cats, there would be fairly universal agreement that this was cruel and inhumane. What moral compass rates migrants below pets? The organizers should be prosecuted for this.
If someone did this to dogs or cats, there would be fairly universal agreement that this was cruel and inhumane. What moral compass rates migrants below pets? The organizers should be prosecuted for this.
I don't understand how this is legal in any kind of weather, let alone weather you can die in fairly quickly.
by ponchi101 I have said it before. For the GOP, the END (whichever end this may lead to) justifies ANY means.
And then they claim that the other party eats babies. While they freeze people.
by Suliso What's their dream end I wonder.
by ti-amie
by ti-amieGeorge Santos Admits to Lying About College and Work History
The congressman-elect told The New York Post that he had not graduated from college or worked at two major Wall Street companies, as he had previously claimed.
By Michael Gold and Grace Ashford
Dec. 26, 2022, 6:48 p.m. ET
Representative-elect George Santos admitted on Monday to misleading voters about his professional experience and educational history, confirming some of the key findings of a New York Times investigation that found he likely misrepresented his background to voters.
Mr. Santos, a Republican who was elected in November to represent parts of northern Long Island and northeast Queens, ended a week of near silence, giving interviews to two conservative-owned media outlets, The New York Post and WABC-AM radio.
Mr. Santos told The Post that even though he now admits to embellishing his résumé, it would not stop him from taking office.
“I am not a criminal,” Mr. Santos told The Post, adding he would still be an effective legislator. He told WABC radio that he still intended to be sworn in at the start of the next Congress.
Mr. Santos, through representatives, has declined multiple requests to speak with The Times or to directly address the questions raised by its reporting.
Over the course of his campaigns, Mr. Santos claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in 2010 before working at Citigroup and, eventually, Goldman Sachs. But representatives from the college and both companies said they could not locate records to confirm his graduation or employment.
In Monday’s interview, Mr. Santos admitted to The Post that he had not graduated from Baruch, nor had he graduated “from any institution of higher learning.”
Mr. Santos also said that he never worked directly for Goldman Sachs or Citigroup, even though he said in campaign biographies that he had worked directly for both companies, as he made his case to voters that he was a seasoned investor and financial professional.
Instead, he said, he dealt with both firms through his work at another company, LinkBridge Investors, which connects investors with potential clients.
Mr. Santos told The Post that LinkBridge had “limited partnerships” with the two Wall Street companies.
The Times was able to confirm Mr. Santos’s employment at LinkBridge. But in a version of his campaign biography posted as recently as April, Mr. Santos suggested that he had started his career on Wall Street at Citigroup and that he was at Goldman Sachs briefly before his time at LinkBridge.
Representatives for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
by ponchi101 "I never lied. I simply said a collection of falsehoods that were misleading to get the vote, but I never uttered a lie in my campaign. And I am not lying now, I am only moving my lips while pushing air out".
You know what? This is actually hilarious. That this guy was voted in is evidence one that most voters have no idea of what they are doing when they vote.
by ti-amie Apparently Tulsi Gabbard took "George Santos" apart on Fox last night. Since I won't click on anything to do with Fox (the troll problem on Twitter is already bad enough as it is) here's a reminder of who she is.
by ti-amie Today on "George Santos" watch:
p1/
by ti-amie "George Santos" continued P2/
by ti-amie "George Santos" P3/3
by Owendonovan I'd really enjoy the irony if a gay republican took the GOP down accidentally.
by ti-amie
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:57 pm
I'd really enjoy the irony if a gay republican took the GOP down accidentally.
by ti-amie You didn't think people were done with "George Santos" did you?
Michelangelo Signorile @MSignorile
And a clarification: I meant here that some speculate Santos' married the woman -- who was from Brazil -- to get *her* citizenship (and that he is US citizen). It's something he also promised another boyfriend that same year, '12, according to a Jewish Insider reporter.
by ti-amie Meanwhile...
Keep in mind this is the Congressional body that would investigate "George Santos".
by ti-amie
Well at least "George Santos" was smart enough not to make the Brazilian police able to locate him via his take out...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie And this is why "George Santos" has to be seated by the GQP
by ponchi101 Ah, the fresh smell of manure in congress. It will be so swell...
by ti-amie Let's get this out of the way...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie From the Fetterman camp:
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Hakeem Jeffries has hit the ground running...
by ti-amieHouse adjourns amid stalemate in speaker vote
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R) failed to secure enough support through three ballots
These Republicans voted against Kevin McCarthy for House speaker
By JM Rieger and Aaron Blake
Updated January 3, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. EST|Published January 3, 2023 at 2:18 p.m. EST
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) sits in the House Chamber during the first ballot for speaker of the House on the opening day of the 118th Congress on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
The House of Representatives convened Tuesday to elect its next speaker, and for the first time in 100 years it’s taken multiple rounds of ballots to make a choice.
With Republicans holding just 222 seats to the Democrats’ 212, the prospect of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — once considered the obvious choice for the role — winning a majority looked shaky.
He lost 19 Republicans on both the first and second ballots. In the second round, those 19 all voted for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), even after Jordan urged his fellow Republicans to back McCarthy. During the third ballot, that number grew to 20.
Those voting against McCarthy are almost exclusively members and incoming members of the House Freedom Caucus, and they include five freshmen.
Below are the members of his party who voted against McCarthy so far. The House has adjourned until 12 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. We’ll update as the process unfolds.
There is a great chart at the link showing how McCarthy's party voted.
by ti-amie
The Holman Rule
January 17, 1876
The Holman Rule
Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives
On this date in 1876, by a vote of 156 to 102, the U.S. House of Representatives first adopted the Holman Rule that sought to institutionalize reductions in government spending through changes in House rules of operation. Proposed by the “watchdog of the Treasury,” Representative William S. Holman of Indiana, it modified House Rule 120 which prohibited appropriations “for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.” The only exceptions concerned public works in progress and contingency funds—generally applied as salary raises for government workers. The Rules Committee reported a change to Rule 120 that would allow legislative language in relevant appropriations bills to cut federal outlays. Holman explained that the Appropriations Committee held the authority under Rule 120 to increase spending, and now “we shall be able to retrench expenditures.” Opponents to the new rule, such as former Appropriations Chairman James A. Garfield of Ohio, warned that Appropriations would gain “such a general sweeping power” as “to render obsolete the power of all the other committees of the House.” Iowa’s John A. Kasson feared that the committee could replace the priorities of the authorization committees with its own. The House then proceeded to adopt the Rules Committee report. That the vote was along party lines indicated the majority’s expectations that the change would arm them in their upcoming battles with a Senate and President of the opposite party.
by ti-amie From the NYTimes live update:
Jan. 3, 2023, 5:52 p.m. ET2 hours ago
2 hours ago
Emily Cochrane
“It speaks for itself,” says Nancy Pelosi as she leaves with her husband, fielding questions about Kevin McCarthy and his ability to hold his conference together.
by ti-amieSpeaker Fight Reveals a Divided and Disoriented House Majority
In failing to coalesce around Kevin McCarthy for speaker, Republicans showcased divisions that portend real difficulties in governing.
By Carl Hulse
Jan. 3, 2023
Updated 7:23 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday began their new majority rule with a chaotic and historic debacle, an embarrassing failure to rally around a leader that showcased the difficulties they will face in performing even the basics of governing and their lack of a unifying agenda.
Handed narrow control of the House by voters in November, Republicans squandered the opening hours of the new Congress they could have used to dispel concerns about their capabilities. Instead, they feuded in a disorderly display over who among them should be speaker as the most extreme elements of the new majority repeatedly rejected Representative Kevin McCarthy of California.
Despite Mr. McCarthy’s prominent role in fund-raising and delivering the House to Republicans and his backing among most in the party ranks, about 20 Republicans refused to support him and for the first time in a century forced repeated rounds of voting for the speakership. After three flailing attempts at electing a speaker, Republicans abruptly called for the House to be adjourned until noon Wednesday as they scrambled for a way out of their leadership morass. The stalemate meant the usually routine organization of the new House did not occur and its members were not sworn in, nor could any legislation be considered.
The paralysis underscored the dilemma facing House Republicans: No matter the concessions made to some of those on the far right, they simply will not relent and join their colleagues even if it is for the greater good of their party, and perhaps the nation. They consider themselves conservative purists who cannot be placated unless all their demands are met — and maybe not even then. Their agenda is mostly to defund, disrupt and dismantle government, not to participate in it.
It means that whoever emerges from the messy leadership fight will face deep-seated resistance when trying to shepherd spending bills and other measures that are fundamental to governance. Tuesday’s spectacle reflected that House Republicans have grown more skilled at legislative sabotage than legislative success, leaving the difficult business of getting things done to others.
“The rebels just don’t like McCarthy, and they seem to not be able to find a way to like him,” said John Feehery, a longtime Republican strategist and former top House aide. “They lack a legislative maturity to understand it can’t be personal. It has to be just business.”
Mr. McCarthy himself sought to make the conflict about something bigger than himself in an appeal to his opponents to put aside whatever feelings they had about him so Republicans could move forward.
“This can’t be about that you are going to leverage somebody for your own personal gain inside Congress,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters. “This has to be about the country.”
But the holdouts were not yet budging.
“I have heard nothing new from Kevin,” said Representative Lauren Boebert, Republican of Colorado and a McCarthy foe, between rounds of votes.
To try to quell the revolt, Mr. McCarthy had already promised new rules that would open him or another figure to regular efforts to depose them from the speakership, along with requirements that would leave the leadership hamstrung and at the mercy of conservatives in trying to advance legislation.
Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican and hard-right alternative for speaker favored by some conservatives, conceded that the legislative outlook was limited at best, considering that bills favored by House Republicans were unlikely to pass in the Democratic Senate or to be signed by President Biden.
“So be it,” said Mr. Jordan in nominating Mr. McCarthy. “They have to answer to the people in 2024.”
He also alluded to what was likely to be an epic struggle to keep the government running and stave off a disastrous debt default with Republicans in charge of the House, saying that their principal task was to ensure that Congress never again passed the kind of sprawling spending bill enacted last month.
The breakdown on the House floor was the latest and most pronounced of the assaults by the hard right on its own congressional leadership in recent years. Archconservatives drove out John A. Boehner in 2015, denied Mr. McCarthy the votes needed to succeed Mr. Boehner at the time and complained about the stewardship of the compromise consensus choice of Paul D. Ryan. But Tuesday’s attack was their most aggressive yet, a nationally televised implosion that showcased the intransigence and unwillingness to compromise of a segment of House Republicans in what should have been a moment of triumph.
Even Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, typically a Republican firebrand eager to stir turmoil, castigated those holding out on Mr. McCarthy because of how it reflected on the party’s image.
“If the base only understood that 19 Republicans voting against McCarthy are playing Russian roulette with our hard-earned Republican majority right now,” Ms. Greene said on Twitter. “This is the worst thing that could possibly happen.”
Democrats were enjoying the tumult to a degree but also recognized the problems it could mean down the road. Representative Mike Quigley, a senior Democrat from Illinois, said the speaker fight was the culmination of a growing Republican ethos of “taking their ball and going home” if they fail to get what they demand.
Other Democrats watched in amazement as they saw Republicans open their reign with a clash that would leave whomever was eventually chosen badly undermined and the party’s strength diluted from the start.
“What a weakened position they have put themselves in,” marveled Representative Rosa DeLauro, a senior Democrat from Connecticut.
The uproar in the House was in marked contrast to the opening day of the Senate, where seven new members were sworn in and senators then quietly adjourned for three weeks. While House Republicans were ensnared in a brutal internal battle, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, was scheduled to appear alongside President Biden on Wednesday to celebrate funding for a major public works project in Kentucky.
As they sought a way out of their dilemma, some Republicans acknowledged the poor message they were sending with the stalemate but also said that it was likely to be a distant memory with voters once the leadership question was resolved.
“Just like everything in three months that becomes small ball, it becomes insignificant,” said Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado. “In a year and half, when people are starting to think about voting again, they are not thinking about that. They are thinking about what have we accomplished. It is more important to do things than it is to have a good first impression.”
His colleagues no doubt hope Mr. Buck is correct.
Carl Hulse is chief Washington correspondent and a veteran of more than three decades of reporting in the capital. @hillhulse
by ponchi101 I can read lips:
"Listen. I am 30 something. I can be the mother of the girls you date. And, I actually KNOW about politics, so we really can't even begin a conversation. how about if you hit on Laureen? She has guns and stuff, and maybe she can pistol whip some sense into you. Ok, I take that back. But hit on her. If you two can leave this place right now, it will be for the good of all of us. BTW, the FBI really has stuff on you. Talk to George Santos about Brazil; they have no extradition with us".
by Owendonovan The GOP has made real asses out of themselves today. (more than the usual)
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Democrats right now...
by ti-amie
by patrick Exactly eating popcorn. Ted Liu was shown with popcorn in hand. Give the Speaker of the House to Jeffries as McCarthy refuses to give in to the Freedom Caucus.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 You guys need to change so many rules within your democracy.
How more clearer does it have to be that the GOP cannot choose a speaker? Therefore, go by simple vote: Jeffries gets 212 votes consistently. He is the speaker.
I mean, voting for High School Class Clown is faster than this.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie 2 hours ago
Luke Broadwater
As the speaker drama continues, the United States has no functional House of Representatives.
WASHINGTON — The personal and political drama that is playing out on the House floor as Representative Kevin McCarthy tries and fails repeatedly to become speaker also has broader implications for the country, raising questions about what happens when one chamber of the legislative branch ceases to function.
Without a speaker, the United States House of Representatives essentially becomes a useless entity. With no sworn members, there are no lawmakers to make an official response to an emergency or a crisis. With no rules adopted, the legislative process cannot move forward; no bills can be passed or resolutions adopted.
Oversight of the government or any other entity also cannot be performed. The House cannot haul witnesses before committees, and those elected to serve there cannot set up constituent services operations or even take their oaths of office.
That’s because law and precedents state that the House must elect a speaker before lawmakers take any other action.
“This brings up a ton of legitimate questions,” Billy Long, Republican of Missouri who left office with the close of the 117th Congress on Tuesday morning, wrote on Twitter. “Who can legally help any and all of our citizens with issues we normally handle everyday? Passports, IRS, #Veteran’s issues, SBA, Post Office, Immigration issues, Corps of Engineers, etc. who’s getting paid? Outgoing or incoming?”
Mr. Long changed his Twitter biography to make light of the predicament.
“Am I Still a Congressman until @EricBurlison is sworn in or not? Who’s minding the store? Welcome to Bizaroland.”
(Mr. Long is not a congressman, since the last Congress adjourned for a final time on Tuesday, even though Representative-elect Eric Burlison, who won the race to succeed him, has yet to be sworn in.)
Many Democrats were enjoying the dysfunction of a Republican-led House that could not find a way to elect a speaker, with some posting photos of popcorn while they mocked the discord. But others were starting to grow worried about more mundane matters, like, say, getting paid.
Representative Colin Allred, Democrat of Texas, said on MSNBC on Wednesday that he wasn’t sure whether paychecks could still go out, and said lawmakers might ask for back pay.
Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas and one of Mr. McCarthy’s detractors, rejected concerns about a nonfunctioning House, and said Tuesday evening he didn’t think most Americans cared.
“Do you think anybody in America right now is like, ‘Oh my God, there’s not a speaker?’” he told reporters, adding that he believed there were untested legislative maneuvers the chamber could take to respond to an emergency should one arise. “We’re a body. We can go pass motions. We can do whatever. If there’s an emergency, we can do whatever we need to.”
But legal experts doubted whether any action taken by a House without a speaker — who, according to the Constitution, is second in line to the presidency — could withstand judicial review.
For more than 200 years, the House has used provisions from the Constitution and from a 1789 law to form the basis for its basic organizational order. According to the Revised Statutes of the United States, at the first session of Congress, the body must first swear in a speaker who then administers the oath of office to all members present, “previous to entering on any other business.”
This statute along with a precedent from March 4, 1869, provides that the duty of the House to organize itself proceeding to the election of the speaker is of the highest privilege. This precedent was reaffirmed on Jan. 7, 1997, when the clerk ruled that nominations for speaker were of a higher constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of speaker until an ethics review had run its course.
Given that history, some lawmakers are now questioning whether the chamber even exists.
“We effectively don’t have a House of Representatives,” said Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California.
Jan. 4, 2023, 5:16 p.m. ET2 minutes ago
2 minutes ago
Michael Gold
Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska, expressed frustration with the holdouts, saying, “I don’t like being held hostage.” He noted that the group is not cohesive, and it keeps changing its demands on what concessions it would need.
"What's your name today, Anthony Devolder or George Santos?"
I'm not sure how long a person can get dragged like Santos is, but I'm schadenfreuding hard until the end.
(I love a gay republican getting dragged, and I doubt he's even had to contend with the LGBTQ community yet)
by patrick The House adjourns until tomorrow at noon EST. Will be interesting to see what kind of deals be made on the GOP side.
by ti-amie
And guys, can someone explain that tie?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie I have CSPAN on. "George Santos" missed his name being called twice during Round 8 but voted when the Clerk called the names of those who had failed to respond.
I bet y'all thought I was kidding when I put his name in quotation marks.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amieC-SPAN Is America’s Hottest TV Drama in 2023
The cable-funded non-profit has given viewers a unique perspective into the goings-on in the House chamber ... will the coverage of the Speaker chaos lead to more transparency?
BY ALEX WEPRIN
JANUARY 5, 2023 1:05PM
For three days now, America has been addicted to a new TV show playing out before our eyes: The U.S. House of Representatives on C-SPAN.
Kevin McCarthy, either the show’s protagonist or antagonist, depending on who you ask, is trying — and so far failing — to become Speaker of the House. And it’s all happening live, with the non-profit public affairs channel garnering more attention than it has since, well, maybe ever.
“I mean, just any brief scroll of social media shows you thousands of people talking about us that typically, probably, would not be talking about us,” C-SPAN director of editorial operations Ben O’Connell tells The Hollywood Reporter. “I don’t recall the last time I have seen C-SPAN mentioned on Twitter with this frequency. I’m not sure it’s ever happened before.”
Indeed, C-SPAN has been ubiquitous this week.
“This the best season of C-SPAN… ever,” tweeted Jon Stewart.
“Watching McCarthy work Rep. Andrew Clyde is C-SPAN at its no-rules best,” said veteran D.C. journalist Jonathan Allen.
“I haven’t watched this much C-SPAN since I was a child… (@cindymccain kept it on in the background of our kitchen),” Meghan McCain tweeted.
“Maybe this is C-SPAN sweeps week,” added Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri.
Even viewers of other TV channels couldn’t avoid it, with CNN’s Jake Tapper telling viewers: “There’s a very real impact to all this dysfunction, besides C-SPAN’s ratings going up.”
C-SPAN, it should be noted, is not rated by Nielsen, as it doesn’t have advertising on its linear TV channels (though it does have ads on some of its streaming videos, and you can buy C-SPAN merch like a “C-SPAN and chill” blanket on its website). But there’s no question that, at least this week, everyone is glued to its coverage, if all the clips ricocheting across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok are any indication.
While some coverage has suggested that a lack of a House speaker means there are no rules around outside cameras in the House chamber, O’Connell says that isn’t quite right. Rather, the House allows outside cameras in for big events, like a State of the Union, an impeachment vote, or, yes, a speaker vote. Those special events just don’t normally last, ya know, a whole week.
“It’s not unusual that we would have our cameras in there for the speaker election, it’s just that this is a very unusual speaker election, so people are paying a lot more attention to it,” O’Connell says. “Many Americans are probably not aware that most of the time that you see the House of Representatives on C-SPAN, it’s actually being shot by government employees with government cameras, and they have fairly stringent guidelines under which they have to operate.”
Having independent cameras and camera operators in the chambers is the reason that viewers watching C-SPAN on TV or online saw Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) deep in conversation with Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who “are not exactly ideologically aligned with one another, to put it mildly,” O’Connell notes. “We’ve seen Kevin McCarthy, having to sit there and listen to people vote against him over and over again.”
“You know, during a typical house session, you don’t see reaction shots,” O’Connell adds. “It’s against the guidelines that the House recording studio operates under. You do not see people reacting to what’s being said about them or about their position. And over the last couple days, you’ve seen a lot of that. And we’ll continue to see that for as long as this goes.”
He adds that the House studio employees are “great professionals … They are very good at what they do. But they operate under very strict guidelines that don’t allow them to tell the story, the way the journalists can tell it.”
“If it were the government operating the cameras, you wouldn’t get the story the way that you’re getting it right now,” O’Connell says.
And this week at least, journalists are able to tell that story, thanks to C-SPAN’s cameras, catching the huddled groups on the side of the chamber, the negotiating in plain sight, and the reactions to the absurd goings-on.
And while it’s unlikely that the freedom will continue once a speaker is finally chosen and the cameras return to the control of House employees, C-SPAN will be among the outlets pushing for that status quo to change, as it has long done when it comes to access to Congress, the Supreme Court, and other institutions.
“I think it is absolutely a worthy endeavor for us to continue pursuing having cameras in the room when major decisions are being made, that are going to affect the lives of the American people. And we will continue to push for that,” O’Connell says. “I hope that coverage, like we’ve seen over the last two days, will lead people to understand how integral it is to have journalists behind the cameras when these decisions are being made.”
With the chaos in the House likely to become a season-long drama (to drive home that analogy), featuring razor-close votes, dramatic speeches and other surprises (maybe a cameo or two?), viewers may yearn for the freedom they are getting from the C-SPAN journalists this week even more.
At the very least, maybe all of C-SPAN old and new fans will have an appreciation for the public affairs channel, and its financial backers in the cable TV industry.
“I’ve been with the company for almost 22 years, and I still have people who I know very well who discover for the first time in conversations with me that C-SPAN is not a government agency,” O’Connell says. “I think we are so identified with coverage of the House, coverage of the Senate, that they assume we are a government agency, and not a non-profit that’s, you know, 90 percent funded by the cable and satellite television companies that carry us.”
It’s enough to almost make you want to call your friends and implore them to pay for cable, for America’s sake.
by ti-amie I'm watching C-SPAN for the first time ever. It is fascinating to watch this clown show, I mean Congress in action.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:14 pm
I'm watching C-SPAN for the first time ever. It is fascinating to watch this clown show, I mean Congress in action.
It says something when you can make Marjorie Taylor Greene look uncomfortable.
by ponchi101 EVERYBODY around him looks like "Please don't take this picture".
by ti-amie "George Santos" is part of the cabal (but we knew that)
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 He counts? He claimed the election was stolen. How about that for not knowing how to count?
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan The closet is a lonely place, especially for GOP operatives.
A staffer for Herschel Walker’s Senate campaign has alleged to The Daily Beast that longtime Republican activist Matt Schlapp made “sustained and unwanted and unsolicited” sexual contact with him while the staffer was driving Schlapp back from an Atlanta bar this October.
The staffer said the incident occurred the night of Oct. 19, when Schlapp, chair of the American Conservative Union and lead organizer for the influential Conservative Political Action Conference, “groped” and “fondled” his crotch in his car against his will after buying him drinks at two different bars.
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 12:10 am
The closet is a lonely place, especially for GOP operatives.
A staffer for Herschel Walker’s Senate campaign has alleged to The Daily Beast that longtime Republican activist Matt Schlapp made “sustained and unwanted and unsolicited” sexual contact with him while the staffer was driving Schlapp back from an Atlanta bar this October.
The staffer said the incident occurred the night of Oct. 19, when Schlapp, chair of the American Conservative Union and lead organizer for the influential Conservative Political Action Conference, “groped” and “fondled” his crotch in his car against his will after buying him drinks at two different bars.
Every accusation is an admission with these people.
by Owendonovan I would love someone to give me one reason to have any respect for any republican congressperson.
Republicans were too busy sorting out Kevin McCarthy's speakership bid to join a January 6 commemoration on the riot's 2-year anniversary.
On Friday morning, lawmakers gathered on the East front steps of the US Capitol to honor the police officers who died or were injured during the Capitol riot two years ago to the day.
by patrick How does the USA survive with the House being constructed in its current form? At least the Senate can do a check on them if the House passes anything. Hopefully the Democrats will vote no on everything that the House brings up like the GOP did for the past two years. However, I think that the GOP will concentrate on impeaching President Biden and investigating Hunter Biden, who has nothing to do with government issues at that time unlike the previous President and his son-in-law
by ponchi101 I don't see that as the problem. Biden can veto any legislation they pass, together with the senate.
The problem will be with the things they DON'T pass. The idea that they are open for the USA to default on its debt is basically financial Armageddon FOR THE WORLD. It will create a world-wide recession. So, basically, the entire world is now hostage to 20-some American lunatics. Because, if they do not approve a budget or a debt increase, there is nothing for Uncle Joe to veto.
And, of course, the simplest way to pay for the debt (a tax on Wall Street/Financial market transactions) will not be approved because, god forbid, the brokers there will not be able to buy their fifth Rolex. And we know we can't allow that.
by ti-amie
Video
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie A lot happened last night didn't it?
Pyrrhic victory
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Such a victory negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress. Wikipedia
If he tries to finesse/get out of any deals he made all it will take is one vote to get him kicked out.
by ponchi101 Sorry guys. You know I love you and you know I have a great appreciation for the USA.
And I do call my country a BANANA republic. We deserve no less.
But if an American ever calls MY country a BANANA republic, I will call the USA a BUBBLE GUM republic, because that spectacle was shameful.
(I mean, YOU TAT'ers can call my country whatever you want. I understand you. But any Texan MAGA-HAT wearing a**hole starts it, and he is getting it from me).
by ti-amie I get a weekend delivery of the NYTimes and was very curious as to what picture they would put on their front page above the fold. It wasn't the GQP brawl.
Found the pic I forgot to post.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Palmer Report @PalmerReport
When it comes to our ability to shut down the Republican agenda, half the battle consists of calling out major media outlets whenever they run with intentionally misleading headlines like "Jim Jordan vows to defund Special Counsel."
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Robert Cameron @robertcameron
Replying to @josephzeballos @daveweigel and @BudgetHawks
Notable: That bill will not be taken up by the Senate
by ti-amie
les incroyables @IncroyableLies
Replying to @ukraine_map @CrimeaninUSA and @JohnZhangSV
Do you think McCarthey will honour any of the promises made to Gaetz et al.? He only needed their votes for the speakership. The vast majority of the GOP voted for him in the first, and every subsequent round.
by Owendonovan Biden Lawyers Found Classified Material at His Former Office
The White House said it was cooperating as the Justice Department scrutinizes the matter.
WASHINGTON — President Biden’s lawyers discovered “a small number” of classified documents in his former office at a Washington think tank last fall, the White House said on Monday, prompting the Justice Department to scrutinize the situation to determine how to proceed.
The documents, which date to Mr. Biden’s time as vice president, were found by his personal lawyers on Nov. 2 when they were packing files at an office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, according to the White House. Officials did not describe precisely how many documents were involved, what kind of information they included or their level of classification.
The White House said in a statement that the White House Counsel’s Office notified the National Archives and Records Administration on the same day the documents were found “in a locked closet” and that the agency retrieved them the next morning.
Mr. Biden had periodically used an office at the center from mid-2017 until the start of the 2020 presidential campaign, and the lawyers were packing it up in preparations to vacate the space, the center said. The discovery was not in response to any prior request from the archives, and there was no indication that Mr. Biden or his team resisted efforts to recover any sensitive documents. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/09/us/p ... ments.html
Of all things, C'mon Joe.
Replying to @ukraine_map @CrimeaninUSA and @JohnZhangSV Do you think McCarthey will honour any of the promises made to Gaetz et al.? He only needed their votes for the speakership. The vast majority of the GOP voted for him in the first, and every subsequent round.
Exactly. Not in writing, it did not happen.
Not even honor amongst thieves.
by ti-amie
Scott Wong @scottwongDC
.@SpeakerMcCarthy says "a lot of people here" in Congress have fabricated part of their resume.
Santos will have to "build the trust" of voters.
He says Santos will get some committee assignment.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Steve Schmidt @SteveSchmidtSES
I don’t understand why @cnn doesn’t release the specific number of times @mschlapp called his victim. What is the number.
@mschlapp remains a @FoxNews contributor in good standing.
While the "George Santos" scandal was breaking followed by Mr. 15 ballots drama this has been percolating along somewhat under the radar.
This Schlapp person and his wife Mercedes are big deals in the GQP.
Matthew Aaron Schlapp is an American political activist and lobbyist who is chairman of the American Conservative Union. He leads the lobbying firm Cove Strategies, which had strong ties to the Donald Trump administration. He is also a Fox News political contributor. From Wiki
Spouse: Mercedes Schlapp (m. 2002)
Mercedes Schlapp is an American communications specialist and political commentator for both English and Spanish media. Wikipedia
(née Viana)
Children: Lucia Schlapp, Caterina Schlapp, Ava Schlapp, Elissa Schlapp, Viana Schlapp
Parents: Susan Schlapp
Party: Republican Party
Full name: Matthew Aaron Schlapp
Books: The Desacrators: Defeating the Cancel Culture Mob and Reclaiming One Nation Under God
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 By now, is there any doubt that this man is schizophrenic? One thing is to lie. To invent an entire other life is another.
He makes Sybil look grounded.
by Owendonovan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:17 pm
Steve Schmidt @SteveSchmidtSES
I don’t understand why @cnn doesn’t release the specific number of times @mschlapp called his victim. What is the number.
@mschlapp remains a @FoxNews contributor in good standing.
While the "George Santos" scandal was breaking followed by Mr. 15 ballots drama this has been percolating along somewhat under the radar.
This Schlapp person and his wife Mercedes are big deals in the GQP.
Matthew Aaron Schlapp is an American political activist and lobbyist who is chairman of the American Conservative Union. He leads the lobbying firm Cove Strategies, which had strong ties to the Donald Trump administration. He is also a Fox News political contributor. From Wiki
Spouse: Mercedes Schlapp (m. 2002)
Mercedes Schlapp is an American communications specialist and political commentator for both English and Spanish media. Wikipedia
(née Viana)
Children: Lucia Schlapp, Caterina Schlapp, Ava Schlapp, Elissa Schlapp, Viana Schlapp
Parents: Susan Schlapp
Party: Republican Party
Full name: Matthew Aaron Schlapp
Books: The Desacrators: Defeating the Cancel Culture Mob and Reclaiming One Nation Under God
Thanks in large part to generally toxic nature of religion and politics, this is the plight of far too many LGBTQ folks. I can empathize with any closeted individual. I can't empathize with LGBTQ republicans pushing the GOP or religious narrative though when it's always been such a hateful narrative.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:30 pm
By now, is there any doubt that this man is schizophrenic? One thing is to lie. To invent an entire other life is another.
He makes Sybil look grounded.
Schizophrenic? I don't think so. Pathological, psychopathic, and narcissistic? Absolutely.
by ti-amie Finally someone who knew "George Santos" before he became "George Santos"
by ti-amie Today's "George Santos" news
by ponchi101 I give it one more week before somebody finds out his real name is Keyser Söze.
by ti-amie Evening news on "George Santos"
Tristan Snell
@tristansnell@mstdn.social
Looks like George Santos's $700,000 donation to his own campaign may've been laundered money from a Ponzi scheme called "Harbor City Capital," which defrauded investors, selling them fake stocks, totaling over $17 million.
New reporting from the Washington Post reveals that Santos received payment from Harbor City as late as April 2021.
On April 20, 2021, the SEC filed a complaint against Harbor City accusing it of fraud.
On May 11, 2021, Santos formed the "Devolder Organization."
When Santos then ran for Congress in 2022, he claimed the Devolder Organization was his family's firm, with over $80 million in assets under management.
There is no proof of any kind that the Devolder Org ever did any legitimate business.
When Santos then ran for Congress in 2022, he claimed the Devolder Organization was his family's firm, with over $80 million in assets under management.
There is no proof of any kind that the Devolder Org ever did any legitimate business.
The investigations into Santos will reveal the truth -- but it very much appears that Santos took ill-gotten gains from the defrauded investors of Harbor City, parked them in Devolder, and then used them for his campaign.
Santos is NOT in a good position, let's just say.
Note: He didn't post the below on Mastodon
Tristan Snell @TristanSnell
p.s. Correction: they were fake BONDS or PROMISSORY NOTES, rather than stocks. But they were fake: they promised security and high returns, invested in profit-making lead-generation businesses, but in actuality, the money was pocketed (or sent to other investors, Ponzi-style).
by ti-amie
by Deuce I strongly believe all politics to be the cesspool of the world - it is rife with lies, manipulation, deceit, greed, and many other very negative elements...
I very, very, very rarely pay any attention to politics or to politicians, let alone take the time to write a post about the subject. But I saw something today which intrigued me because A) it really is not political in nature (though it is related to politics), and B) it is ridiculous and sets society back a few decades...
It is still a deficit and the US National Debt is still at about $30 Trillion and climbing.
No good news there.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
by ti-amieHouse Republicans prepare emergency plan for breaching debt limit
The proposal, still under discussion, would direct the Treasury Dept. to prioritize certain payments if the U.S. hits the debt ceiling
By Jeff Stein, Leigh Ann Caldwell and Theodoric Meyer
January 13, 2023 at 6:25 p.m. EST
House Republicans are preparing a plan telling the Treasury Department what to do if Congress and the White House don’t agree to lift the nation’s debt limit later this year, underscoring the brinkmanship newly empowered conservatives will bring to the high-stakes negotiations over averting a U.S. default, according to six people aware of the internal discussions.
The plan, which was previously unreported, was part of the private deal reached this month to resolve the standoff between House conservatives and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) over the election of House speaker. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), a leading conservative who helped broker the deal, told The Washington Post that McCarthy agreed to pass a payment prioritization plan by the end of the first quarter of the year.
The emerging contingency plan shows how Republicans are preparing to threaten not to lift the nation’s debt ceiling without major spending cuts from the Biden administration. Congress must pass a law raising the current limit of $31.4 trillion or the Treasury Department can’t borrow any more, even to pay for spending lawmakers have already authorized. Economists warn that not raising the debt limit could cause the United States to default, sparking a major panic on Wall Street and leading to millions of job losses.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said Friday said that the Treasury Department will begin “extraordinary measures” next week to ensure the federal government is able to meet its payment obligations but that it cannot guarantee the United States will make it beyond early June without defaulting. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated Friday that the administration will not negotiate over the debt ceiling.
Treasury Department aides declined to comment on the GOP plan, and a spokesman for McCarthy did not return requests for comment.
In the preliminary stages of being drafted, the GOP proposal would call on the Biden administration to make only the most critical federal payments if the Treasury Department comes up against the statutory limit on what it can legally borrow. For instance, the plan is almost certain to call on the department to keep making interest payments on the debt, according to four people familiar with the internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. House Republicans’ payment prioritization plan may also stipulate that the Treasury Department should continue making payments on Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits, as well as funding the military, two of the people said.
Such a move would be unprecedented and hugely controversial, and even releasing the plan could turn into a major political liability for the GOP. A hypothetical proposal that protects Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and the military would still leave out huge swaths of critical federal expenditures on things such as Medicaid, food safety inspections, border control and air traffic control, to name just a handful of thousands of programs. Democrats are also likely to accuse Republicans of prioritizing payments to U.S. bondholders — which include Chinese banks — over American citizens.
“Any plan to pay bondholders but not fund school lunches or the FAA or food safety or XYZ is just target practice for us,” a senior Democratic aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a proposal that hasn’t yet been released publicly.
McCarthy and House conservatives intentionally left the details of the prioritization plan unsettled in their initial agreement, with the understanding that it could take weeks for Republicans to decide which federal spending programs must be protected, the two people familiar with the talks said, and amid uncertainty about the best way to draft the legislation.
The idea poses logistical hurdles as well. In 2011 and 2013, when similar debt ceiling crises loomed, Treasury Department officials in the Obama administration said prioritizing payments was not technically possible, given the complexity of the millions of payments the federal government makes each day.
For the plan to be binding on the Treasury Department, it would have to pass not only the House but also the Democratic-controlled Senate, and President Biden would have to sign it into law.
Even if it were enacted, a debt prioritization plan could still jeopardize the trustworthiness of the U.S. government, some experts say. The proposal would call for the government to halt payment for as much as 20 percent of money that it has already promised to spend.
Still, many Republican lawmakers have long favored exploring these kinds of measures as a way to mitigate the worst economic consequences of breaching the debt ceiling. Two of the people with knowledge of internal GOP planning said the prioritization plan would force Democrats to acknowledge that it is technically possible for the Treasury Department to continue to pay bondholders even if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit. One of these people noted that interest payments amount to roughly $500 billion per year, which can be easily met through federal revenue without additional borrowing.
Republicans have explored various ways to push prioritized debt payments over the years. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) released a bill in 2011, called the Default Prevention Act, that would require the Treasury Department to borrow above the debt limit to ensure that interest on the debt gets paid no matter what. That version of the plan, however, might not win universal support even among Republicans, some of whom view it as circumventing the intention of the debt limit. McClintock reintroduced the bill this week. More than a half-dozen House Republicans voted against his legislation in 2015.
“We agreed to advance a debt prioritization bill through regular order by the end of the first quarter of 2023,” Roy said in a text message to The Post. “Now, the contours of that were not specified (there are different versions).”
Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative advocacy group, said GOP lawmakers have stepped up discussions in recent days over a debt prioritization plan. Then-Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) proposed a similar idea during the debt ceiling showdowns with the Obama administration in 2011 and 2013. At the time, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said government computer systems could not be updated to triage tens of millions of payments, arguing that “prioritization is just default by another name.” Republicans said those claims were exaggerated to get them to back off their debt limit threats.
“The reason you do this is to say, ‘We offered you a bill that prioritized things, and this is what we’re getting instead of that,’” Norquist said. “It’s being talked about by leadership because it is necessary to be prepared. If you come to an impasse, you want a fallback position.”
These efforts are expected to prove controversial even among some GOP allies. Neil Bradley, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the business group opposes prioritizing payments.
“Prioritization doesn’t work. We had this discussion a decade ago,” Bradley said. “If the U.S. government skips its payments to America’s seniors or skips its payments to bondholders, both of those things call into question the full faith and credit of the United States government and our commitment to paying our bills. And both of them have pretty catastrophic economic consequences.”
Some Republican policy experts have been convinced such efforts would fail. Brian Riedl, a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute, studied prioritization plans at length while he was a staffer in the offices of then-Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). Riedl said such a plan would involve lopping off about 20 percent of federal spending immediately, or about $1 trillion, because revenue covers only roughly 80 percent of the $5 trillion the government spends each year. Huge numbers of people could be hurt immediately, he said, with no good way to pick between options such as forcing hospitals to deal with the cessation of Medicare payments or depriving the Defense Department of funding.
“Studying this in 2011 convinced us this would be a really bad idea and something we really did not want to happen,” Riedl said. “We didn’t end the exercise saying, ‘This is feasible and smart.’ We said, ‘Let’s avoid this at all costs because it’s going to be a disaster.'”
Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, said the prioritization plan is a “live option” among some GOP officials and is being discussed quietly. Strain acknowledged that financial markets may not be assuaged by the government meeting only some of its spending obligations but said that could prove better than the alternative of a default on U.S. interest payments.
“If we have a budget deficit of 10 percent, we should be able to cover 90 percent of our spending obligations,” Strain said. “If the National Park Service or FBI don’t make the cut before a deal is signed, that’d obviously be better than paying no bills.”
Other longtime GOP policy hands are more apprehensive.
“We will see zillions of ads about this,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush.
by ponchi101 So.
Let defund the IRS so no new, proper collection of taxes can be done.
But we also will limit how to work around a debt limit.
These people are sick. But it is time the USA really does something about its debt. This "let's raise the limit" thing can't go one forever.
by ti-amieSantos’s Lies Were Known to Some Well-Connected Republicans
George Santos inspired no shortage of suspicion during his 2022 campaign, including in the upper echelons of his own party, yet many Republicans looked the other way.
By Nicholas Fandos
Jan. 13, 2023
In late 2021, as he prepared to make a second run for a suburban New York City House seat, George Santos gave permission for his campaign to commission a routine background study on him.
Campaigns frequently rely on this kind of research, known as vulnerability studies, to identify anything problematic that an opponent might seize on. But when the report came back on Mr. Santos, the findings by a Washington research firm were far more startling, suggesting a pattern of deception that cut to the heart of the image he had cultivated as a wealthy financier.
Some of Mr. Santos’s own vendors were so alarmed after seeing the study in late November 2021 that they urged him to drop out of the race, and warned that he could risk public humiliation by continuing. When Mr. Santos disputed key findings and vowed to continue running, members of the campaign team quit, according to three of the four people The New York Times spoke to with knowledge of the study.
The episode, which has not been previously reported, is the most explicit evidence to date that a small circle of well-connected Republican campaign professionals had indications far earlier than the public that Mr. Santos was spinning an elaborate web of deceits, and that the candidate himself had been warned about just how vulnerable those lies were to unraveling.
Fraudulent academic degrees. Involvement in a firm accused of a Ponzi scheme. Multiple evictions and a suspended driver’s license. All of it was in the report, which also said that Mr. Santos, who is openly gay, had been married to a woman. The report did not offer conclusive details, but some people briefed on the findings wondered whether the marriage was done for immigration purposes.
It remains unclear who else, if anyone, learned about the background study’s contents at the time, or if the information made its way to party leaders in New York or Washington. Mr. Santos, 34, managed to keep almost all of it from the public until after he was elected, when an investigation by The Times independently unearthed the problematic claims documented by researchers and others that they missed.
After The Times sent a detailed list of questions for this story, a lawyer for Mr. Santos, Joe Murray, said “it would be inappropriate to respond due to ongoing investigations.” A spokeswoman for Mr. Santos’s congressional office did not respond to a similar request for comment.
Mr. Santos himself has admitted to some fabrications, but insists he was merely embellishing his qualifications. He has vowed to serve out a two-year term in Congress. State, local and federal prosecutors are now investigating his activity.
The existence of the vulnerability study underscores one of the most vexing questions still surrounding the strange saga of George Santos: How did the gate-keeping system of American politics — Republican leaders, adversarial Democrats and the prying media — allow a fabulist who boasted about phantom mansions and a fake résumé get away with his con for so long?
Interviews with more than two dozen associates, adversaries and donors, as well as contemporaneous communications and other documents reviewed by The Times, show that Mr. Santos inspired no shortage of suspicion during his 2022 campaign, including in the upper echelons of his own party.
Well-connected supporters suspected him of lying and demanded to see his résumé. Another former campaign vendor warned a state party official about what he believed were questionable business practices. And the head of the main House Republican super PAC told some lawmakers and donors that he believed Mr. Santos’s story did not add up.
But in each case, rather than denounce Mr. Santos publicly, the Republicans looked the other way. They neglected to get the attention of more powerful leaders or to piece together shards of doubt about him, and allowed him to run unopposed in the 2022 primary. Some assumed that Mr. Santos’s falsehoods were garden variety political embellishments; others thought Democrats would do their dirty work for them and Mr. Santos would be exposed in the heat of a general election campaign.
(...)
“The reality is there’s no defense, it shouldn’t have happened,” said Gerard Kassar, the chairman of the New York Conservative Party, a small but influential partner to the Republican Party that backed Mr. Santos. “It would be impossible and probably incorrect for me to say this could never happen again, but it won’t be from me not looking again.”
Early warning signs missed
Among the tight-knit Republican circles on Long Island, he was virtually unknown. And in Queens, party leaders were still sour over his initial foray.
In normal circumstances, Mr. Santos would have been shooed away. Republicans in Nassau County, which comprises the bulk of New York’s Third Congressional District, have long been famous for exercising tight control over who runs, grooming and rewarding a stable of candidates like an old-school political machine.
(...)
When Mr. Santos chose to run again two years later, local Republicans again gave him their support. They expected that flipping the district would once again be a stretch and, in any case, Mr. Cairo’s priority was winning state and local offices, which control thousands of local jobs and major tax and spending decisions. Efforts to recruit a more formidable candidate, like State Senator Jack Martins, did not pan out.
There were already questions swirling by that time among donors and political figures about where exactly Mr. Santos lived and the source of the money that supported the lavish lifestyle he boasted about.
In the summer of 2021, one of the former advisers to Mr. Santos, who insisted on anonymity, discovered his connections to Harbor City Capital, the Florida-based firm accused of a Ponzi scheme, and to other suspicious business practices that Mr. Santos had obscured. The adviser said he took the findings to a state party official later that fall and tried to pitch the story to a newspaper, which he said did not pursue it. The Harbor City connection was later reported in The Daily Beast.
(...)
Around that time, Mr. Santos began attracting the suspicion of a pair of friends and potential donors active in New York Republican circles. Mr. Santos claimed to one of them, Kristin Bianco, to have secured the endorsement of former President Donald J. Trump, when he had not. That prompted her to express concerns about Mr. Santos to plugged-in Republicans, including associates of Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, one of Mr. Santos’s biggest early backers whose top political aide was assisting his campaign. Later Ms. Bianco and her friend became suspicious that they could not verify his work history.
“We’re just so tired of being duped,” Ms. Bianco texted Mr. Santos in early 2022, after he refused her request to produce his résumé. Mr. Santos wrote back that he found the request “a bit invasive as it’s something very personal.”
Opposition research misses the mark
The assumption that any damaging information about Mr. Santos would have been found in the 2020 campaign turned out to be misguided.
Mr. Suozzi, the popular Democratic incumbent, got a quote for the cost of an outside firm to do opposition research on Mr. Santos. But he decided not to spend the money — sparing Mr. Santos meaningful scrutiny in his first race.
“No one knew George Santos, and he had less than $50,000 in campaign funds against a popular incumbent who never even said his name,” said Kim Devlin, a Suozzi adviser. “We didn’t feed anything to the press because why would we give him press?”
With a more competitive race expected in 2022, researchers at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did the first meaningful opposition research on Mr. Santos that summer, assembling an 87-page opposition research book. It extensively documents Mr. Santos’s past statements — including his extreme views on abortion rights and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
Using public records, the committee’s researchers also turned up some red flags in Mr. Santos’s biography: multiple evictions; no I.R.S. registration for an animal charity he had claimed to have created; details about his involvement with Harbor City (Mr. Santos himself was not named in the Ponzi scheme allegations) and more recent suspicious business dealings; as well as apparent discrepancies in his financial disclosure forms that raised questions about the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars he had lent his campaign.
(...)
Mr. Santos’s 2022 opponent, Robert Zimmerman, got hold of the research book in late August, right after he won a competitive and costly Democratic primary. He decided not to spend what would have likely been tens of thousands of dollars to do more rigorous outside research.
Other Democrats have second-guessed that decision in recent weeks, but at the time, Mr. Zimmerman had his reasons. While presidential and Senate campaigns typically have the financial and staff resources for exhaustive opposition research, House campaigns tend to rely on the D.C.C.C. to conduct their research.
Strapped for time and cash, Mr. Zimmerman concluded that his money would be better spent on advertising and canvassing operations. And he believed that the campaign committee’s report as well as Mr. Santos’s far-right views on abortion and Jan. 6 — two of the year’s most prominent campaign themes — gave him powerful campaign fodder.
“We knew a lot about him did not add up; we were very conscious of that,” Mr. Zimmerman said in an interview. “But we didn’t have the resources as a campaign to do the kind of digging that had to be done.”
Mr. Zimmerman said his campaign tried to prod reporters at local and national news outlets with leads about Mr. Santos, but had little luck. The candidate himself, a public relations executive, did not hold news conferences or use paid advertising to draw attention to known discrepancies in his opponent’s record.
What did top Republicans know?
People working for his campaign had grown accustomed to Mr. Santos’s braggadocio and outlandish claims. But when they approached him about conducting a vulnerability study, the objective was more routine: producing a record of his past statements and other public information that would be useful later when his opponents started crafting attacks.
Mr. Santos quickly signed off, but as the research dragged on, he asked to cancel the contract with the firm. When the results came back, it was clear why.
(...)
The people working for Mr. Santos convened an emergency conference call to discuss the results on Dec. 1, 2021. They presented him with a choice: bow out of the race with dignity, or stay in and risk letting the Democrats turn up the same information and use it to destroy his political and personal future.
After promising to produce diplomas that would prove his degrees (he ultimately did not), Mr. Santos said he would think it over. When he came back a few days later, he said he had spoken with other advisers and was convinced the findings were not as bad as they were being portrayed. He was staying in the race. Most of his team quit.
What top Republicans were told of Mr. Santos’s issues is more difficult to chart. Mr. Santos required those working for his campaign to sign nondisclosure agreements, limiting the spread of the vulnerability report. But one person who was briefed on its contents said that questions about Mr. Santos’s background were discussed well beyond campaign vendors. The National Republican Congressional Committee, which closely monitors House candidates and backed Mr. Santos, sometimes requests such reports as a condition of its support.
A spokesman for the group declined to comment for this article, but pointed to an earlier statement denying it had previous knowledge that Mr. Santos’s record was largely fabricated. The N.R.C.C. typically does not conduct its own independent vulnerability studies on candidates.
Mr. McCarthy, who ultimately endorsed Mr. Santos and helped his campaign, has said relatively little about the fabrications, and has refused calls to try to oust him from the House as the speaker seeks to maintain an exceedingly narrow majority in Washington. This week, Mr. McCarthy played down Mr. Santos’s lies, comparing them to other politicians who have embellished parts of their résumés and implying he would not undo the will of voters who elected him.
Spokesmen for Mr. McCarthy did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story, and a spokesman for Ms. Stefanik, the highest-ranking New York House Republican, declined to comment. Allies of Mr. McCarthy maintain that they did not know about the baldest fabrications and misrepresentations, like those turned up by Republican researchers in late 2021, but only had more general concerns about his honesty.
Despite the financial resources he helped marshal to the race, Mr. McCarthy had good personal reason to be wary of Mr. Santos. Earlier in 2021, an aide to the candidate was caught impersonating Mr. McCarthy’s chief of staff while soliciting campaign contributions.
By the spring of 2022, Mr. Santos was in need of a new team of consultants. With help from Ms. Stefanik’s top political aide, he chose a new consulting firm and shared the vulnerability study.
The new crop of vendors, led by Big Dog Strategies, never spoke to their predecessors, though, and did not know why they had left the campaign. After Mr. Santos again insisted he had graduated from college, and addressed other red flags raised in the report, the new team accepted his explanations and began plotting a campaign. They would use issues — not the candidate’s biography — to win the race.
by Deuce I can't believe that I'm posting in the 'politics' thread for the second time in a week...
Sigh...
I just read this article (link below), for some reason. Now, I'm Canadian, and on top of that, I pay as little attention to politics and politicians as possible. And most especially, U.S. politics. As such, I had heard the name Hunter Biden a few times, knowing he is Joe's son. I knew nothing else about him.
But I wasn't prepared for what's in this article. The stripper's baby... the 'not remembering' the sexual encounter in which the child was conceived... the 'relationship' with his brother's widow... then marrying another woman altogether... and, naturally, he has 3 other children from yet another woman...
This level of dysfunction is Jerry Springer / Geraldo Rivera type stuff.
It certainly doesn't say much for Joe's parenting skills. And yet, this is the man entrusted to manage the entire country!
Hmmm...
As usual with politics and politicians, one can appear 'good' only when compared with someone worse. With Trump as his opposition, of course Biden was going to look 'good'. But is he the 'great guy' that many seem to claim he is? Not if you assess a person by the character/quality of the children they produce.
by ti-amie Hunter Biden was an active addict for many years and is now in recovery - a never ending state of being for addicts.
If you want to see an active addict check out some of T**mp Jr's videos.
by Deuce
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:37 pm
Hunter Biden was an active addict for many years and is now in recovery - a never ending state of being for addicts.
If you want to see an active addict check out some of T**mp Jr's videos.
No, thanks... I've had more than enough politics in the past week to last me a year or two.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 And still, there is no push to get him off congress, where he does not belong.
by Owendonovan Because there's absolutely no republican that will see the difference between TFG and Biden's handling of classified documents, I'm willing to sacrifice Biden for Trump to be imprisoned.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan Republicans should never be on a science committee, they can't grasp the basics of 7th grade science, especially that sack, Santos/Devolder/Zebrosky.
by dryrunguy
by ponchi101 I was not aware of Rep Foster's credentials.
That is what congress needs more of. Of course, most people, when told about particle physics, will think of marbles. And vote accordingly.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
They forgot to list his "Anthony Zabrovsky" alias.
Also, the story out of Brazil appears to be true so another alias, "Kitara" has surfaced.
by ti-amie BUT BUT he denied this!
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 These MF's are simply evil.
And then they talk about "your freedom". But your freedom to eat what "you can buy" is not there for you.
by dryrunguy I'd like to know more about the origins of this legislation. I have three guesses. 1) This originated with a "pool" of corporations that have a vested financial interest in the same products on the "permitted" list; 2) This originated with Republican candidates with vested financial interests in "permitted" products; or 3) A combination of Guess #1 and Guess #2.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 So what? Joe will be blamed. That's the whole point.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
George Santos Admits 500K Personal Loan to Campaign Wasn’t 'Personal'
SANTOS' MILLIONS
It's been one of the biggest mysteries surrounding George Santos: Where did he get his money? In an amended filing, Santos admits a big chunk wasn't his.
Roger Sollenberger
Political Reporter
Published Jan. 24, 2023 4:52PM ET
George Santos promised reporters a surprise on Tuesday. When he brought coffee and donuts for the journalists staking out his office, it was a letdown. But Santos apparently had another surprise.
Late Tuesday afternoon, Santos’ political operation filed a flurry of amended campaign finance reports, telling the feds, among other things, that a $500,000 loan he gave to his campaign didn’t, in fact, come from his personal funds as he’d previously claimed.
However, while the new amended filing told us where the funds did not come from, it also raised a new question—where did the money come from?
While both the old and new campaign filings claim that the loans came “from the candidate,” the campaign’s most recent amended filing had ticked the box for “personal funds of the candidate”; on the new amended filing today, that box is unchecked.
Another amended filing on Tuesday disclosed that a $125,000 “loan from the candidate” in late October also did not come from his “personal funds,” but like the $500,000 question, did not say where the money came from, when the loan was due, or what entity, if any, backed the money.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Santos operation had solicited large political donations through an entity that was never registered with the Federal Election Commission. That entity appears to share a name—RedStone Strategies—with a private company The Daily Beast previously reported was tied to Santos.
According to the Times, one donor cut a $25,000 contribution check to Red Strategies in late October just days before Santos loaned his campaign $125,000—money he is now telling the FEC came from the candidate, but not from his personal funds.
“The person who solicited the donor said he was asked by Mr. Santos in the weeks leading up to the campaign to approach donors, some of whom had already given the maximum allowed to Mr. Santos’s election campaign, and to help coordinate their donations to RedStone, according to a person familiar with the arrangement who wished to remain anonymous,” the Times reported.
Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of government watchdog Documented and a campaign finance expert, first raised questions about the source of Santos’ “self-funded” $705,000 campaign bankroll in a Daily Beast report last month.
Santos has previously admitted that he used cash from his company, the Devolder Organization LLC, to finance his campaign—a move legal experts said could add up to an unlawful $705,000 corporate contribution. Santos confirmed to The Daily Beast last month that he withdrew money from his firm specifically to underwrite his campaign, reasoning that he was the firm’s sole owner. (The LLC is not a “sole proprietorship,” however, and its accounts are distinct from Santos’ personal accounts.)
Santos made the same claim in a WABC radio interview, saying the loans were “the money I paid myself through the Devolder Organization.” (Santos’ most recent financial disclosure shows a $750,000 salary from the Devolder Organization, along with dividends valued between $1 million and $5 million.)
Today, Fischer said the attempted correction “isn’t a half-measure—it is hardly even a quarter-measure.”
“I don’t know what they think they are doing,” Fischer told The Daily Beast upon reviewing the filings. “Santos’ campaign might have unchecked the ‘personal funds of candidate’ box, but it is still reporting that the $500,000 came from Santos himself. If the ‘loan from candidate’ didn’t actually come from the candidate, then Santos should come clean and disclose where the money really came from. Santos can’t uncheck a box and make his legal problems go away.”
by ponchi101 Handcuffs? Where are the handcuffs? Why is this man walking free?
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:28 pm
Handcuffs? Where are the handcuffs? Why is this man walking free?
by Owendonovan Seems everyone has some, except me.
Classified Documents Found at Pence’s Home in Indiana
The documents were “inadvertently boxed and transported” to the former vice president’s home at the end of the Trump administration, Mr. Pence’s representative wrote in a letter to the National Archives.
Aides to former Vice President Mike Pence found a “small number of documents” with classified markings at his home in Indiana during a search last week, according to an adviser to Mr. Pence.
The documents were “inadvertently boxed and transported” to Mr. Pence’s home at the end of President Donald J. Trump’s administration, Greg Jacob, Mr. Pence’s representative for dealing with records related to the presidency, wrote in a letter to the National Archives.
The letter, dated Jan. 18, said that the former vice president was unaware of the existence of the documents and reiterated that he took seriously the handling of classified materials and wanted to help.
Mr. Jacob wrote that Mr. Pence relied on an outside lawyer after classified documents were found in recent days at the residence and former private office of President Biden. A person familiar with the search identified that lawyer as Matthew E. Morgan, who has a long history with the Pences and who worked as a lawyer on the 2020 re-election campaign. Mr. Jacob also said the lawyer could not specify anything more about the documents because the lawyer had stopped looking once it was clear the documents had classified markings.
by ponchi101 Even though Tiny is involved, by now you have to wonder about the system. As you say, seems like everybody that was in office takes classified documents with them. So, this storage system seems to be very deficient.
by ti-amie And all of the folks who have these documents are cooperating and turning them over. The one glaring exception has done all he could to try and hold on to them and that makes his having them suspicious.
by ti-amie Didn't he tell the folks who took him hostage he was for this?
by Owendonovan ^That tax scheme is beyond idiotic. Besides groceries, I can get a fair amount of items in NYC tax free just by asking, "Cash, no tax?". I could live almost tax free if I played my cards right, and I wouldn't be alone. The city would fall apart, but hey, low taxes!!!
by ponchi101 There is a reason it is not implemented in any civilized country in the world, and I doubt that in any 3rd world country either.
These people have never taken one course in economics, and they go by the GOP stupid mantra that "the best government is the smallest government". By that metric, the best government in the world is probably Somalia or Sudan.
So they have this idea that getting rid of Government Agencies is "good". The idiocy is supreme.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Devil's advocate.
How could you blackmail this man? He could not care less if you present ANYTHING about him. He is bullet proof to that option.
In the words of Calvin (and Hobbes): if it is found he was dating a three headed, Elvis alien clone, so what?
by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:18 pm
Devil's advocate.
How could you blackmail this man? He could not care less if you present ANYTHING about him. He is bullet proof to that option.
In the words of Calvin (and Hobbes): if it is found he was dating a three headed, Elvis alien clone, so what?
Seems like a tab of ecstasy and a sex club would work. No matter what, same sex sex between men will always repulse republicans.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amieCNN Poll: Nearly three-quarters of Americans think House GOP leaders haven’t paid enough attention to most important problems
By Ariel Edwards-Levy, CNN
Updated 12:57 PM EST, Thu January 26, 2023
Fewer than one-third of Americans believe that House GOP leaders are prioritizing the country’s most important issues, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS. Neither party’s congressional leadership earns majority approval, and Republicans are particularly likely to express discontent with their own party leadership.
Just 27% of US adults say they think Republican leaders in the House have had the right priorities so far, while 73% say they haven’t paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems. A 59% majority disapprove of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their jobs overall, while a broader 67% disapprove of Republican leaders in Congress.
The GOP’s ratings are weighed down by relatively high dissatisfaction within their own party: 42% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents disapprove of their party’s congressional leaders, compared with the 22% of Democrats and Democratic leaners who disapprove of their party’s congressional leadership.
Nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 46%, also say their party’s House leadership hasn’t displayed the right priorities. By contrast, in CNN’s October polling, only 34% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said that President Joe Biden had the wrong priorities, with 65% of the public overall in that survey viewing Biden as failing to address the nation’s problems.
A similar dynamic plays out in the views of individual party leaders, with Democratic-aligned Americans’ view of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (42% favorable, 6% unfavorable) more positive than Republican-aligned Americans’ opinion of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (35% favorable, 18% unfavorable).
Americans overall hold a negative view of McCarthy (19% favorable, 38% unfavorable) and are split in their views of Jeffries (21% favorable, 22% unfavorable), although many have yet to form opinions: 43% express no opinion toward McCarthy, and 57% have no impression of Jeffries. Both men’s favorability ratings now remain almost identical to where they stood in CNN’s December polling, prior to McCarthy’s prolonged, public battle to secure the speakership earlier this month.
Most of the public, 60%, expects congressional Republicans to have more influence than Biden over the direction the nation takes in the next two years. That’s similar to the 56% of Americans in January 2011 who anticipated that Republicans’ takeover of the House would give the GOP more sway than then-President Barack Obama, although expectations for Obama’s influence rose later in the year. In the latest poll, Republicans and Republican leaners, despite their relative unhappiness with their leaders, see their party as likelier to have the louder voice: About three-quarters (72%) expect the GOP to wield more influence than Biden, while only about half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) see Biden as likely to drive the national direction over the next two years.
Asked to name the most important issue facing the country, nearly half (48%) of Americans cite economic issues, particularly related to the effects of inflation on housing, food and gas prices. Other top concerns include immigration (11%), gun violence and crime (6%), government spending and taxes (6%) and political divisions or extremism (5%). Covid-19, which topped the public’s list of issues at 36% in the summer of 2021, was mentioned by only 1% of the public in the latest survey.
Although the economy is a top concern among members of both parties, other priorities differ. Immigration is the top issue for 18% of Republicans and Republican leaners, compared with 7% of Democrats and Democratic leaners; conversely, 10% of Democratic-aligned Americans cite gun issues or crime, compared with 3% of those aligned with the Republican Party, with much of that difference between the two parties coming in the share citing gun control specifically (7% on the Democratic-leaning side name gun control as a top issue, compared with 1% among Republicans and Republican-leaners).
Americans’ outlook on the US remains generally bleak: 70% say things in the country are going badly, an uptick from 65% in December. Much of that shift comes from rising pessimism among Democrats: 58% now say things are going badly, a 16-point rise from last month.
But while public discontent with the state of the nation remains widespread, the severity of Americans’ unhappiness appears to be abating. Just 15% say that things in the country are going “very badly,” down from last year’s peak of 34% during the summer and lower than at any time since May 2018.
The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from January 19-22 among a random national sample of 1,004 adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.0 points; it is larger for subgroups.
CNN’s Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
by ti-amie Is +/- 4% still considered a pretty high margin of error?
by Owendonovan “Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.”
That poll mattered.
by Owendonovan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:31 am
Is +/- 4% still considered a pretty high margin of error?
It is to me, but I consider all polls to have a margin of error that skews it far enough from accurate that I tend not to use them for much.
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:31 am
Is +/- 4% still considered a pretty high margin of error?
Normally, it would, but when the result is 75%, it is not relevant.
by dryrunguy This morning's NT Times e-newsletter focused on the plethora of classified documents being found in the possession of, or turned over by, former presidents, vice presidents, and other high-ranking government officials.
It raised an interesting point I had not thought about--the Federal Government classifies far too many documents, more than 50 million per year.
::
Good morning. The U.S. government classifies tens of millions of documents a year, and experts say the practice is excessive.
Not so confidential
Classified documents keep turning up in the homes of former presidents and vice presidents. First, law enforcement found hundreds of them in Donald Trump’s home. President Biden’s aides recently gave back classified documents that were found in his office and home, dating to his time as vice president and senator. And last week, Mike Pence’s aides found classified documents in his home.
After all of these discoveries, the National Archives asked former presidents and vice presidents yesterday to look through their personal records for any documents that should not be there.
The three cases have important differences. Notably, Trump resisted efforts to retrieve the documents, while Biden and Pence returned them voluntarily. But they have all raised the public’s awareness of what has long been a government phenomenon: Current and former officials at all levels discover and turn over classified documents several times a year, The Associated Press reported.
Why does this keep happening? One possible reason, experts say, is that too many documents are classified in the first place. The federal government classifies more than 50 million documents a year. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of all of them. Some get lost and found years later — and many more are likely still out there.
Today’s newsletter will look at how the over-classification of government documents became so widespread.
Playing it safe
The government classifies all kinds of information, including informants’ identities, war plans and diplomatic cables. There are three broad categories of classification: confidential, secret and top secret. Technically, the president decides what is classified. But the job is delegated to cabinet and agency heads, who further delegate, through agency guidelines, to lower-ranked officials.
That system effectively encourages federal officials to take a better-safe-than-sorry approach to classification. The classification of a document reduces the risk that important secret information leaks and leads to trouble, particularly when it concerns national security. But if a document is not classified and is obtained by America’s enemies or competitors, the people who originally handled that information could lose their jobs, or worse.
In many agencies, officials “face no downsides for over-classifying something,” said Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School and former special counsel at the Pentagon. “But if you under-classify something, really dire consequences could come for you.”
So officials tend to play it safe. Of the more than 50 million documents classified every year, just 5 to 10 percent warrant the classification, Hathaway estimated, based on her experience at the Pentagon.
One example of the extremes of classification: In a cable leaked by Chelsea Manning, an official marked details of wedding rituals in the Russian region of Dagestan as “confidential” — as if most such details were not already well known in a region of more than three million people.
Presidents have criticized the classification system, too. “There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” Barack Obama said in 2016. “There’s stuff that is really top-secret top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source.”
In 2010, Obama signed the Reducing Over-Classification Act. It didn’t solve the problem, experts said.
The downsides
So what’s the harm? Experts say there are several potential dangers to over-classification.
For one, it keeps potentially relevant information from the public, making it harder for voters and journalists to hold their leaders accountable. One example: Starting in the 2000s, the U.S. ran a highly classified drone program to identify, locate and hunt down suspected terrorists in the Middle East and South Asia. The program’s existence was well known, and the destruction it caused was widely reported. Yet elected officials, including members of Congress briefed on the program, could answer few questions from constituents or reporters about it because the details were classified.
Over-classification can also make it difficult for agencies to share information with others, whether they are other U.S. agencies or foreign partners. “There are national security concerns — in terms of information not getting shared that should be,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.
And, of course, the recent discoveries show how hard it can be to track all of these classified documents. “We’ve just overloaded the system,” Goitein said. “And that makes slippage inevitable.”
by ti-amie The difference still remains that all of these papers/documents being found are being turned over with little to no fuss. The one glaring exception still remains...
by ponchi101 But it still changes his case. If he took classified material but was the same kind as those of others, the "crime" is not as complex.
He remains a total shame, but he has to be treated like all the others.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
by ti-amie Sunday with "George Santos"
by ti-amie
by ti-amie A fishing expedition by any other name...
by Owendonovan Why are we calling the liar George Santos a fabulist? Fabulist sounds like a charming little moniker for Upper East Side women who lunch with their gay male friend who's trying to become them.
by ti-amie
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:42 am
Why are we calling the liar George Santos a fabulist? Fabulist sounds like a charming little moniker for Upper East Side women who lunch with their gay male friend who's trying to become them.
I totally agree. It's like how the NYTimes had to be shamed into calling tfg a liar.
by ponchi101 Because of the US's legal system? You call him a liar, he sues you for defamation, the case go to trial, it takes years to determine and in the meantime you cannot publish anything on him because you are in litigation?
Just asking.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos"
We can call him a liar here though right?
I'll believe it when I see it.
by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:45 pm
Today in "George Santos"
We can call him a liar here though right?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Here? Liar, POS, psycho, a** hole, whatever you want. If they tell you to stop it (whomever "they" may be), tell them to go find that "Evil P" in Colombia, and shut down out server in Lithuania.
Most likely (if they are republicans) they won't even know where the countries are (guaranteed they will go to D.C., because of "Columbia")
by ti-amie More "George Santos" news today
I worked with many people from Long Island - meaning Nassau and Suffolk counties not Brooklyn and Queens - and I've known for a long time that the GOP, at least there, operates like a gang. If you want decent services from your town or county you have to be a registered Republican. It's been like that for years and years. This Nancy Marks woman has been at the center of things for a very long time. It should also be noted that Elise Stefanik from upstate New York was a strong backer of "George Santos".
Just my opinion but if they've "asked" him to step down from his committee assignments and Marks has resigned from his "campaign" something is about to hit the fan big time. I could be wrong - timing is never sure with these people - but if he was just a money laundering front...or not a born or naturalized US citizen... it can get very interesting.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 100,000 people vote twice. They get caught. They are given 50 hrs/community service.
You buy the community service back @ $10/hr. Plus give each people $500 bonus for their service.
100,000 x $500 (bonus) + $500 (service buy back) x 100,000. $100,000,000.
You can buy a state's election for $100,000,000. Given 5-6 states that usually decide the electoral college, half a billion dollars will do it.
That's one very good deal.
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos" (so far)
by ponchi101 You have to admit he is entertaining. And better behaved (so far) than Laureen and MTG.
by ti-amie If they were to shoot it down and it fell on someone's home or property...
by ponchi101 Chinese Spy balloon...
There's a joke right there and I can't find it.
(I hate that )
by ti-amie More details.
I shudder to think what TFG would've done
(Other than call one of his boys and find out if he could grift someone into paying him for not shooting it down that is)
by ti-amie Robert Reich
@rbreich@masto.ai
RT @AndrewJBates46
.@SenMikeLee "was also yelling, you know, 'liar, liar, house on fire' kind of stuff last night.'
Well, there's "a video of him saying, 'I'm here right now to tell you one thing you probably never heard from a politician: it will be my objective to phase-out Social Security.'"
by ponchi101 A country with no Social Security. They truly hate poor people.
by ti-amie It gets better. These people really want to bring back child labor. This is not the first time I've heard some of them say this.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 7:24 pm
Robert Reich
@rbreich@masto.ai
RT @AndrewJBates46
.@SenMikeLee "was also yelling, you know, 'liar, liar, house on fire' kind of stuff last night.'
Well, there's "a video of him saying, 'I'm here right now to tell you one thing you probably never heard from a politician: it will be my objective to phase-out Social Security.'"
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:58 pm
It gets better. These people really want to bring back child labor. This is not the first time I've heard some of them say this.
Ouch
by ti-amie Today in "George Santos". Stealing money meant for a homeless vet's dog wasn't enough for "George".
by ti-amie Don't forget Rick Scott perpetrated one of the largest Medicare scams ever.
by ponchi101 About George Santos.
He is a test for your democracy. I know that Tiny is laughing at your justice system. But if George is not behind bars by the end of this year, the American Justice System is simply there to imprison the little people.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:21 am
About George Santos.
He is a test for your democracy. I know that Tiny is laughing at your justice system. But if George is not behind bars by the end of this year, the American Justice System is simply there to imprison the little people.
He's a one man crime wave. And yes
by patrick
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:18 am
Don't forget Rick Scott perpetrated one of the largest Medicare scams ever.
Speaking of Scott, he had some ads today that said Biden did not pay taxes for one. Scott was embarrased by Biden on Tuesday. Reason for the ad was Biden was scheduled to speak in Tampa
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:21 am
About George Santos.
He is a test for your democracy. I know that Tiny is laughing at your justice system. But if George is not behind bars by the end of this year, the American Justice System is simply there to imprison the little people.
It means none of that. Taking two cases (or maybe 20 if you add all the charges that each might face federally and in various states) among the hundreds of thousands of cases prosecuted each year isn't a benchmark for anything.
And Grifter isn't laughing at the justice system. He's thinking he's thrilled he met and adopted the practices the mob bosses use to avoid liability.
It has always been and will always be true that those that can afford the most qualified, experienced and connected counsel will do a much better job avoiding serving time or paying a judgment. That's not new and anyone that thought differently was deluding themselves.
by ponchi101 I thank you for that, but... these are high profile people. They are emblematic. I will politely agree to disagree.
by ti-amieThe making of Anna Paulina Luna
Luna’s sharp turn to the right, her account of an isolated and impoverished childhood, and her embrace of her Hispanic heritage have surprised some friends and family who knew her before her ascent to the U.S. House this year.
By Jacqueline Alemany and Alice Crites
Updated February 10, 2023 at 1:45 p.m. EST|Published February 10, 2023 at 5:00 a.m. EST
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) is seen before President Biden’s State of the Union address on Feb. 7. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
CORRECTION
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Anna Paulina Luna was registered as a Democrat in Washington state in 2017 based on an erroneous voter registration database. Washington state only requires voters to declare their party affiliation when they cast a ballot in a presidential primary.
Twelve years before she was elected as the first Mexican American woman to represent Florida in Congress, Anna Paulina Luna was serving at Whiteman Air Force Base in Warrensburg, Mo., where friends said she described herself as alternately Middle Eastern, Jewish or Eastern European. Known then by her given last name of Mayerhofer, Luna sported designer clothing and expressed support for then-President Barack Obama.
By the time she ran for Congress as a Republican, she had changed her last name to Luna in what she said was an homage to her mother’s family. A staunch advocate for gun rights, she cited on the campaign trail a harrowing childhood that left her “battle hardened.” She said she and her mother had little extended family as she grew up in “low-income” neighborhoods in Southern California with a father in and out of incarceration. She said she experienced a traumatizing “home invasion” when she was serving in the Air Force in Missouri.
Luna’s sharp turn to the right, her account of an isolated and impoverished childhood, and her embrace of her Hispanic heritage have come as a surprise to some friends and family who knew her before her ascent to the U.S. House this year. A cousin who grew up with Luna said she was regularly included in family gatherings. Her roommate in Missouri had no recollection of the “home invasion” Luna detailed, describing instead a break-in at their shared apartment when they were not home, an incident confirmed by police records.
“She would really change who she was based on what fit the situation best at the time,” said the roommate, Brittany Brooks, who lived with Luna for six months and was a close friend during her military service.
Luna’s congressional office did not provide answers to a detailed list of questions about her biography from The Post. When approached in person on Capitol Hill last week, Luna claimed she had not received any inquiry from The Post and declined to comment further. On Friday, Luna’s communications director, Edie Heipel, emailed The Post calling the questions “bizarre” and stating “our office will not be responding to you any further.”
Luna’s persona as a hard-line conservative who overcame steep personal odds helped her flip Florida’s newly redistricted 13th Congressional seat red last year, riding the support of former president Donald Trump to victory over Democratic candidate Eric Lynn. She is part of a new class of House Republicans that includes many elected to public office for the first time, including Rep. George Santos (N.Y.), whose fabrications about his biography emerged after his election.
During her first week in Congress, Luna was part of a small group of Republicans who refused to elect Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as House speaker, before earning major concessions and eventually switching her vote.
Central to Luna’s political identity is a dramatic life story laid out on her campaign website featuring disturbing experiences that left her with “an armor” that prepared her to fight for the American Dream, as she has described it. She says she survived an armed robbery by age 9 and that her grandmother “died of HIV/AIDS contracted from heroin use.” She has asserted at times that her grandmother’s husband and brothers died that way, too.
In text messages and emails to The Post, Luna’s mother, Monica Luna, affirmed her daughter’s accounts of those incidents.
“Anna’s story is layered and complex because my story is layered and complex because it took me a very long time to get stabilized after a difficult childhood of my own, and then naively getting involved in relationships that were not good for me,” Monica Luna wrote.
‘Broken home mentality’
Luna was born Anna Paulina Mayerhofer in 1989 in Santa Ana, Calif. Her father, George Mayerhofer, was a drug addict, according to Luna and other family members, and he and Luna’s mother never married. In campaign literature and in speaking engagements, Luna has routinely said her mother single-handedly raised her with “no family to rely on.”
“That broken home mentality really did provide me with a lot of insight as to what things work and what other things don’t work, especially when it comes to policy,” Luna said on her podcast in 2021. She has also said she and her mother lacked “a strong extended network of people” that could help care for them.
“I remember those struggles growing up,” Luna said.
Luna lived as a child in various apartments and homes in the Orange County cities of Irvine, Aliso Viejo and Santa Ana as well as the city of Los Angeles, according to public records. Luna also spent time in Tustin and Victorville while visiting her father, Monica Luna said.
Monica Luna said she was the only source of meaningful financial support for the family and had to rely on welfare assistance for periods of time, especially as she was putting herself through college at the University of California at Irvine, and UCLA School of Law.
“Anna had a life that looked like one thing but in reality, there was a side that people didn’t know about,” Monica Luna wrote.
Other relatives have different recollections, saying Luna and her mother were supported by an extended family.
“The whole family kind of raised her — my dad was a part of her life when she was younger and we all kind of coddled her,” said Nicole Mayerhofer, a first cousin who is three years younger than Luna. She shared with The Post photos of the two girls growing up together and into early adulthood, including a snapshot from a family birthday party when they were young. “She was always a part of everything, all these family gatherings and activities.”
Nicole Mayerhofer and Anna Paulina Luna pictured together in Fort Walton, Fla., in 2013. (Courtesy of Nicole Mayerhofer)
Luna’s paternal grandfather, Heinrich Mayerhofer, would pick her up from day care when Monica Luna was studying, according to Nicole Mayerhofer’s mother, Jolanta.
“She had everything. What she needed and more,” said Jolanta Mayerhofer. “And not only did Monica provide for her, but my father-in-law did, too.” Another family member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy, also said relatives were involved in Luna’s life.
For her part, Monica Luna disputed the accounts of Luna’s cousin and aunt, saying Luna “barely spent any time with them in her entire life,” and called it a “complete fabrication” that Luna’s grandfather provided for her daughter.
Luna’s biography on her campaign website says that throughout her childhood and teenage years, her father “spent time in and out of incarceration,” and that her communication with him during this time was “through letters to jail and collect calls.”
The Post was not able to locate any public records of felony charges or prison sentences for George Mayerhofer in California, where Luna lived at the time. A spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections said they had no records that he served time in state facilities.
George Mayerhofer died in a car accident in Walton County, Fla., last year, according to a statement Luna posted on Twitter.
According to Monica Luna and Jolanta Mayerhofer, George Mayerhofer had several short stints in jail for not paying child support. Monica Luna said he also spent at least one year in jail for a drug-related charge. And she said he served time in Orange County. A spokesperson for the Orange County Corrections Department and the Santa Ana jail told The Post they had no records of incarceration for George Mayerhofer.
Luna, center, celebrates her birthday surrounded by her paternal grandparents, her father, aunt, uncle and cousins. (Courtesy of Nicole Mayerhofer)
In 1997, when Luna was around 8, her mother married a man who was a sales manager, according to the Orange County Register. At the time, Monica Luna worked as an elementary school teacher in the Santa Ana school district, where she was employed from 1997 to 2000, according to her résumé.
During that marriage, Monica Luna served as vice president of the MOMS Club of Aliso Viejo North, an “international organization to support stay-at-home moms,” according to a 2004 Orange County Register article about a toy drive Monica Luna organized for children placed in foster homes.
The article noted that Monica Luna’s then-15-year-old daughter, Anna, helped pack boxes of donations for the drive at their home in Aliso Viejo.
“People should remember that we are fortunate and have so many blessings,” Anna Luna told the reporter. “Taking care of foster children, now that is so cool.”
(...)
According to a biography of Luna on the website of Turning Point USA, the conservative nonprofit where she worked, she “modeled professionally as a means of paying for expenses that the GI bill did not cover.”
Luna — whose mother’s family is Mexican American and paternal grandmother was born in Hidalgo, Mexico — now describes herself as Hispanic and uses the Spanish pronunciation of her first name. But fellow service members say Luna did not publicly describe herself as Hispanic at the time and referred to herself using the English pronunciation.
“At Whiteman, we had different organizations for different groups and we did have an active Hispanic population on base — she wasn’t part of that,” said Katie West, who served at the same time as Luna at Whiteman Air Force Base. “I know that for sure because I had a lot of friends who were part of that. She’s kind of leaning into that now but that was news to me.”
(...)
In a 2019 clip from a speaking engagement posted to Luna’s YouTube channel, Luna said that when she was stationed at Whiteman she experienced a “home invasion” at 4 a.m., saying that her landlord broke in to the apartment.
“Had my friend Jeremy not been there to protect me, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be standing right here in front of you guys right now,” Luna added. “[My landlord] was not breaking into my house at 4 a.m. to see how I was doing.”
But Brooks said in an interview that she was not aware of such an early-morning incident taking place. Rather, she said, there was a daytime break-in that occurred when Luna wasn’t home.
A report from the Warrensburg Police Department obtained by The Post describes the July 2010 episode as a “burglary not in progress.”
The incident occurred after Brooks and Luna reported to their landlord that they kept “finding the rear door to the residence standing open,” according to the police report. In response, the landlord changed the locks on the apartment and had deadbolts and latches installed, the report said.
But the women continued to find the door standing open and unlocked, prompting them to temporarily stay elsewhere for several days, the report said. One day, Luna came by the apartment and sprinkled baby powder on the floor in front of the doors before leaving.
Brooks, who is the only person named in the police report, returned later to check on the apartment and then called the police to report that “someone had gained entry into her residence,” according to the report.
When the police arrived, Brooks showed them “what appeared to be a heavy tread left boot print in the powder exiting the premises,” according to the police report.
Brooks, who is now a lawyer working with veterans at a legal aid clinic in Florida, told police that while nothing was missing from the residence, “her desk drawers had been opened and gone through” and “there was also a used condom lying on the floor that Brooks advised was not from her.”
The landlord’s name was redacted from the police report, and no suspect was ever arrested or charged in the case, according to police records.
Luna has described how the “enduring trauma” of the break-in followed her when she moved to Florida.
Becoming Luna
Luna spent six years in the military, where she met her husband, Andrew Gamberzky, an Air Force Special Operations veteran who was wounded during his second combat deployment. During her time in the military, she trained at Lackland and Keesler Air Force bases before she was assigned to Whiteman Air Force Base and then Hurlburt Field, according to a spokesperson for the Air Force.
She graduated from the University of West Florida in 2017 with a degree in biology. Throughout college and after leaving the Air Force, she worked at times as a model, a cocktail waitress at a gentleman’s club and an Instagram influencer, Luna has said. For a period of time, she owned property in Washington state, according to public records.
Luna’s rise to political prominence began in 2018 after online statements she made on human trafficking and the Second Amendment caught the attention of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA.
Kirk brought Luna on as the group’s director of Hispanic engagement in August of that year, a position that served as a launchpad for her unsuccessful bid for Congress against Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) in 2020.
It was around that time Luna began to embrace her Hispanic heritage publicly.
When Luna first registered to vote in Okaloosa County, Fla., in 2015, she identified herself as “White, not of Hispanic origin.” But she marked her ethnicity as Hispanic when she updated her registration in 2019.
That same year, at age 29, she filed a petition in Washington state requesting to change her name to Luna. In the petition, which was reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times, Luna wrote that she wanted “to represent my Hispanic heritage and have the same last name as my mother.”
(...)
Luna also stated on the campaign trail and in an interview with Jewish Insider in November that while she identifies as Christian, she was “raised as a Messianic Jew by her father.” Messianic Jews identify as Jewish and say they believe that Jesus is the Messiah. “I am also a small fraction Ashkenazi,” she added, referring to Jews whose ancestors lived in Central or Eastern Europe.
Luna’s mother said her father was a “Christian that embraced the Messianic faith.”
“He eventually got clean and started attending a messianic Jewish church in Orange County. He brought Anna to services and she buried him to Jewish customs,” Monica Luna wrote in a text.
However, three members of Luna’s extended family said that her father was Catholic, and that they were not aware of him practicing any form of Judaism while Luna was growing up.
George Mayerhofer’s father, Heinrich Mayerhofer, immigrated to Canada from Germany in 1954 and identified as Roman Catholic, according to an immigration record reviewed by The Post.
According to several family members, Heinrich Mayerhofer, who died in 2003, served in the armed forces of Nazi Germany when he was a teenager in the 1940s.
One of his sons, Edward Mayerhofer — Luna’s uncle — provided The Post what he said was a portrait of Heinrich Mayerhofer dressed in a uniform as a young soldier in Germany. Experts from the Simon Wiesenthal Center who reviewed the photo confirmed the uniform was consistent with that of a member of the Wehrmacht, which was the armed forces of Nazi Germany.
Heinrich Mayerhofer was Luna’s paternal grandfather. (Courtesy of Edward Mayerhofer)
Jolanta Mayerhofer, Edward’s wife, said Heinrich Mayerhofer — who went by Henry — told her he had no choice but to serve the Nazi regime during the war.
“It hurt for him to talk about it,” she said. “He said, ‘You getting the letter, you need to show up, otherwise your life is over. … He did not like it, but that’s what life was.”
Monica Luna said she had never heard that Luna’s grandfather had Nazi ties. She noted that Luna is estranged from Edward Mayerhofer, who is the brother of Luna’s father and publicly raised inconsistencies in Luna’s biography on social media during her first bid for Congress. In response, Luna filed a request for a stalking injunction against him in 2020.
Nicole Mayerhofer, Luna’s cousin, and other family members said it was well known in the family that Heinrich Mayerhofer served in the German army in World War II. She said her grandfather at times spoke of his experiences in the war.
“Yes, [my grandfather] did grow up that way but when he decided to come to America and live here, even though he tried to remember where he came from, he was accepting of people of different races and religions — he was not antisemitic,” Nicole Mayerhofer said.
The relationship between the cousins deteriorated in 2020 after Luna filed the stalking injunction against Nicole Mayerhofer’s father, according to Nicole.
Since her election to Congress, Luna has drawn attention for declining to attend a White House reception for new House members because of the event’s covid-19 protocols, arguing in favor of allowing House members to carry firearms to committee meetings and accusing a reporter of sexually harassing her after he asked her questions while she left her office in the U.S. Capitol in January.
The new House Freedom Caucus member has compared Democrats’ approach to human trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border to human rights abuses in China, called on the United States to stop sending tanks to Ukraine and suggested criminalizing taxation.
Luna has also promised to tackle the issue of censorship, balance the budget and launch a veterans coalition, while sharing motivational messages about her journey to Washington along the way.
“I always tell people that you have two options in life: you can either choose to be the victor or the victim,” Luna said in an interview last year, shortly before Election Day. “I chose to be a victor.”
Souad Mekhennet in Frankfurt, Germany, Isaac Stanley-Becker in Washington and Ruby Cramer in New York contributed to this report.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:57 pm
I thank you for that, but... these are high profile people. They are emblematic. I will politely agree to disagree.
Emblematic for what though? You're acting like the entire democracy will crumble if two people aren't in prison. You're missing like 50 steps in between that would need to happen before it would come close to approaching that. It's an exaggeration to suggest it. Unfortunately we've only got convictions on these murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and drug traffickers this month, but if we don't convict this guy for passing bad checks, democracy will fall?
Rich and high profile individuals have been hiring good lawyers to get out of trouble since the dawn of time and it hasn't been a downfall of the democracy since the republic began and it won't be now.
by JazzNU Pretty sure I did more thorough background checks on collegiate opponents than the House GOP does on their candidates at this point.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Katie Porter and Adam Schiff have already announced that they're running for this seat.
by ponchi101 The USA is falling in this pattern that politicians start running for office the moment the election is over. That is not healthy: don't tell me you can focus on your job while you are running for it again.
Somebody is going to announce s/he is running for president soon. IN 2028.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:40 pm
The USA is falling in this pattern that politicians start running for office the moment the election is over. That is not healthy: don't tell me you can focus on your job while you are running for it again.
Somebody is going to announce s/he is running for president soon. IN 2028.
I wish I could say that you're wrong...
by ti-amie Y'all knew more was coming about "George Santos Devolder Ravanche" right? The last surname is new to me.
by ti-amie More on this situation.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Why? Where is the law that says that these people have to resign for making up their resumes? That happens only to regular people like us: you lied in your resume, you get fired.
These people? You lie in your resume, and you have the speaker of the house by the cojones.
by ti-amie I did a search to see what the breakdown of Dems vs Reps.
February 21, 2023
Leader Kevin McCarthy Hakeem Jeffries
Party Republican Democratic
by ti-amie George Takei :verified:
@georgetakei@universeodon.com
Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) introduced a bill (cosponsored by Boebert & Santos) making the AR-15 the “National Gun of America.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has a bill to award killer Kyle Rittenhouse with the Congressional Gold Medal.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) says Ukraine is not our friend and Russia is not our enemy...
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:01 pm
George Takei :verified:
@georgetakei@universeodon.com
Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) introduced a bill (cosponsored by Boebert & Santos) making the AR-15 the “National Gun of America.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has a bill to award killer Kyle Rittenhouse with the Congressional Gold Medal.
There were like 5 potential active shooter threats being investigated in Colorado schools today. How in the world is it the time for this BS even if you are the level of epic asshole these people are? Read the goddamn room.
by patrick
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:01 pm
George Takei :verified:
@georgetakei@universeodon.com
Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) introduced a bill (cosponsored by Boebert & Santos) making the AR-15 the “National Gun of America.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has a bill to award killer Kyle Rittenhouse with the Congressional Gold Medal.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) says Ukraine is not our friend and Russia is not our enemy...
This is past embarrassing to the core from the National Gun of America being used from a gold medal being awarded to the killer who was free thanks to a judge restricting on what can be presented while the previous President made good to his maker overseas by him brainwashing people.
Unfortunately, history is currently repeating itself.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan Because when you're the GOP if you don't address it, it doesn't exist.
by Ainsley The next election will be the first election that I will be able to vote and I cannot wait to take part in it. I come from a State that is gun loving and to be honest, I don't have a problem with law abiding citizens owning guns for protection and hunting, but they must follow many rules to own them. I also do not see the need for any regular citizen to have their hands on an AR-15 or any assault weapon. Those types of weapons should be left in the trained hands of the military and that is it. The problem is and it is a huge problem with many of the lawmakers in my State is they are getting their pockets lined by the NRA so they will support them to no end. I know I only have 1 vote, but hopefully if more young people in my State like me make that vote for the first time just like me we can get these fools out and new people in charge of our State.
by ponchi101 Do you consider yourself to be representative of at least a portion of your state's youth?
I get to travel to TX with certain frequency (Houston) and well, the gun culture is palpable. Do you believe that the number of young Texans that would approve of limitations in arms' ownership exceeds the number of traditional young Texans that can't wait to turn 18 so they can walk into that Walmart and get their first AR-15?
by Ainsley
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:06 pm
Do you consider yourself to be representative of at least a portion of your state's youth?
I get to travel to TX with certain frequency (Houston) and well, the gun culture is palpable. Do you believe that the number of young Texans that would approve of limitations in arms' ownership exceeds the number of traditional young Texans that can't wait to turn 18 so they can walk into that Walmart and get their first AR-15?
It's really hard to say. I live up North so it might be a lot different than what might be represented in Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, or even Austin. I just know that there are those who have the same beliefs as I do. I do think Texas will always want to have their guns and like I said, I am not against that at all if they are handled in the correct manner and gone through the right process to own them. The AR-15 however does not fit the regular citizens needs. There is no need to use one of them for hunting purposes or for protection. You can have another reliable gun for protection that if used can easily get the job done. You don't need an AR-15 to blow someone in half. The one thing about my State is the majority of people know how to handle a gun and if they go through the right channels to own one they are going to use them accordingly. Of course there are the crazy people everywhere and those are the ones you need these laws for.
by ti-amie
Also this
by ti-amie More shenanigans by the GOP
by ti-amie
mrs panstreppon
@mrspanstreppon
Former congressman & Santos supporter Mark Foley in Berlin w Ambassador Richard Grenell in 2018...
by Owendonovan Can you have any self worth and be a republican at the same time?
By the time Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed Monday that he would sign a recently passed bill criminalizing drag performances in public and in front of children, a photo that appears to show him dressed in drag as a high school student had already started to circulate on Reddit and Twitter.
Just before midnight Saturday, a Reddit user shared an image that appears to show Lee as a high school student wearing a short-skirted cheerleader’s uniform, a pearl necklace and a wig, posing on a school sports field next to two girls in men’s suits. The caption says, “Governor Bill Lee in drag (1977 high school yearbook).”
by ti-amie Lori Lightfoot will not be re elected as Chicago mayor. This could be the main reason.
by JazzNU Hope Brandon is able to pull off a win. Paul Vallas has been misleading people and telling lies for well over 20 years in Chicago, it's pitiful he still has any career to speak of.
by ti-amie
Of course he could simply be expelled but...
by ti-amie
by ti-amie More fine print re "Santos" including comparisons with AOC.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amieThousands of pro-Trump bots are attacking DeSantis, Haley
By DAVID KLEPPER
today
WASHINGTON (AP) — Over the past 11 months, someone created thousands of fake, automated Twitter accounts — perhaps hundreds of thousands of them — to offer a stream of praise for Donald Trump.
Besides posting adoring words about the former president, the fake accounts ridiculed Trump’s critics from both parties and attacked Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador who is challenging her onetime boss for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
When it came to Ron DeSantis, the bots aggressively suggested that the Florida governor couldn’t beat Trump, but would be a great running mate.
As Republican voters size up their candidates for 2024, whoever created the bot network is seeking to put a thumb on the scale, using online manipulation techniques pioneered by the Kremlin to sway the digital platform conversation about candidates while exploiting Twitter’s algorithms to maximize their reach.
The sprawling bot network was uncovered by researchers at Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm that shared its findings with The Associated Press. While the identity of those behind the network of fake accounts is unknown, Cyabra’s analysts determined that it was likely created within the U.S.
To identify a bot, researchers will look for patterns in an account’s profile, its follower list and the content it posts. Human users typically post about a variety of subjects, with a mix of original and reposted material, but bots often post repetitive content about the same topics.
That was true of many of the bots identified by Cyabra.
“One account will say, ‘Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,’ and another will say, ‘Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,’” said Jules Gross, the Cyabra engineer who first discovered the network. “Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening.”
Bots, as they are commonly called, are fake, automated accounts that became notoriously well-known after Russia employed them in an effort to meddle in the 2016 election. While big tech companies have improved their detection of fake accounts, the network identified by Cyabra shows they remain a potent force in shaping online political discussion.
The new pro-Trump network is actually three different networks of Twitter accounts, all created in huge batches in April, October and November 2022. In all, researchers believe hundreds of thousands of accounts could be involved.
The accounts all feature personal photos of the alleged account holder as well as a name. Some of the accounts posted their own content, often in reply to real users, while others reposted content from real users, helping to amplify it further.
“McConnell... Traitor!” wrote one of the accounts, in response to an article in a conservative publication about GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell, one of several Republican critics of Trump targeted by the network.
One way of gauging the impact of bots is to measure the percentage of posts about any given topic generated by accounts that appear to be fake. The percentage for typical online debates is often in the low single digits. Twitter itself has said that less than 5% of its active daily users are fake or spam accounts.
When Cyabra researchers examined negative posts about specific Trump critics, however, they found far higher levels of inauthenticity. Nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley, for example, were traced back to fake accounts.
The network also helped popularize a call for DeSantis to join Trump as his vice presidential running mate — an outcome that would serve Trump well and allow him to avoid a potentially bitter matchup if DeSantis enters the race.
The same network of accounts shared overwhelmingly positive content about Trump and contributed to an overall false picture of his support online, researchers found.
“Our understanding of what is mainstream Republican sentiment for 2024 is being manipulated by the prevalence of bots online,” the Cyabra researchers concluded.
The triple network was discovered after Gross analyzed Tweets about different national political figures and noticed that many of the accounts posting the content were created on the same day. Most of the accounts remain active, though they have relatively modest numbers of followers.
A message left with a spokesman for Trump’s campaign was not immediately returned.
Most bots aren’t designed to persuade people, but to amplify certain content so more people see it, according to Samuel Woolley, a professor and misinformation researcher at the University of Texas whose most recent book focuses on automated propaganda.
When a human user sees a hashtag or piece of content from a bot and reposts it, they’re doing the network’s job for it, and also sending a signal to Twitter’s algorithms to boost the spread of the content further.
Bots can also succeed in convincing people that a candidate or idea is more or less popular than the reality, he said. More pro-Trump bots can lead to people overstating his popularity overall, for example.
“Bots absolutely do impact the flow of information,” Woolley said. “They’re built to manufacture the illusion of popularity. Repetition is the core weapon of propaganda and bots are really good at repetition. They’re really good at getting information in front of people’s eyeballs.”
Until recently, most bots were easily identified thanks to their clumsy writing or account names that included nonsensical words or long strings of random numbers. As social media platforms got better at detecting these accounts, the bots became more sophisticated.
So-called cyborg accounts are one example: a bot that is periodically taken over by a human user who can post original content and respond to users in human-like ways, making them much harder to sniff out.
Bots could soon get much sneakier thanks to advances in artificial intelligence. New AI programs can create lifelike profile photos and posts that sound much more authentic. Bots that sound like a real person and deploy deepfake video technology may challenge platforms and users alike in new ways, according to Katie Harbath, a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Facebook public policy director.
“The platforms have gotten so much better at combating bots since 2016,” Harbath said. “But the types that we’re starting to see now, with AI, they can create fake people. Fake videos.”
These technological advances likely ensure that bots have a long future in American politics — as digital foot soldiers in online campaigns, and as potential problems for both voters and candidates trying to defend themselves against anonymous online attacks.
“There’s never been more noise online,” said Tyler Brown, a political consultant and former digital director for the Republican National Committee. “How much of it is malicious or even unintentionally unfactual? It’s easy to imagine people being able to manipulate that.”
by ti-amie This story about the bot farms that are boosting TFG even made my all news station.
by ponchi101 Probably that is the reason C4C, Ainsley, SinnerFan and all the others are no longer here. They had to get to work.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 11:25 pm
Probably that is the reason C4C, Ainsley, SinnerFan and all the others are no longer here. They had to get to work.
by Deuce
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 11:25 pm
Probably that is the reason C4C, Ainsley, SinnerFan and all the others are no longer here. They had to get to work.
^
I'm thinking more and more that it was a real person creating all those posters - no AI or bots involved, just an individual getting their kicks by creating those personas.
I suppose if that is the case, it would be more difficult to defend against than against the bots. Hopefully, whatever their origin, whoever was doing it will respect the fact that we don't appreciate it and don't want it to continue.
by ti-amieGOP Leader McConnell remains in hospital after concussion
By MARY CLARE JALONICK and LISA MASCARO
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell suffered a concussion after a fall at a local hotel and remains hospitalized “for a few days of observation and treatment,” a spokesman said Thursday.
The Kentucky senator, 81, was at a Wednesday evening dinner for the Senate Leadership Fund, a campaign committee aligned with him, when he tripped and fell. The dinner was at the Waldorf Astoria Washington DC, formerly the Trump International Hotel.
Spokesman David Popp said McConnell is being treated for a concussion and “is grateful to the medical professionals for their care and to his colleagues for their warm wishes.” McConnell’s office did not provide additional detail on his condition or how long he may be absent from the Senate.
Senators leaving a Republican conference lunch on Thursday said that that McConnell’s staff had given them an update during the meeting. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney said they were told that “he’s doing well, feels fine, but had a concussion.”
President Joe Biden tweeted that he wishes McConnell a “speedy recovery” and looks forward to seeing him back on the Senate floor.
Romney predicted that McConnell would stay in the hospital over the weekend and return to the Senate next week.
But concussions can be serious injuries and take time for recovery. Many professional sporting associations have focused on the dangers of repetitive head injuries. Even a single incident of concussion can limit a person’s abilities as they recover.
In 2019, the GOP leader tripped and fell at his home in Kentucky, suffering a shoulder fracture that required surgery. The Senate had just started a summer recess, and he worked from home for some weeks as he recovered.
First elected in 1984, McConnell in January became the longest-serving Senate leader when the new Congress convened, breaking the previous record of 16 years.
The taciturn McConnell is often reluctant to discuss his private life. But at the start of the COVID-19 crisis he opened up about his early childhood experience fighting polio. He described how his mother insisted that he stay off his feet as a toddler and worked with him through a determined physical therapy regime. He has acknowledged some difficulty in adulthood climbing stairs.
South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Republican, said he was at the dinner Wednesday evening and that McConnell had delivered remarks “as usual.”
“Evidently it happened later in the evening,” said Thune, who had moved on to another reception underway at the hotel and did not see McConnell fall.
“We just need to make sure that the leader does what he’s told,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
None of the senators had talked to McConnell, though several said they had reached out to wish him well. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he had sent a note but that it was his understanding that the leader was not taking calls.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Thursday morning that he had called McConnell but spoke with his staff “to extend my prayers and well wishes.”
The Senate, where the average age is 65, has been without several members recently due to illness.
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., 53, who suffered a stroke during his campaign last year, was expected to remain out for some weeks as he received care for clinical depression. And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., 89, said last week that she had been hospitalized to be treated for shingles.
by ti-amie Apparently Mitch fell down a flight of stairs, a pretty serious accident for a man his age.
by dryrunguy
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:28 pm
Apparently Mitch fell down a flight of stairs, a pretty serious accident for a man his age.
FOX is reporting he tripped over Hillary's emails.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
We reported on Minnesota Republican state Sen. Steve Drazkowski saying earlier this month that they shouldn't pass the bill for free lunch for schoolchildren because "I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry,"
And then there was millionaire Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire who said, "School lunches are not going to solve the problem of child hunger at any serious level," adding, "It does not take that much money to feed a child."
Now we have North Dakota State Sen. Mike Wobbema, who stepped up to the mic to take a crap on the poors, too.
"I can understand kids going hungry, but is that really the problem of the school district?" he asked. "Is that the problem of the state of North Dakota? It's really the problem of parents being negligent with their kids, if their kids are choosing to eat in the first place."
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amieDeSantis’ Reedy Creek board says Disney stripped its power
By Skyler Swisher
Orlando Sentinel
•
Mar 29, 2023 at 6:17 pm
LAKE BUENA VISTA — Gov. Ron DeSantis’ handpicked board overseeing Disney World’s government services is gearing up for a potential legal battle over a 30-year development agreement they say effectively renders them powerless to manage the entertainment giant’s future growth in Central Florida.
Ahead of an expected state takeover, the Walt Disney Co. quietly pushed through the pact and restrictive covenants that would tie the hands of future board members for decades, according to a legal presentation by the district’s lawyers on Wednesday.
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District’s new Board of Supervisors voted to bring in outside legal firepower to examine the agreement, including a conservative Washington, D.C., law firm that has defended several of DeSantis’ culture war priorities.
“We’re going to have to deal with it and correct it,” board member Brian Aungst Jr. said. “It’s a subversion of the will of the voters and the Legislature and the governor. It completely circumvents the authority of this board to govern.”
Disney defended its actions.
“All agreements signed between Disney and the district were appropriate and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law,” an unsigned company statement read.
Taryn Fenske, a DeSantis spokeswoman, called the move “last-ditch efforts” to transfer “rights and authorities” from the district to Disney.
“An initial review suggests these agreements may have significant legal infirmities that would render the contracts void as a matter of law,” Fenske said in a prepared statement. “We are pleased the new governor-appointed board retained multiple financial and legal firms to conduct audits and investigate Disney’s past behavior.”
The previous board, which was known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District and controlled by Disney, approved the agreement on Feb. 8, the day before the Florida House voted to put the governor in charge.
Board members held a public meeting that day but spent little time discussing the document before unanimously approving it in a brief meeting.
DeSantis replaced those Disney-allied board members with five Republicans on Feb. 27, who discovered the binding agreement the previous board approved.
DeSantis and Disney clashed over the corporation’s opposition to what critics call the “don’t say gay” law, which limits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools.
The new DeSantis-aligned board expressed dismay over the previous board’s actions.
“This essentially makes Disney the government,” board member Ron Peri said. “This board loses, for practical purposes, the majority of its ability to do anything beyond maintain the roads and maintain basic infrastructure.”
Among other things, a “declaration of restrictive covenants” spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”
That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” if it is deemed to violate rules against perpetuity, according to the document.
A development agreement allows Disney to build projects at the highest density and the right to sell or assign those development rights to other district landowners without the board having any say, according to the presentation by the district’s new special legal counsel.
Legal Twitter is losing its s**t about this. Apparently in law school they teach about something called "Rule against Perpetuities" that has never been heard of outside of a classroom until now.
Peter Ross
@pross1959
Replying to
@PoliticsReid
This is awesome! Since it’s essentially a property agreement, all property agreements have to have an ending - the Rule against Perpetuities - from English common law. The end date is a common one used (21 years after the death of the current King’s descendants). Brilliant!
Leslie Stahl interviewed Rep. Green of Georgia last night.
by JazzNU
by JazzNU
by ponchi101 Jones was eventually expelled (so I have read).
Sickening.
by JazzNU Two black men expelled. The white woman spared.
I don't know why I'm surprised by today's results. Completely on-brand for Tennessee.
by ti-amie Don't go to the Dogecoin app to see what people are saying.
by ti-amie
JazzNU wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 1:24 am
Two black men expelled. The white woman spared.
I don't know why I'm surprised by today's results. Completely on-brand for Tennessee.
Reconstruction is back.
by ashkor87 As an uninvolved but interested observer, I think the GOP is in trouble...they would not want to nominate a proven loser like Trump, and Desantis comes across as mean and nasty..which doesn't win elections...! Their only hope is Haley...a Republican woman would sweep the field...the conservatives would vote for her because she is Republican, the liberals because she is a woman! ! I have always believed there will be a female President some day but it will be a Republican....
by ponchi101 It will be Trump. For the simple fact of real-politicks.
If they nominate him, it is a given. And if they don't, he will pout and scream and go his own way as an independent. With his 35 million acolytes in tow. He has the GOP by the nuts.
They created their monster. And he has run wild since.
by JazzNU
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:57 pm
As an uninvolved but interested observer, I think the GOP is in trouble...they would not want to nominate a proven loser like Trump, and Desantis comes across as mean and nasty..which doesn't win elections...! Their only hope is Haley...a Republican woman would sweep the field...the conservatives would vote for her because she is Republican, the liberals because she is a woman! ! I have always believed there will be a female President some day but it will be a Republican....
None of this is an accurate read on what is happening here.
by ti-amie Haley at best is running for a chance to be VP on someone's ticket. She will never top the ticket for the GQP. I know you're never supposed to say never but she hasn't a chance from what I see happening in that party.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 10:00 pm
Haley at best is running for a chance to be VP on someone's ticket. She will never top the ticket for the GQP. I know you're never supposed to say never but she hasn't a chance from what I see happening in that party.
And her appeal to liberals is non-existent. Her being a woman doesn't make her any more appealing than Alan Keyes being black did. It's just hilariously misogynistic and racist rinse-and-repeat GOP strategy that they think we can't tell the difference.
by ti-amie Ricky Davila
@therickydavila@bird.makeup
A Shelby County commissioner says Tennessee GOP is threatening to pull all funding for Memphis schools and infrastructure projects if they vote to re-appoint Rep. Justin Pearson to his democratically-elected seat.
This is called criminal extortion. GOP are criminals.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 12:01 am
Ricky Davila
@therickydavila@bird.makeup
A Shelby County commissioner says Tennessee GOP is threatening to pull all funding for Memphis schools and infrastructure projects if they vote to re-appoint Rep. Justin Pearson to his democratically-elected seat.
This is called criminal extortion. GOP are criminals.
Also illegal. And understand that Memphis is a majority black city. Julian Bond is rolling over in his grave.
by Suliso It is possible that first US female president will be Republican, but surely not Haley.
by Owendonovan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 12:01 am
Ricky Davila
@therickydavila@bird.makeup
A Shelby County commissioner says Tennessee GOP is threatening to pull all funding for Memphis schools and infrastructure projects if they vote to re-appoint Rep. Justin Pearson to his democratically-elected seat.
This is called criminal extortion. GOP are criminals.
Go ahead, see how well that goes for ya, Shelby county.
— GOP leaders expelled the Tennessee legislators
— DeSantis arrested protestors in Florida
— And now there have been major leaks of US classified documents
— GOP leaders expelled the Tennessee legislators
— DeSantis arrested protestors in Florida
— And now there have been major leaks of US classified documents
Coincidence? Or retaliation from the right?
I think it's attempts to capture the opportunity of the moment to keep the base riled up, rather than retaliation
by ti-amie
by mmmm8 The City Council voted him back in 36-0
The vote for the other gentleman's seat will be on Wednesday.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:09 pm
I know it is supposed to taste better when cold, but this happened so fast it is only lukewarm.
Good for TN.
It's sweet and salty at the same time.
by dryrunguy The NY Times is reporting that Tucker Carlson is leaving Fox News. (This could have gone into any one of about 10 threads. LOL!)
by patrick If true, where is Carlson going?
by ponchi101
patrick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:32 pm
If true, where is Carlson going?
Narnia.
Never, never land.
Atlantis.
Macondo.
Shangri-la.
Somewhere where truth is unknown.
Barnum & Baileys...?
by dryrunguy
patrick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:32 pm
If true, where is Carlson going?
I doubt he needs to go anywhere. Speaking fees are quite lucrative. And we all know no one enjoys the sound of his voice more than he does.
by ti-amie
Dry may have this one.
He wouldn't go to those low rent organizations because at least one of them has been dropped from my basic cable and I think other carriers have done the same.
by ti-amie Some interesting commentary
Michael Fenichel
@drmike@mastodon.social
The worlds of #propaganda & #disinformation are being shaken, along w/actual #news & #journalism.
While the big story seems to be the "departure" of #Fox anti-#truth net's #TuckerCarlson, other shocks are competing. For starts, #CNN Don Lemon was sacked.
Andrea Mitchell is being roundly blasted for leading w/"news" of "Mr. Biden" seeming diminished, ignoring the Fox bombs.
Tough day in the mainstream #media world! And a huge challenge for the future of #truth
Why? Because Fox is about to get wrecked with shareholder lawsuits claiming that they didn't do enough to stop the Dominion defamation.
They are trying to do now what they failed to do in 2020.
by ponchi101 Can somebody sue you because you lost a lawsuit? Isn't that a bit bizarre?
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:58 pm
Can somebody sue you because you lost a lawsuit? Isn't that a bit bizarre?
Ham sandwiches get indicted every day!
That said corporate law is a bizarro world where apparently this can happen. "You caused me to lose money! The value of my portfolio went down! I WILL SUE YOU!"
by ti-amie Keith D Johnson
@KeithDJohnson@sfba.social
$650 million (more or less, depending on news source). A good start.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:58 pm
Can somebody sue you because you lost a lawsuit? Isn't that a bit bizarre?
Yes, not even a little bit bizarre in this context. Less about "losing" a lawsuit and more about having the lawsuit brought to begin with.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:58 pm
Can somebody sue you because you lost a lawsuit? Isn't that a bit bizarre?
Yes, not even a little bit bizarre in this context. Less about "losing" a lawsuit and more about having the lawsuit brought to begin with.
I mean it makes sense. Since mere mortals like us are dealing with what for all intents and purposes is play money when it comes to these figures if I have stock worth $1m US and your shenanigans have reduced the value of my stock by even 25% I'm going to sue you.
by JazzNU Yes, but I'm guessing it's more about their fiduciary duty. They were, I would say maybe reckless isn't too strong of a word, in the way they managed this lawsuit. They didn't mitigate their potential losses in how they managed it and as I said before, I have a very hard time believing they weren't told to settle long before they did and thought they could get over on this the way Murdoch has done many, many times in the past here, in the UK and in Australia. So, I'd assume the contention is more about, this was worth $200 million to start, your actions brought about the lawsuit and cost the company $50 million, but had you better managed the fallout of the lawsuit (aka mitigate damages), then it may have only cost the company $20 million, not the $50 million it did. It is part of your fiduciary duties to mitigate losses. 25% loss is significant, so it is more than enough to be considered a breach of those duties. And remember, the way in which they handled it got not just the massive settlement, but also judgments against them. The losses won't end with the Dominion settlement.
The network paid out a hefty amount of settlement money in the Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly settlements as well. They might have been sued then too by the shareholders, I don't remember. But the Dominion number is far greater than those, and you add in Smartmatic and it's a different ball game. Abby Grossberg's case isn't insignificant either (and might explain the timing of Tucker's firing) even if the numbers won't be as high. And it could open them up to additional liability from parties yet to come forward as well.
by Suliso If, as now seems likely, 2024 will be Biden vs Trump round 2, will it be the first time a former president tries to unseat a current one?
by skatingfan
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:52 am
If, as now seems likely, 2024 will be Biden vs Trump round 2, will it be the first time a former president tries to unseat a current one?
Grover Cleveland was elected President in 1884.
Benjamin Harrison then defeated Cleveland in 1888.
Cleveland then defeated Harrison in 1892.
by dryrunguy Numerous reports indicate Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon have hired the same attorney.
by ponchi101 The irony is too much.
by JazzNU Not as shocking as everyone is making it seem. The number of high-powered entertainment attorneys specializing in media contracts is miniscule and this one has been successful getting his clients most of what they are asking for. It's no different than when you see the same attorneys pop up for similar types of cases in other realms.
That being said, these cases are diametrically different. Tucker thinking he's been wronged and that he'll be getting the remainder of his contract is hilarious. As if there isn't already enough evidence of firing for cause, I'm sure Fox will be waiting until after the deposition in Abby's case to see if they want to take the offer on the table and forget any formal legal action.
by ti-amie U.S. Politics in Real Time
@uspolitics@mastodon.sdf.org
Guiliani admits using ‘dirty trick’ to suppress Hispanic vote in mayoral race | Former New York City mayor reveals voter suppression tactics from 1993 election to Steve Bannon and Kari Lake
In the conversation, Giuliani – who was central to Trump’s efforts to subvert the result of the 2020 presidential election – lamented that he had been “cheated” during the 1989 mayoral race in which he lost before explaining his 1993 campaign strategy, saying: “I’ll tell you one little dirty trick,” to which Lake replied: “We need dirty tricks!”
“A dirty trick in New York City? I’m so shocked,” Bannon sarcastically responded. Giuliani then interrupted the former Trump adviser, saying: “No, played by Republicans!”
“Republicans don’t do dirty tricks,” Bannon said before Giuliani enthusiastically said: “How about this one?” Bannon replied: “Okay give it to me.”
Giuliani explained that he spent $2m to set up a so-called Voter Integrity Committee which was headed by Randy Levine, current president of the New York Yankees baseball team, and John Sweeney, a former New York Republican congressman.
“So they went through East Harlem, which is all Hispanic, and they gave out little cards, and the card said: ‘If you come to vote, make sure you have your green card because INS are picking up illegals.’ So they spread it all over the Hispanic …” said Giuliani, referring to the now defunct US Immigration and Naturalization Service before trailing off.
“Oh my gosh,” Lake replied as she raised her eyebrows.
Following its closure in 2003, the INS transferred its immigration enforcement functions to other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Giuliani went on to reveal that following the election, which he won against then incumbent mayor David Dinkins by around 53,000 votes, then president Bill Clinton’s justice department launched an investigation into him.
“[Then-attorney general] Janet Reno is coming after us, we violated civil rights,” Giuliani recalled his lawyer Dennison Young telling him. Giuliani then reassured Young, saying: “What civil rights did we violate? They don’t have civil rights! All we did was prevent people who can’t vote from voting. Maybe we tricked them, but tricking is not a crime.”
“In those days, we didn’t have crazy prosecutors. Nowadays, they’ll probably prosecute you for it … and that’s the way we kept down the Hispanic vote,” Giuliani said.
“Not the legal vote, the illegal vote,” Lake interjected.
“Of course! The Hispanic illegal vote, which takes away the Hispanic legal vote,” Giuliani responded.
A 1993 New York Times article published at the time of the election reported that Dinkins had called for a news conference to “accuse the Giuliani camp of waging ‘an outrageous campaign of voter intimidation and dirty tricks’”.
One of the charges included English and Spanish pro-Dinkins posters that were allegedly put up at the time in Washington Heights and the Bronx, predominantly Hispanic and Black areas. “The posters suggested that illegal immigrants would be arrested at the polls and deported if they tried to vote,” the New York Times reported.
An article published in the socialist journal Against the Current months after the election also mentioned the posters.
“Cops put up phony Dinkins posters in mostly Dominican Washington Heights, saying the INS would be checking voters’ documents at the polls. In some cases police themselves asked Latino voters for their passports,” wrote labor and social activist Andy Pollack.
Similarly, a Washington Post report published days after the election cited complaints surrounding voter suppression in the city.
“Among the complaints are the placing of signs on telephone poles and walls in Latino areas warning that ‘federal authorities and immigration officials will be at all election sites … Immigration officials will be at locations to arrest and deport undocumented illegal voters,’” the Post reported.
A statement issued by the then justice department on 2 November 1993 said: “The Department of Justice is aware that posters have been placed throughout New York City misinforming voters about the role of federal officials in today’s elections … Federal observers are in New York to protect the rights of minority voters. They are not there to enforce immigration laws.”
Speaking to the Huffington Post, Sweeney dismissed Giuliani’s claims as “nonsense” and said that he ran a “legitimate” operation alongside Levine. Levine echoed similar sentiments to the outlet, explaining that the purpose of the operation was “getting poll watchers and attorneys when there was a dispute”.
He added that he had “no knowledge” of the trick Giuliani described.
Since the 1993 mayoral elections, voter suppression tactics have continued to be carried out in various ways across the city.
In December 2021, the New York City council approved a bill that would have allowed for non-US citizens to vote in local elections. However, the law was struck down months later in June 2022 after state supreme court judge Ralph Porzio of Staten Island ruled the law “unconstitutional”.
The same month Porzio struck down the law, the Democratic New York governor Kathy Hochul signed the John R Lewis Voting Rights Act into law, which seeks to prevent local officials from enacting rules that may suppress voting rights of individuals as a result of their race.
In addition to local governments or school districts with track records of discrimination now being required to obtain state approval before passing certain voting policies, the new law expands language assistance to voters for whom English is not a first language, as well as provides legal tools to fight racist voting provisions.
by mmmm8 Horrible... But permanent residents can't vote either. So I'm trying to understand the logic here. I guess those who were citizens could have thought INS would track down their family?
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Remember this too.
If the American economy caves in, ALL OF LATIN AMERICA caves in too because our reserves are expressed in dollars.
Basically, the GOP does not care about an entire hemisphere (maybe Canada is excepted) just in order to regain power.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:00 pm
Remember this too.
If the American economy caves in, ALL OF LATIN AMERICA caves in too because our reserves are expressed in dollars.
Basically, the GOP does not care about an entire hemisphere (maybe Canada is excepted) just in order to regain power.
We won't have the same issue that much of Latin America would have but if the economy of your neighbour collapses it's going to have some ramifications.
by Suliso It's not going to collapse. Just another stupid political game.
by ponchi101 Ok. Collapse, cave in may be extreme. But go into recession is not unthinkable.
by skatingfan
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 5:13 am
It's not going to collapse. Just another stupid political game.
I go back and forth about whether this will actually happen. We've seen what happens when Republicans actually catch the car, like they did when Roe vs. Wade was repealed, but at the same time they keep moving in this direction, and not learning the lessons.
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:00 pm
Remember this too.
If the American economy caves in, ALL OF LATIN AMERICA caves in too because our reserves are expressed in dollars.
Basically, the GOP does not care about an entire hemisphere (maybe Canada is excepted) just in order to regain power.
The idea that Congress would care about the fate of any other nation to be honest is ludicrous. There are flashes of it (like with the Ukraine support) but when the reality hits, U.S. elected officials are going to care about their election odds and personal gains first, their electorate second, the interests of the US third and not much else.
by ponchi101 Agree. But they should. Because when it hits the fan here in L. America, migration to the USA increases.
It is a very short sighted way of thinking.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 You have an Institute of War, Revolution and Peace?
How does that work?
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by patrick No surprise about the GOP and their "hidden" cuts
by ti-amie
The father of the Koch's was a founder of the John Birch Society
by ponchi101 Aren't the United States a Federation? 50 states with a central government but with considerable independence?
Serious question.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 10:42 pm
Aren't the United States a Federation? 50 states with a central government but with considerable independence?
Serious question.
I think it's both.
by ti-amieFar Right Rep. Tells Fox That House GOP's Biden 'Informant' Is 'Missing'—And People Did Not Hold Back
Rep. James Comer was widely mocked after telling Fox's Maria Bartiromo that they could not 'track down' their 'informant' who claimed Biden corruption.
Alan Herrera
May. 15, 2023
Kentucky Republican Representative James Comer was widely mocked after he claimed during a Fox News interview that a key "informant" on the Biden administration's alleged corruption has mysteriously vanished, casting a cloud of uncertainty over the GOP's ongoing probe.
During the interview, host Maria Bartiromo pressed Comer about the evidence he possessed pertaining to President Joe Biden's alleged corruption, specifically inquiring about the whistleblowers he had previously mentioned. She also sought information on an informant who had apparently provided the congressman with vital information.
Comer reluctantly admitted that Republicans have been unable to "track down the informant."
When asked about the location of the whistleblower, Comer said:
"Well, unfortunately, we can't track down the informant. We're hopeful that the informant is still there. The whistleblower knows the informant. The whistleblower is very credible."
When Bartiromo asked him to confirm that the whistleblower is "now missing," Comer said Republicans are "hopeful that we can find the informant" because they are in the "spy business" and "they don't make a habit of being seen a lot."
He added:
"The nine of the ten people that we've identified that have very good knowledge with respect to the Bidens, they're one of three things, Maria, they're either currently in court, they're currently in jail, or they're currently missing."
Comer—who is the House Oversight Committee Chair—has recently made a series of startling allegations of unproven Biden family financial improprieties.
Comer accused the Biden family of "influence peddling" even though Comer's claims do not directly implicate Biden himself.
These claims were the impetus for statements made last week by Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson, who in an interview with Bartiromo failed to provide proof of what the Bidens are "getting paid for" and called upon the power of inference.
Bombshell DAILY
@BombshellDAILY
THE BIDEN CRIME FAMILY EVIDENCE ISN'T MISSING
We can't find it, because it's a debunked "fever dream." That won't, however, stop us from reporting it. It's precisely what our viewers, demand to hear. #delusional
@senateGOP
@foxnews
@MuellerSheWrote
by ponchi101 I had to check my browser to make sure I had not clicked on theonion.com
by ti-amie
by ti-amieJob cuts, no Social Security checks: How consumers could be pinched by a US government default
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
WASHINGTON (AP) — All the hand-wringing in Washington over raising the debt limit can seem far removed from the lives of everyday Americans, but they could end up facing huge consequences.
Millions of people in the U.S. rely on benefits that could go unpaid and services that could be disrupted, or halted altogether, if the government can’t pay its bills for an extended period.
If the economy tanked due to default, more than 8 million people could lose their jobs, government officials estimate. Millions of Social Security beneficiaries, veterans and military families could lose their monthly payments. Vital federal services including border and air traffic control could be disrupted if workers can’t get their government paychecks.
The economy could nosedive into a recession.
President Joe Biden and the top congressional leaders from both parties met at the White House on Tuesday to try to resolve it all, their second such meeting in as many weeks.
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
If the government’s legal borrowing limit of $31.4 trillion is not raised or suspended by June 1, the result could be financial havoc. The inability to borrow money to keep paying government obligations could mean businesses sent into bankruptcy, crashes piling up across financial markets and lasting economic pain. The damage would be financial, but the cause would be political, a breakdown between Republicans and Democrats, rather than a problem with a basically healthy U.S. economy.
WHAT’S HOLDING UP AN AGREEMENT?
Philosophical differences with financial consequences.
Republicans want spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, saying the current pace of spending is unsustainable. Biden and congressional Democrats want the debt limit raised without conditions, arguing that the two issues should not be linked.
WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE BUDGET?
First the budget is not the debt. The budget is the money the government takes in and spends each year. If it spends more than it brings in — a budget deficit — that adds to the debt that has been building basically forever.
Biden dared McCarthy to produce a budget plan, and House Republicans responded by narrowly approving a bill to reduce deficits by $4.8 trillion over 10 years. It would do so by cutting discretionary spending to 2022 levels and placing an annual 1% cap on future increases. The bill would also reclaim billions of unspent COVID-19 funding, eliminate clean energy tax credits Biden signed into law last year and reverse his student debt forgiveness and repayment plan.
It’s unclear how Democrats can get the debt ceiling increased without support from House Republicans. But Democrats say the GOP bill’s unspecified budget cuts would harm individuals — and the economy — as domestic spending would likely be cut. Moody’s Analytics estimates the Republican bill would cause the loss of 780,000 jobs next year alone.
ARE THERE ANY POSSIBLE AVENUES OF AGREEMENT?
Besides repurposing unspent COVID-19 funding, the White House and House Republicans could agree to tighten certain work requirements for federal aid programs that benefit the needy. The GOP-controlled House passed legislation that imposes more stringent conditions for people receiving food stamps, or SNAP benefits, as well as adults without dependents on Medicaid and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which offers aid to low-income families with children.
Biden over the weekend appeared to rule out changes to Medicaid. The White House said he would reject proposals that take away people’s health coverage or push them into poverty.
WHO WOULD SUFFER THE MOST FROM A DEFAULT?
Basically everyone, because the jolt to the U.S. and global financial systems would be so “catastrophic,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Tuesday in a speech to community bankers.
But working people, those living paycheck to paycheck and people who rely on government benefits and services would face the biggest blows through job losses and the loss of income.
Yellen, in her speech, urged Congress to act quickly. “The U.S. economy hangs in the balance. The livelihoods of millions of Americans do, too,” she said.
HOW DOES IT END?
No one really knows, though McConnell, a longtime Senate Republican leader, said this after last week’s White House meeting: “The United States is not going to default. It never has and it never will.”
___
AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro and Associated Press writers Josh Boak, Seung Min Kim and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
by patrick At least the President knows how to shorten a vacation unlike a certain governor who refused to cut his tour short when a city in his state had bad flooding. Also, a certain governor stayed on tour while the Legislature was in session for two months. Now that certain governor is signing and talking about what he done.
by ti-amie How big is that GQP loss in the Jacksonville mayor's race?
by ti-amie
by patrick
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 5:22 pm
How big is that GQP loss in the Jacksonville mayor's race?
Hopefully, this will end up big if 2024 has the same trajectory
by ti-amie Patrick what's this about your governor removing $1b dollars of peoples retirement funds from the safe investments they were in and giving the money to his cronies on Wall Street?
by patrick That is correct about the governor giving away retirement money. As you know, the governor was on "vacation" while the Legislature was in session.
Also, some of the state retirement are invested in Russian companies. The governor said the cash is tied up due to the agreement the Trump administration made.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 On the one hand, DeSantis is an idiot that only plays performance politics.
But on the other, a corporation cannot have sway in the politics of an entire state.
What a complete mess.
Colorado Springs was, not too long ago, an epicenter of anti-lgbt hatred.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie I think Biden will have to go the 14th Amendment route but he won't do it until they've made sure the GQP is firmly attached to the tar baby they've created.
If the Democrats can figure out a way to effectively pin this entirely on the GOP.......
by ti-amie
Here's his full post so you don't get counted among Elmo's minions.
by patrick DeSanitis will be officially entering the 2024 President race at 6 PM EDT tomorrow announcing it on Elon Musk Twitter Spaces
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amieHow a $3.3M settlement against Texas AG Ken Paxton put him on path to impeachment vote
Tony Plohetski
Austin American-Statesman
When the American-Statesman broke the news in October 2020 about damning allegations by members of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s top staff that they reported to the FBI, most Texas Republicans remained reserved in their response.
Weeks later, when a whistleblower lawsuit brought by four plaintiffs revealed more specifics – including accusations that Paxton used his position to help a wealthy donor and possibly received a home remodel in exchange – GOP leaders were largely mum.
The same thing happened when The Associated Press reported in November 2020 that Paxton had arranged for the donor, Nate Paul, to employ his mistress. The reaction by his party remained largely muted.
What finally sparked the bipartisan push to impeach Paxton this week – three years after his alleged misdeeds had been widely reported? It was the money.
A statement from House Speaker Dade Phelan’s spokeswoman and a letter obtained Friday by the Statesman indicate that Paxton asking taxpayers to pay a $3.3 million settlement to the whistleblowers triggered a secret inquiry by a House investigations committee that set the impeachment effort in motion.
“This process was initiated as a result of the attorney general’s request for $3.3 million in state funds in order to settle with whistleblowers,” spokeswoman Cait Wittman said. “The attorney general made this demand of the Legislature without providing sufficient information or evidence in support of his request.”
The memo from the House Committee on General Investigating to 150 House members made the connection even more explicitly.
“We cannot overemphasize the fact that, but for Paxton’s own request for taxpayer-funded settlement over his wrongful conduct, Paxton would not be facing impeachment in the House,” it stated.
Many of the 20 articles of impeachment filed by the investigations committee closely mirror the widely reported allegations the whistleblowers made in 2020.
Paxton has said the investigation is “deceitful” and that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself.
Meanwhile, the proposed $3.3 million settlement also has not been approved and likely will not be this legislative session, which ends Monday.
From the time that the whistleblowers first made the allegations until now, lawmakers got through the 2021 legislative session without taking action against Paxton, such as limiting his office budget, often seen as an effort to curtail an elected official’s power.
And despite the allegations generating state and national headlines, Paxton was reelected in November to a third term in office. He has said that Texas voters knew about the allegations. Paxton also was charged in 2015 with securities fraud in state District Court in a case that has not gone to trial.
Paxton also has taken steps to block the whistleblowers' suit, contending that the state’s whistleblower law does not protect people who report crimes to law enforcement if an elected official is accused of participating in the crime. The court rejected that argument, which Paxton appealed. The appeal locked the case for nearly two years, preventing plaintiffs from collecting evidence and taking depositions, including from Paxton.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit reached a tentative settlement in February, and Phelan was among the lawmakers to quickly raise questions about the use of taxpayer dollars for the payment. Under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claims must be brought against the state, not an individual officeholder.
Paxton and his staff testified before the House Appropriations Committee in February, formally asking for the settlement money.
About three weeks later, the House General Investigating Committee quietly opened “Matter A” and continued the investigation through this month.
The committee confirmed the investigation Tuesday, after Paxton called for Phelan to resign, accusing him of being intoxicated on the House floor, in what many saw as a move to deflect attention from the investigation of the attorney general.
Then the committee held an explosive hearing Wednesday in which it revealed its allegations against Paxton – both old and new. The new allegations include that he has homestead exemptions on more than one property in violation of state law – an accusation Paxton’s head of litigation, Chris Hilton, called untrue during a news conference Friday.
“Ken Paxton is a master of delaying and ducking accountability,” said Tom Nesbitt, who represents one of the whistleblowers. “He avoided depositions and discovery in our case for two and a half years. The legislative investigators thoroughly proved that the whistleblowers’ allegations are true.”
by ti-amie Ranking Member Raskin’s Statement Following Call with FBI Director Chris Wray
May 31, 2023 Press Release
Washington, D.C. (May 31, 2023)—Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, issued a statement following his call with FBI Director Christopher Wray, which was scheduled after Chairman Comer refused to allow the Ranking Member to participate in the Committee’s call with Director Wray. The Ranking Member scheduled a separate call so that Director Wray could brief Committee Democrats on the information the FBI would make available in response to the Committee’s subpoena.
“Director Wray informed me that the FBI has agreed to accommodate the Committee’s request by making the document sought by Chairman Comer available for in person review. The FBI will also provide context on the Trump Justice Department’s steps to follow up on the unsubstantiated, second-hand claims contained in this tip. Although Chairman Comer has publicly claimed the FBI’s follow-up is central to his inquiry, he failed to include it in his request, which is mysterious to me. In any case, the FBI has made clear in conversations with the Committee leading up to today’s call, it continues to work in good faith to accommodate Committee Republicans’ request in a manner that will not jeopardize its law enforcement mission, its confidential human source program, or the safety of its informants.
“Despite these extraordinary accommodations—and the fact that Republicans have claimed to have access to the very information subpoenaed—Chairman Comer has continued to insist he will hold the FBI Director in contempt. It is increasingly clear that Committee Republicans have always planned to hold Director Wray in contempt of Congress to distract from the obvious fact that they do not have evidence to support their unfounded accusations against President Biden. This latest political maneuver underscores Chairman Comer’s determination to use the Committee to help former President Trump’s reelection efforts and pander to extreme MAGA Republicans,” said Ranking Member Raskin.
Also Tim Scott, Chris Christie, and now Cornel West.
That leather vest looks so natural on Mike. So far, all the GOP candidates are abhorrent.
by ti-amie Of course no one saw this coming... /s
House in stalemate after hard-right Republicans defy McCarthy, block legislation
By Amy B Wang, Marianna Sotomayor and Leigh Ann Caldwell
Updated June 7, 2023 at 3:10 p.m. EDT|Published June 7, 2023 at 12:59 p.m. EDT
The House remained in a stalemate Wednesday, recessing minutes after the session began, as hard-right Republicans defied GOP leadership and blocked legislation.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) met Wednesday afternoon with several members of the House Freedom Caucus to negotiate on their demands after 11 hard-right lawmakers — still angry over McCarthy’s handling of the debt ceiling bill — voted with Democrats against passing a rule for consideration of several bills this week. A resolution has yet to be struck, though ongoing negotiations now involve possibly scheduling votes on key bills the Freedom Caucus prioritizes.
McCarthy admitted Wednesday he had been “blindsided” by Tuesday’s events, which was the first rule vote to fail since November 2002, but insisted that the Republican caucus would emerge stronger.
“We’re talking through it. I think we’ll get ... through it,” McCarthy said, trying to project the same optimism he exhibited in January when it took 15 rounds of voting and multiple concessions for him to win the speakership. Without the passage of the rule vote, the House cannot move forward on legislation.
“We have a very small majority, so four or five people can create a problem for the whole [caucus]," McCarthy added. “You got to be sure you come together as a family, otherwise we won’t be successful for the American people. So what it really takes is you take a step back [and ask], ‘Who are you here for? Are you here for yourself or are you here for the American public?’”
Throughout Wednesday morning, the group of disruptors met and spoke with McCarthy and his team. Leadership is still unclear what exactly the group of 11 Republicans want, and different members want different things, making it more difficult to address their concerns, according to two people close to leadership who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Meanwhile, other Republicans waiting to be told of what happens next were growing frustrated.
“I don’t blame the Freedom Caucus, as many of them rightfully oppose this defeatist behavior,” one moderate GOP lawmaker said. “This group is the Dysfunction Caucus.”
The surprise rebuke underscored the anger that several members of the House Freedom Caucus and other hard-right conservatives still harbored toward Republican leadership over their willingness to allow Democrats to vote in support of the debt bill and override their concerns before sending it to the Senate, where it also passed in bipartisan fashion. President Biden signed the deal over the weekend, barely skirting a catastrophic default that had been projected for Monday.
McCarthy, Biden and their lieutenants had brokered a deal days before to suspend the debt ceiling until 2025 and cut federal spending, prompting outrage from several hard-right GOP lawmakers who argued that the bill did not cut spending enough — and who accused McCarthy of violating several promises that they say helped them elect him speaker.
On Wednesday, McCarthy continued to defend his debt ceiling deal with Biden, pushing back on assertions from some GOP lawmakers that he had promised to keep federal spending at 2022 levels.
“We never promised we’re going to be all at ’22 levels. I said we would strive to get to the ’22 level or the equivalent amount of cut. We’ve met all that criteria,” McCarthy said. “I think we kind of hit the sweet spot. The difficult part is, when anytime you try to work any type of agreement, you’re not going to get 100 percent of what you want. But think of what we did achieve.”
Given that a significant swath of the far-right bloc of the GOP conference would not support the debt ceiling measure, Republicans needed the help of Democrats to pass a key procedural hurdle, known as the rule, that sets the parameters for debate before final passage. Historically, a rule vote is only passed by the majority party, including those who oppose the final bill. Almost two dozen more Democrats than Republicans also voted to pass the bill to the Senate last Wednesday evening.
In retaliation, the 11 far-right lawmakers voted against the first rule vote this week, preventing GOP leadership’s wish to pass four non-divisive bills that would have returned them to the status quo. It proved the difficulty McCarthy and other leaders now face as they work to make amends with a fractious bloc of the conference that historically bucks leadership.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), one of the lawmakers who voted against the rule vote on Tuesday, said Wednesday that he did so because Republican leadership had “not taken reckless spending” seriously, and again alluded to unspoken promises he said GOP leadership had made.
“There are over a thousand unauthorized government programs that continue to be funded without oversight, Congressional hearings, or a reauthorization vote,” Buck said in a statement. “Promises were made earlier this year regarding spending; I expect those commitments to be kept.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) became the 12th Republican to defect on Tuesday after he changed his vote to “no” once he and other GOP leaders failed to convince the far-right House Freedom Caucus to end their blockade before the vote was called. The move allows the GOP to revisit the vote once full support from the majority emerges again.
Also Tim Scott, Chris Christie, and now Cornel West.
That leather vest looks so natural on Mike. So far, all the GOP candidates are abhorrent.
Are there any GOP candidates that could be acceptable? Romney (he looks down right sterling next to this field), Chenney (Liz, not her dad), Kasich? Any of these could remotely be a candidate?
Serious question.
Also Tim Scott, Chris Christie, and now Cornel West.
That leather vest looks so natural on Mike. So far, all the GOP candidates are abhorrent.
Are there any GOP candidates that could be acceptable? Romney (he looks down right sterling next to this field), Chenney (Liz, not her dad), Kasich? Any of these could remotely be a candidate?
Serious question.
The base of the GOP is so far right I don't think any of the people you mention have a chance. Even if TFG is hauled off in an orange jumpsuit those people will be looking for someone just like him.
by Owendonovan Kasich and Cheney aren't the policy-free culture warriors to the degree the current crop is.
by ponchi101 But I was talking more about a possible GOP president that would not have you waking up with a knot in your stomach every day.
by ti-amie Meanwhile more on "George Santos".
I'm not even Casablanca shocked about this.
by ashkor87 Not being a US citizen or resident any more, I must say Trump is probably one of the less dangerous Presidents..Rubio, for instance, talked of bombing Iran the moment he got jnto office..bombing a country?! Is it some kind of joke? Even Hilary was a war-monger in the same category...the very worst is certainly George Bush, whose crazy narcissistic policies led to the deaths of thousands (but not too many Americans! So it is ok?) And continuing chaos in the entire middle East. Trump didn't bomb anyone or start a war while he was President...! Give him some credit for that.
by Suliso Trump was awful internally and would be a complete disaster for Ukraine and perhaps the wider Eastern Europe where I'm from.
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:10 am
Trump was awful internally and would be a complete disaster for Ukraine and perhaps the wider Eastern Europe where I'm from.
agreed, but I dont particularly care about the US because they would have deserved him if they elect him! The rest of the world is innocent of the crime..not sure he would be wose for Eastern Europe either - the Ukraine war is a boon to arms manufacturers, I suspect they are the ones really rooting for the war to go on, and they arent particularly Trump or Biden supporters, I dont think. Under the current dispensation, I dont see any end to this war... the suffering will just go on and on..
by Suliso The war could end easily if Ukraine kicks Russia out of their own territory.
by ponchi101 From the point of view of policies and diplomatic relations between the USA and the world, Trump is dangerous because of his ignorance of other countries. You are in the Asian region, and Trump had no plan to even control N. Korea's Nuclear Arms power. Sure, as a citizen of India that may be the least of your worries (you guys have nukes too) but it creates a destabilizing factor in the region. Notice how, for example, with Russia at war with Ukraine, we have seen how quickly "reasonable" agents start talking about using nuclear weapons. In the hands of a lunatic (and N. Korea is in the hands of a lunatic), that is something that needs to be managed. And Trump is uniquely unqualified to do that.
But, economically, he poses a different threat. The US' debt is still increasing (not even the Dems know how to handle it) and that affects 1/3 of the world's economy. Trump had no idea of how that dangerous that is. And, as a final example. He is a Climate Change denialist. We know the preponderance that the USA has in emissions, so having such an ignorant person at the helm of that country is very dangerous.
The USA is not just about war and alliances. It affects everybody in many other ways. Like China.
by ti-amie TFG's interested in only one thing - money. That is why I have to disagree with him being a "lesser evil". If Country A want's to know what"s going on in Country B, say the two countries are traditional rivals, TFG will sell intelligence to either or both countries. If one balks at the price the one who pays will get it. He has no beliefs or moral compass. That's why Smith charged him with 31 counts of espionage. And think about it, they haven't even charged him with actually stealing the documents - that could come later.
As for the world economy he's ignorant about anything to do with finance unless it involves him getting a cut off the top. He's a very dangerous man.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 I remember when Russia was THE ENEMY of the USA, for the GOP especially. Now, they won't even let you investigate them.
What a change.
by ti-amie Every accusation is an admission.
by ti-amie
by skatingfan Shocker, 'Moms for Liberty' don't believe in liberty.
by ti-amie Welcome to the Real Housewives - House of Representatives Version
Opinion The U.S. House of Recriminations begins Biden’s impeachment
By Dana Milbank
June 23, 2023 at 7:30 a.m. EDT
A couple of weeks before the midterm elections, Kevin McCarthy assured voters that House Republicans, if given the majority, wouldn’t be so rash as to go on an impeachment binge.
“I think the country doesn’t like impeachment used for political purposes at all,” he told Punchbowl News at the time. “I think the country wants to heal,” he added, and avowed that he didn’t think anybody in the Biden administration merited impeachment proceedings.
The voters gave Republicans a chance, awarded them narrow control of the House.
And now Republicans are starting their impeachment binge.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) rose in the House Tuesday evening after the last vote. “For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Colorado seek recognition?” asked the presiding officer, Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.).
The gentlewoman sought recognition to unveil a parliamentary maneuver that would force a vote within 48 hours on H. Res. 503, “Impeaching Joseph R. Biden Jr., president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.”
No impeachment proceedings. No investigation. No evidence. No crimes. Not so much as parking ticket. Just a willy-nilly, snap vote to impeach the president, because Boebert dislikes Biden’s immigration policies. In her mind, “President Biden has intentionally facilitated a complete and total invasion at the southern border,” she charged on the House floor.
At this, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) flew into a fit of jealousy because Boebert had thought to use the maneuver (called a “privileged resolution”) to force an impeachment vote before Greene got a vote on her articles of impeachment against Biden. Boebert stole her impeachment articles, Greene whined to reporters, calling Boebert that name that every kindergartner fears: “Copycat.”
Congresswoman Jewish Space Lasers then confronted Boebert on the House floor and called her a “little b----” who “copied my articles of impeachment,” according to a Daily Beast account that Greene confirmed.
But Boebert was unmoved — because she’s on a mission from God. She filed her impeachment resolution because “I am directed and led by Him … by the spirit of God,” she told the evangelical Victory Channel.
God could not be reached for comment.
McCarthy, in a closed-door meeting with Republicans Wednesday morning, pleaded with them to oppose Boebert’s flash-mob impeachment. “What majority do we want to be?” he admonished them, warning that Republicans might “give it right back in two years” if impeachment mania prevails. He eventually persuaded Boebert to accept a watered-down resolution delaying an impeachment vote by first sending it through the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees.
On the floor, Boebert exulted. “For the first time in 24 years, a House Republican-led majority is moving forward with impeachment proceedings against a current president,” she said. “This bill allows impeachment proceedings to proceed.”
Her GOP colleagues made clear on the floor that they saw this vote to be teeing up eventual impeachment for this “corrupt” head of the “Biden crime family syndicate” who is responsible for the “murders of countless Americans.” Vowed Rep. Chip Roy (Tex.), the Republican floor leader for the impeachment debate, “We are just beginning.”
Enduring derision from the Democratic side — “nutty,” “pathetic,” “losers” — House Republicans voted, unanimously, for what will, in effect, be the beginning of impeachment proceedings against Biden.
Boebert’s stunt, along with a general Republican thirst for vengeance after an independent prosecutor secured a 37-count indictment against Donald Trump, has opened the impeachment floodgates. Greene and others can now be expected to play with their new toy, using the privileged-resolution maneuver to force impeachment votes against whatever Biden administration official looks at them crossways on any given day. Greene alone has introduced impeachment articles against Biden, the attorney general, the FBI director, the secretary of Homeland Security and the U.S. attorney in Washington. On Thursday, Greene and GOP conference chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) introduced resolutions to “expunge” Trump’s two impeachments.
The U.S. House of Recriminations is now in session.
by ponchi101 The system of Dr Tarr and Professor Fether.
by ti-amie
by Owendonovan ^Toxic people come from toxic sports.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 It's a win/win for them, always. They vote NO, and if they win, they claim they are "fiscal responsibles". They vote NO, and is passes, and they claim t was thanks to them.
It is great for them.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
Here's the indictment.
by ti-amie
by Suliso Some not so nice people get all the health in the world. 100 year old Henry Kissinger is off to Beijing to talk with Xi Jinping.
by ponchi101 Must have been part of the deal he cut with the devil.
by ti-amie
by Suliso Population wise US is a younger country than most if not all European ones, but in leadership you're decades more elderly. I wonder why...
by ponchi101 I have to ask you.
Do politicians have term limits in Europe? Because the issue in the USA is that being a politician becomes a profession. You are not a "citizen" that gets involved in politics, you are a "political citizen" and that is your job. Therefore, you are there for ever.
I remember when I was in Stockholm that we visited that city council (a beautiful building) and I asked where all the council members were. Well, they were working, I was told. They were council members but held regular jobs, which was how they made a living.
That is the reason Mitch McConnell remains in the senate, and Joe Biden will be running for president again at age 98.
by skatingfan I think the comparatively low level of political engagement in the US is the reason that we see the political class older, and less diverse than the population as a whole. Both political parties in the US are quite a bit older than the population as a whole.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 3:52 pm
I have to ask you.ADo politicians have term limits in Europe? Because the issue in tghe USA is that being a politician becomes a profession. You are not a "citizen" that gets involved in politics, you are a "political citizen" and that is your job. Therefore, you are there for ever.
I remember when I was in Stockholm that we visited that city council (a beautiful building) and I asked where all the council members were. Well, they were working, I was told. They were council members but held regular jobs, which was how they made a living.
That is the reason Mitch McConnell remains in the senate, and Joe Biden will be running for president again at age 98.
No, mostly no term limits. Nevertheless most tend to retire around 70 at the latest or be pushed out by their parties. Angela Merkel, for example, is still not 70.
by ti-amie In the US the seniority system is what keeps people there, some beyond their sell by date. It's interesting how the MSM seized on Senator Feinstein's frailty but it was revealed today that this is not the first time McConnell has had medical "incidents". We know about one case where he fell down the stairs but it seems that there were two others that were not reported by MSM.
Now imagine if POTUS had had the TIA/Stroke that we saw yesterday. Yeah.
by ti-amieMcConnell has fallen multiple times this year, sources say
Manu Raju
By Manu Raju, CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent
Updated 12:33 PM EDT, Thu July 27, 2023
CNN
—
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who froze during a news conference Wednesday and earlier this year suffered a concussion after falling down, has also endured two other falls this year, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
The first known time, in February, occurred in Finland when McConnell and a US delegation met with the Finnish president in Helsinki, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
As he got out of his car on a snowy day and walked towards his meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, the GOP leader tripped and fell, the sources said of the incident which hasn’t been previously reported. He dusted himself off and continued on with the meeting.
“It was also very icy to the top,” said GOP Sen. Ted Budd, a North Carolina Republican who witnessed the incident. “So, it could happen any of us.”
Budd added, “All of us are concerned,” though, he said, McConnell appeared normal after the Finland fall.
That incident in Finland occurred just days before McConnell fell in March at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Washington, where he slammed his head and suffered a concussion and broken ribs, which sidelined him for nearly six weeks before he returned to the Senate.
And just this month at Reagan National Airport in Washington, McConnell was getting off the plane when he tripped and fell, a source familiar with this incident said. He returned to the Capitol later that day. NBC reported on the fall at the airport earlier on Wednesday.
McConnell’s office declined to comment on the incidents.
McConnell, 81, was a survivor of polio as a child and has long walked with a slight limp. He walks on stairs one at a time, and at times rests his hand on an aide to assist him through the Capitol. His falls have at times caused serious injuries, like in 2019, when McConnell fell at his Louisville home and fractured his shoulder.
But his health has received more attention since his fall at the Waldorf Astoria this year. On Wednesday, McConnell froze when speaking to reporters at his weekly news conference, where he was ushered to the side by concerned GOP senators. He later resumed the news conference and answered questions.
McConnell has declined to explain why he froze up, though an aide said he was feeling light-headed.
“I’m fine,” McConnell told reporters when asked about the incident.
It was the second time in as many months McConnell has had an unusual incident at his weekly news conference. The other incident occurred in June when he has having trouble hearing questions from reporters who could be clearly heard by the senators next to him.
McConnell, who broke the record for longest-serving Senate party leader in history this year, is up for re-election in 2026, but he hasn’t said if he would run again or try to stay as GOP leader in the next Congress, which starts in 2025.
In October, McConnell told CNN he would definitely complete his term for the seat he’s held since 1985. “Oh, I’m certainly going to complete the term I was elected to by the people of Kentucky, no question about that,” McConnell said.
But in May, after he suffered his concussion, McConnell declined to entertain the question about his plans to stay in his seat or run for leader.
“I thought this was not an interview about my future,” he said when asked at the time if he would serve out his term or run for leader again. “I thought it was an interview about the 2024 Senate elections.”
This story has been updated with additional developments.
CNN’s Katelyn Polantz and Melanie Zanona contributed to this report.
by Owendonovan Mitch should try the stairs at Ivana's old pad.
by ponchi101 As a society, we have to start accepting that many rules that were implemented in the past (meaning a few hundred years ago) are no longer valid because our life expectancies were impossible to foresee by the people of the time. The concept of the SCOTUS being appointed for life was valid when the chances of making it past 60 were not better than 50%. For congress and the senate, the idea of no term limits was also fine, seeing as most people would only live for a few cycles.
The fact that a man who set his ideologies decades ago can still be so influential on modern politics is hard to accept as a positive sign for progress.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 4:13 pm
As a society, we have to start accepting that many rules that were implemented in the past (meaning a few hundred years ago) are no longer valid because our life expectancies were impossible to foresee by the people of the time. The concept of the SCOTUS being appointed for life was valid when the chances of making it past 60 were not better than 50%. For congress and the senate, the idea of no term limits was also fine, seeing as most people would only live for a few cycles.
The fact that a man who set his ideologies decades ago can still be so influential on modern politics is hard to accept as a positive sign for progress.
I don't think term limits will be necessary in the US. Demographics will eventually force a turnover in the political class, and it will happen all of the sudden within the course of one or two election cycles. It's just a matter of the millennials, and gen-Z getting to the age where they would consider running for these positions.
by ponchi101 How long do you think AOC plans to be in Congress? Or the Senate? Serious question. I am ambivalent about her, but being that young, she could be there for 50 years. But the same can be said about Gaetz and Boebert. They could be there for decades.
by ti-amie
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 12:13 pm
Mitch should try the stairs at Ivana's old pad.
You ain't right.
by ti-amie
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:17 pm
How long do you think AOC plans to be in Congress? Or the Senate? Serious question. I am ambivalent about her, but being that young, she could be there for 50 years. But the same can be said about Gaetz and Boebert. They could be there for decades.
And if they do by the end they'll be as out of touch with the currenet generation as today's elderly leaders.
by ti-amie NPR (bot)
@npr_bot@m.ai6yr.org
NPR: Matthew DePerno, the most recent Republican nominee for Michigan attorney general, has been charged with undue possession of a voting machine and conspiracy.#news #NPR https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1142599350/
by ti-amie Steve Herman
@w7voa@journa.host
Pence presidential campaign now selling "Too Honest" shirts and hats, embracing the phrase Donald Trump used to describe his vice president for not trying to help oveturn #Election2020. Meanwhile, the former president is en route #DC for arraignment on related felony charges.
He's still a POS but at least he's trying to make hay while the sun shines as they say.
by ponchi101 He is a POS for his opinions, that can't be denied. But he also has to be given credit for his stance on Jan 6th.
When the Trump nightmare is over (which will be when he dies) and the history is written, Pence has to be given credit for preserving the rule of law ON THAT DAY.
Otherwise, you could be a dictatorship now.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 7:46 pm
He is a POS for his opinions, that can't be denied. But he also has to be given credit for his stance on Jan 6th.
When the Trump nightmare is over (which will be when he dies) and the history is written, Pence has to be given credit for preserving the rule of law ON THAT DAY.
Otherwise, you could be a dictatorship now.
Valid and excellent point.
by ti-amie My question is why didn't some political reporter look into where exactly this bum lived? Just because he coached the Crimson Tide doesn't mean he actually lived in Alabama. Same with that Hawley person who lives in New England and how they tried to get Herschel Walker elected in Georgia when he lives in Texas.
All these so called reporters do is get press releases and recycle them as news.
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:48 pm
My question is why didn't some political reporter look into where exactly this bum lived? Just because he coached the Crimson Tide doesn't mean he actually lived in Alabama. Same with that Hawley person who lives in New England and how they tried to get Herschel Walker elected in Georgia when he lives in Texas.
All these so called reporters do is get press releases and recycle them as news.
My understanding is that this was all known before the previous election, but voters in Alabama don't care.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:48 pm
My question is why didn't some political reporter look into where exactly this bum lived? Just because he coached the Crimson Tide doesn't mean he actually lived in Alabama. Same with that Hawley person who lives in New England and how they tried to get Herschel Walker elected in Georgia when he lives in Texas.
All these so called reporters do is get press releases and recycle them as news.
My understanding is that this was all known before the previous election, but voters in Alabama don't care.
Sigh
by Suliso IF Trump drops out (or dead) this year DeSantis still won't be a Republican nominee. He's that inept.
by dave g
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:30 pm
IF Trump drops out (or dead) this year DeSantis still won't be a Republican nominee. He's that inept.
I fear you are over estimating the Republicans.
by Suliso I don't think so. My assesment has nothing to do with his politics. It's about his inability to connect with voters, inability to think on the spot, thin skin etc. Just look at his campaign. It's Jeb Bush 2.0. If Trump drops out they'll find someone more talented.
by ponchi101 What Dave said: you are overestimating the republicans.
The GOP is not interested in "talent". It is all about a few key "issues" for them: GUNS, ABORTION and WOKE POLITICS. Nothing else matters to them, in reality. Fiscal responsibility? Out the moment they are in charge. Women's rights? Gone with their abortion policies. International relations? They believe the world works in a way that it must submit to the USA's needs.
They are knee-jerk voters.
by Suliso I think you didn't understand my point at all... What I was saying is that there will be someone bringing those points across much better than DeSantis.
By the way his focus on WOKE has been a big mistake. Your average conservative rural voter understans guns, abortion and maybe feminism, but hardly anyone could explain what really woke is.
by dave g You could be right. It seems the current conservative republicans care mostly about the ability to connect with voters when choosing between presidental candidates. They did not seem to care about honesty. They do care about abortion and guns.
They cared a lot about the ability to connect with voters when Trump ran. And I suspect that they will continue to care a lot about the ability to connect with voters. The problem, as I see it, is that none of the other candidates have the ability to connect with their voters. (Note: this is the ability to connect with their voters. They don't seem to care if candidates are able to connect with other voters.) So, I suspect that Desantis would be the nomination because most of the other conservative candidates are actually worse at connecting with the conservative voters.
by Suliso That's why I had a caveat of "this year". If Trump drops out this year there will be some new candidates. If something like that happens in the middle of primaries next year then indeed maybe DeSantis is the lucky beneficiary.
by ponchi101 Good calculations. But we know that he will not retire. Sole way that he will not be the candidate will be if he is in prison.
As Samuelson said of George Bush Sr. 'If he plays tennis he can't be all bad'..
by dryrunguy
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 6:34 pm
By the way his focus on WOKE has been a big mistake. Your average conservative rural voter understans guns, abortion and maybe feminism, but hardly anyone could explain what really woke is.
I actually agree with this point to a fairly large degree. That said, people, especially conservative folks who only absorb information from YouTube quacks, Candace Owens, and conservative media, don't need to know what something is to rail on it. They just know they've been told woke is really, really bad and a threat to their way of life. And that's enough.
Loved this article by the great player (from UCLA, please note!)
by ashkor87 My prediction: Trump will win the Republican nomination, then go to jail..the recriminations will destroy the Republican party. With the GOP gone, Democrats will see no reason to unite, they will also split- with a new liberal party led by AOC, and a combination of RINOs and DINOs forming a centrist party. The 2 party system will be gone, replaced by a 3-party system. The consequences of Trump will be far-reaching indeed.
by dave g
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 3:30 am
My prediction: Trump will win the Republican nomination, then go to jail..the recriminations will destroy the Republican party. With the GOP gone, Democrats will see no reason to unite, they will also split- with a new liberal party led by AOC, and a combination of RINOs and DINOs forming a centrist party. The 2 party system will be gone, replaced by a 3-party system. The consequences of Trump will be far-reaching indeed.
We can only hope.
by ponchi101 Too far fetched a prediction. There is ZERO chance that the GOP will be destroyed. They do represent a considerable portion of the USA population, as there are people that will never, never, under any circumstance, will vote Democrat. And there are no other "conservative" options.
So, no way the USA will have a 3 party system any time soon. It takes too much money to start anything like that.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 3:59 pm
Too far fetched a prediction. There is ZERO chance that the GOP will be destroyed. They do represent a considerable portion of the USA population, as there are people that will never, never, under any circumstance, will vote Democrat. And there are no other "conservative" options.
So, no way the USA will have a 3 party system any time soon. It takes too much money to start anything like that.
But they could vote for a centrist party of folks like Cheney, Romney, Clinton, Manchin, Sinema (yes, Hilary is closer to a moderate Republican than a Democrat)
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:33 am
But they could vote for a centrist party of folks like Cheney, Romney, Clinton, Manchin, Sinema (yes, Hilary is closer to a moderate Republican than a Democrat)
Clinton, and Biden are centre-right politicians but because the US political spectrum is skewed to the right they occasionally dip into left-wing policy issues because no one else is really appealing to those voters. What we would have known as classic Republicans are pretty much all gone now, and the current Republicans, even if they are want to moderate their views, have to skew far-right with their policies and rhetoric in order to win elections. We do see some examples of centre-right Republicans winning in strong Democratic states, but they can't win with the traditional Republican voters in national elections.
by dryrunguy Are we going to drag Sen. Robert Menendez at some point?
by ponchi101
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 2:01 pm
Are we going to drag Sen. Robert Menendez at some point?
Start.
Sorry, I have missed the story. What did he do that would deserve dragging? The bar is now so low that...
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 2:54 pm
Start.
Sorry, I have missed the story. What did he do that would deserve dragging? The bar is now so low that...
He's been indicted for accepting bribes, and gifts related to aid to Egypt. He should resign, and he should have resigned the first time he was indicted on these type of charges.
The pair each face three criminal counts: conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit extortion under colour of official right.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 2:54 pm
Start.
Sorry, I have missed the story. What did he do that would deserve dragging? The bar is now so low that...
He's been indicted for accepting bribes, and gifts related to aid to Egypt. He should resign, and he should have resigned the first time he was indicted on these type of charges.
The pair each face three criminal counts: conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit extortion under colour of official right.
And that's the thing. He's been a crook ever since he was elected to the senate. Hell, that's probably how he got elected to the senate in the first place and how he has stayed in office.
Guardian is reporting he expects to be exonerated. Of course he does.
by dryrunguy And for the record, I don't need an Achilles/Hector dragging. Just a sufficient dragging will do.
by ti-amie He should have the decency to resign and let someone who is not stashing gold bars take his place. As has been said he's been shady af for a long, long time.
by Owendonovan Menendez certainly has reason to believe he'll get away with this and get re-elected, he has before. There are so few politicians I wouldn't drag, like Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders ilk.
Menendez sounds almost trumpian, idiotic.
by ti-amie GQP is holding a hearing in the House to present evidence against POTUS.
How it started
by ti-amie How it's going
by ashkor87 Does the death of Senator Feinstein change any political equations? Probably not?
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:32 pm
Thousands of MAGA's won't make any difference. If you start talking hundreds of thousands, maybe in one state or another. You will need a few million to make the idea truly lethal.
But you know for whom.
What color will they choose? I recommend Brown.
yellow!
by ti-amie
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:14 pm
Does the death of Senator Feinstein change any political equations? Probably not?
The good news is that the Governor of California is a Democrat so nothing should change.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:14 pm
Does the death of Senator Feinstein change any political equations? Probably not?
The good news is that the Governor of California is a Democrat so nothing should change.
Hopefully someone not interested in more than 2 or 3 terms, if they were to eventually get elected, who is in their 40's or 50's.
by ashkor87 Apparently it is conceivable the GOP won't permit the new senator to take the slot on the Judiciary committee ...60 votes required to unblock it, which is hard to get together ...so maybe one act left in this drama
by Suliso
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:43 am
Hopefully someone not interested in more than 2 or 3 terms, if they were to eventually get elected, who is in their 40's or 50's.
You won't find such a person. After 1-2 terms one gets really used to all the power and prestige.
by dryrunguy I'm reading that the House overwhelmingly passed a bill to keep the U.S. federal government open another 45 days and sent it to the Senate. What's unclear is aid for Ukraine. One piece I read stated the House bill lacks aid for Ukraine. Another stated the House bill lacks additional aid for Ukraine. Those two things don't necessarily mean the same thing to me. But maybe that's just semantics.
In any case, it should pass the Senate, I expect, though you never know what Manchin and Sinema will do to get headlines.
by dryrunguy
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:35 pm
I'm reading that the House overwhelmingly passed a bill to keep the U.S. federal government open another 45 days and sent it to the Senate. What's unclear is aid for Ukraine. One piece I read stated the House bill lacks aid for Ukraine. Another stated the House bill lacks additional aid for Ukraine. Those two things don't necessarily mean the same thing to me. But maybe that's just semantics.
In any case, it should pass the Senate, I expect, though you never know what Manchin and Sinema will do to get headlines.
Okay. Washington Post is reporting no aid for Ukraine in the House package. That's very disappointing.
by skatingfan
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:22 pm
Okay. Washington Post is reporting no aid for Ukraine in the House package. That's very disappointing.
That's ok for now - it's the long term deal that needs to include the Ukraine aid package - I believe the proposed funding covered more into the future, and that the immediate funding is covered in previous bills.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:22 pm
Okay. Washington Post is reporting no aid for Ukraine in the House package. That's very disappointing.
That's ok for now - it's the long term deal that needs to include the Ukraine aid package - I believe the proposed funding covered more into the future, and that the immediate funding is covered in previous bills.
I'm not sure about that. It's fuzzy. I could be wrong. Sen. Bennet (D-CO) is objecting to the package at hand.
by dryrunguy U.S. Federal Government shutdown averted for 45 days.
::
Just to give you a sense for how these things play out for U.S. Federal Government contractors... Over the past few days, I have been hounded by corporate requests to come up with potential work assignments for contract personnel who may have been prohibited from actually doing contract work come October 1. (For some reason, our current Head Start contract seemed to be at the top of the list of contracts we may not be able to work on during a government shutdown. Don't ask me why. Head Start has always enjoyed bipartisan support.)
In any case, I was put in the position where I had to potentially pull work assignments from my team members (all covered by overhead) to cover contract personnel who may not have been able to work (which would have been covered by, you guessed it, overhead). It was crazy. But that's a thing. And now, it was a colossal waste of time and energy.
Just wanted to share a federal government contractor perspective on how the (expletive) flows. ("Down the hill! And where are we?!? AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL!!!")
by ti-amie
Bradley P. Moss
@BradMossEsq
Uhhh…. We don’t do that in the United States. Literally not legal. A Texas resident cannot be prevented from crossing the border into New Mexico.
Article IV, Section 2
by ti-amie
Nancy Pelosi
@SpeakerPelosi
The Speaker of the House is chosen by the Majority Party. In this Congress, it is the responsibility of House Republicans to choose a nominee & elect the Speaker on the Floor. At this time there is no justification for a departure from this tradition.
The House will be in order.
LIVE UPDATES
Kevin McCarthy’s House speaker job under threat, with vote possible today
Updated 11 min ago
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is at risk of losing his job as early as Tuesday, as a faction of hard-right Republicans seeks to oust him and Democrats signaled they are not willing to vote to save him. Earlier Tuesday, McCarthy told GOP lawmakers he would make a motion to table a resolution to remove him as speaker. But to survive, McCarthy would need Democratic support, and leading members of the party said Tuesday that they feel no obligation to provide votes. “We are ready, willing and able to work together with our Republican colleagues, but it is on them to join us,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters after an hours-long Democratic caucus meeting.
Here's what to know
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Monday introduced the resolution to remove McCarthy from his leadership position after weeks of threatening to do because McCarthy passed a stopgap measure to fund the government with Democratic support.
There has never been a successful effort to remove a House speaker, putting the House in uncharted territory.
by ti-amieHouse rejects attempt to spare Kevin McCarthy a vote on removal
The Republican-led House on Tuesday voted down a motion to table a resolution that would remove the California Republican from the speakership. As a result, the chamber will move forward with a vote on whether McCarthy should lose his position. His removal is being sought by hard-right members of his party and Democrats have signaled they won’t save him.
By Marianna Sotomayor
Congressional reporter covering the House of Representatives
More Republicans have voted not to table the motion than GOP leadership was expecting. A private whip count had seven, maybe eight voting with Democrats to table.
By Amy B Wang
National politics reporter
In a 208-218 vote, the motion to table failed, meaning the House will advance to the motion to vacate House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Eleven Republicans voted with Democrats against the motion to table.
By Marianna Sotomayor
Congressional reporter covering the House of Representatives
Cannot stress how quiet the chamber was when Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) announced that the motion to table had failed. There was no audible reaction from either side of the aisle.
Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) just smiled as he spoke to Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), an ally of his.
by ti-amie More updates:
By Marianna Sotomayor
Congressional reporter covering the House of Representatives
There have been some quite stunning remarks from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who admits he used to be the thorn in GOP leadership’s side in a different era. His passion in calling for Democrats to save the House as an institution is the feeling that many Republicans are experiencing.
They’re angry. They’re frustrated. They’re sad that their party can’t govern itself.
But Democrats have yet to react or show that they’re convinced by these arguments. Many have told Republicans privately, including in the final hours leading up to this vote, that Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Republicans could have tried to save the institution for years now. They’re not convinced this is a pivotal moment.
By Theodoric Meyer
National political reporter and co-author of the Early 202 newsletter
The six House Republicans who never voted for Kevin McCarthy for speaker in January and instead voted “present” — Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Elijah Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.) and Matthew M. Rosendale (Mont.) — have been among McCarthy’s toughest critics in the nine months since that vote. But they didn’t vote as a bloc on the motion to table.
Boebert was the only one who voted to table Gaetz’s motion, siding with McCarthy.
“Call it what you may, but this sure beats [Nancy] Pelosi’s House where everyone Zoomed in from their districts,” Boebert wrote on X on Monday evening.
By Marianna Sotomayor
Congressional reporter covering the House of Representatives
Many Republicans just groaned in unison as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) charged that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made a “secret deal” with Democrats on Ukraine funding.
They appear to be over Gaetz.
By Leigh Ann Caldwell
Early 202 co-author and Washington Post Live anchor
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who spoke to defend Speaker Kevin McCarthy, has become an ally of his over the past several months. He has defended McCarthy and voted with him more than he has voted with leadership in the past.
One reason Massie has become an ally is because McCarthy inserted into the debt limit bill a version of a Massie plan to prevent an all-encompassing omnibus spending bill.
By Jacob Bogage
Business reporter
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) invoked a “secret Ukraine deal” that he accused Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) of striking with President Biden after averting the government shutdown. House Republicans, and especially Gaetz, are increasingly skeptical of sending more aid to Ukraine, but Democrats in the House, Senate and White House have all said they expect McCarthy to bring a bill including Ukraine aid to the House floor, where it is likely to pass with mostly Democratic votes. McCarthy allies groaned and booed when Gaetz brought up Ukraine funding. McCarthy laughed and shook his head.
By Marianna Sotomayor
Congressional reporter covering the House of Representatives
Were you wondering why Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and those voting to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are speaking from the Democratic side of the aisle? Well, according to multiple people familiar with the matter, Republicans would not allow him to speak from their side. The vitriol within the GOP conference against Gaetz is palpable, and we are all seeing it based on this small move.
by ti-amie Meanwhile...
by ti-amie Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
NBC News: A handful of moderate House Democrats have received calls from Republicans asking them to vote to save Kevin McCarthy's job. One source describes those calls as "begging."
by ti-amie
Kevin McCarthy ousted as speaker in Republican-led House
The Republican-led House voted Tuesday to oust Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker, the first such removal in congressional history. McCarthy’s removal was sought by hard-right members of his own party. Democrats did not provide votes that would have been needed to save him. The move puts the House in uncharted territory as it searches for a leader.
Fun might not be the right word but you either laugh or
by ti-amie Here's what to know
Following McCarthy’s ouster, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) was designated as speaker pro-tempore. He presided over the chamber briefly before calling a recess to allow Republicans and Democrats to meet privately.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced the resolution to remove McCarthy from his leadership position after weeks of threatening to do so because McCarthy passed a stopgap measure to fund the government with Democratic support.
by ti-amie You know that Pelosi and Jeffries already know what their next move is.
As for the GQP
by ti-amie If something like this happened anywhere but here in the States media coverage would be the equivalent of the rich looking down their noses at the poors but since it's happening here it's not being looked at that way at all. Instead they want us to think this is normal political shenanigans when this has never happened in the history of the US. All because Kevin wanted to ensure the government, in all of its aspects, continued to run.
by ti-amie Popular guy this Gaetz person.
4 min ago
By Marianna Sotomayor and Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff
Speaking to reporters after the vote to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) “shouldn’t be in the Republican Party.”
He said Republicans plan to meet later tonight to discuss the next steps, but he expects McCarthy to be nominated and eventually become speaker again.
“We don’t let eight people dictate the rest of the conference,” Bacon said of Republicans who voted against McCarthy.
When asked if he would rather work with moderate Democrats or Gaetz and the others who voted to oust McCarthy, Bacon said: “I would never want to work with Matt Gaetz.”
By Jacob Bogage
Business reporter
Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Ga.) said no one else had stepped forward to run for speaker and that her assumption was that Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) would run again.
“I haven’t heard him say he’s not,” Greene said. “I think the vote today shows that he really truly has the support of the whole conference except a few people.”
by ti-amieThere Is No Clear Replacement Candidate for McCarthy
Republicans focused on ousting Speaker Kevin McCarthy aren’t in agreement about who they want to replace him.
Representative Steve Scalise, center, is the No. 2 Republican in the House and a rival of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s.Credit...Tom Brenner for The New York Times
By Annie Karni
Reporting from the Capitol
Oct. 3, 2023
Updated 1:27 p.m. ET
If not Speaker Kevin McCarthy, then who?
That was the question hanging over the Capitol on Tuesday, as it became clear that Democrats were not going to help Mr. McCarthy survive the vote to oust him.
That there isn’t an obvious answer to the question was part of Mr. McCarthy’s ability to win the bruising battle for the job in the first place — he never let a serious alternative emerge.
Nine months later, there still isn’t a clear candidate in waiting.
“I think there’s plenty of people who can step up and do the job,” Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee, one of the rebels bent on pushing Mr. McCarthy out, said Tuesday morning, but he said he did not know who he had in mind for the job instead.
Representative Eli Crane of Arizona, another one of the hard-line holdouts against Mr. McCarthy, said he wasn’t there yet in terms of supporting someone else.
“I don’t like to get the cart before the horse,” he said. “For me, right now, this is just about representing my voters and holding the speaker accountable for deals made and deals broken."
Some names were starting to be bandied about, even as all of the potential successors vowed that they were not looking to replace Mr. McCarthy, whom they said they still supported.
Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, on Monday night said he was open to supporting Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the current No. 2 House Republican and a longtime McCarthy rival who is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for blood cancer.
“I am not going to pass over Steve Scalise just because he has blood cancer,” Mr. Gaetz told a horde of reporters as he left the Capitol on Monday night.
Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the No. 3 Republican in the House who serves as the majority whip, has also been mentioned by some of his colleagues as a viable option. Mr. Emmer, who has hosted many late night sessions in his office with various factions of the Republican conference, trying to help the group find common ground, has gained the trust of the far-right members. But they don’t view him as a particularly strong leader.
“He’s a good sounding board. He’s got some nice conference rooms. He doesn’t lie to us,” Mr. Gaetz said of Mr. Emmer in an earlier interview. “We know he can’t make anything happen.”
Another logical person to turn to would be Representative Patrick McHenry, the longtime North Carolina congressman who is close with Mr. McCarthy and has previously served in leadership. But Mr. McHenry would most likely resist any attempt to draft him into the role. He chose not to run for a leadership role last year, opting instead to lead the powerful financial services committee.
In a scramble, Representative Elise Stefanik, the top woman in leadership whose role means she works closely with all members of the conference, could emerge as another potential alternative. Serving as conference chair and overseeing messaging for all House Republicans, she is widely seen as someone with big political ambitions outside of the House — like potentially serving in a future Trump administration.
Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, one of the longest serving Republicans in the House who leads the Rules Committee, is also respected by both Republicans and Democrats alike.
My statement in the aftermath of the Motion to Vacate the Chair.
by ti-amie Jen Psaki @jrpsaki
No notes
This is former Speaker Jim Boehner who took one look at the "Freedom Caucus" and decided it was time for it to be 5p all the time and booked.
by ti-amie Abby D. Phillip
@abbydphillip
Per
@AnnieGrayerCNN
,
@RepJamesClyburn
says McCarthy's Face the Nation turned Dems: "For McCarthy to go on tv the next day and saying to all the media that the Democrats did this, the Democrats did that, that it was all our fault--Democrats brought the majority of the votes by a wide margin and for him to discredit everything that Democrats have done--everybody got very upset"
by ti-amieKevin McCarthy tells House Republicans he won’t run again for speaker
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), after being removed as House speaker Tuesday, told fellow Republican lawmakers that he won’t seek the position again, according to two sources familiar with his plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The vote to remove him was the first such removal in congressional history. McCarthy’s removal was sought by hard-right members of his own party. Democrats did not provide votes that would have been needed to save him. The move puts the House in uncharted territory as it searches for a leader.
Key updates
The House is done for the week. Lawmakers will return Tuesday and Republicans will hold a candidate forum that day and hope to hold speaker elections on Wednesday, according to members leaving the GOP meeting.
by texasniteowl Talk about petty and tasteless, "acting speaker" McHenry ordered Pelosi, who is in California for the funeral of Feinstein, to vacate her Capitol building hideaway office by tomorrow (Wednesday). Just when you think some people can't come up with a new low of behavior.
by ti-amie The minute I saw he wears a bowtie I knew he was a low life.
by ti-amie
Sean Casten
@SeanCasten
I would direct your attention to rule 26(a) of the House Republican Conference rules for the 118th Congress.
I'm shocked I tell you. SHOCKED.
/s
by ti-amie Rep. Jim McGovern
@RepMcGovern
·
2h
I want to clear up some confusion.
As an unelected acting Speaker pro tempore,
@PatrickMcHenry's job is to guide the House toward the election of a new Speaker. That's it.
His power is constrained by the plain text of Rule 1, Clause 8 of the Rules of the House.
I'm alarmed by the decision to oust @SpeakerPelosi & @RepStenyHoyer
from their offices.
Given the plain text of the rule, I don't think he has that power.
The rule says he can only exercise as much authority as is "necessary and appropriate" towards the end of electing a Speaker.
The Rules Committee narrowly described this rule in 2004: an acting Speaker pro tempore serves "for the sole purpose of electing a new Speaker."
These rules were put into place after 9/11 to ensure continuity of government & quick election of a new Speaker in an emergency. Not to provide for a short-term Speaker due to Republican dysfunction.
I urge @HouseGOP to elect someone who will be a Speaker of the *whole* House.
by Owendonovan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:42 pm
Rep. Jim McGovern
@RepMcGovern
·
2h
I want to clear up some confusion.
As an unelected acting Speaker pro tempore,
@PatrickMcHenry's job is to guide the House toward the election of a new Speaker. That's it.
His power is constrained by the plain text of Rule 1, Clause 8 of the Rules of the House.
I'm alarmed by the decision to oust @SpeakerPelosi & @RepStenyHoyer
from their offices.
Given the plain text of the rule, I don't think he has that power.
The rule says he can only exercise as much authority as is "necessary and appropriate" towards the end of electing a Speaker.
The Rules Committee narrowly described this rule in 2004: an acting Speaker pro tempore serves "for the sole purpose of electing a new Speaker."
These rules were put into place after 9/11 to ensure continuity of government & quick election of a new Speaker in an emergency. Not to provide for a short-term Speaker due to Republican dysfunction.
I urge @HouseGOP to elect someone who will be a Speaker of the *whole* House.
Ha! As if.
by ti-amieTrump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House: Sources
Trump allegedly discussed the information with an Australian billionaire.
By Katherine Faulders, Alexander Mallin, and Mike Levine
October 5, 2023, 4:33 PM
Months after leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago Club -- an Australian billionaire who then allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The potential disclosure was reported to special counsel Jack Smith's team as they investigated Trump's alleged hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the sources told ABC News. The information could shed further light on Trump's handling of sensitive government secrets.
Prosecutors and FBI agents have at least twice this year interviewed the Mar-a-Lago member, Anthony Pratt, who runs U.S.-based Pratt Industries, one of the world's largest packaging companies.
In those interviews, Pratt described how -- looking to make conversation with Trump during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April 2021 -- he brought up the American submarine fleet, which the two had discussed before, the sources told ABC News.
According to Pratt's account, as described by the sources, Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump -- "leaning" toward Pratt as if to be discreet -- then told Pratt two pieces of information about U.S. submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected.
In emails and conversations after meeting with Trump, Pratt described Trump's remarks to at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company's employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers, the sources told ABC News.
While Pratt told investigators he couldn’t tell if what Trump said about U.S. submarines was real or just bluster, investigators nevertheless asked Pratt not to repeat the numbers that Trump allegedly told him, suggesting the information could be too sensitive to relay further, ABC News was told.
It's unclear if the information was accurate, but the episode was investigated by Smith's team.
Sources said another witness, one of Trump's former employees at Mar-a-Lago, told investigators that, within minutes of Pratt's meeting with Trump, he heard Pratt relaying to someone else some of what Trump had just said.
According to the sources, the former Mar-a-Lago employee also told investigators he was "bothered" and "shocked" to hear that the former president had provided such seemingly sensitive information to a non-U.S. citizen.
Pratt told investigators Trump didn't show him any government documents during their April 2021 meeting, nor at any other time they crossed paths at Mar-a-Lago, sources said.
According to the sources, Pratt insisted to investigators that he told others about his meeting with Trump to show them how he was advocating for Australia with the United States. Some of the Australian officials that sources said he told were, as reflected in news reports at the time, involved in then-ongoing negotiations with the Biden administration over a deal for Australia to purchase a number of nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United States.
The deal was ultimately secured earlier this year, with Australia agreeing to purchase at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, though President Joe Biden has said that none of the submarines sold to Australia will be armed with nuclear weapons.
Special counsel Smith did not include any information about Trump's alleged April 2021 conversation with Pratt in his June indictment against Trump, which charged the former president with 40 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information and obstruction-related offenses.
Last year, while needling the Biden administration for what he said was a weak response to Russia's war on Ukraine, Trump said that if he were still president, he would make sure Russia understood that the United States is "a greater nuclear power" with "the greatest submarines in the world."
"[They are] the most powerful machines ever built, and nobody knows where they are," Trump said on the Fox Business network.
Shortly after Trump became president in 2017, Pratt joined Mar-a-Lago as a member and publicly pledged to invest another $2 billion in American manufacturing jobs.
Over the next few years, Pratt visited Mar-a-Lago about 10 times, interacting with Trump on several occasions, once even having dinner with Trump and a U.S. senator at another Trump-owned property nearby, Pratt told investigators, according to sources. Pratt also visited the White House in 2018, when Trump was meeting with Australia's then-prime minister, according to online records.
In 2019, speaking at the opening of a Pratt Industries plant in Wapakoneta, Ohio, Trump called Pratt a "friend" and praised him for funding the plant.
"We're here to celebrate a great opening and a great gentleman," Trump said. "Anthony is one of the most successful men in the world -- perhaps Australia's most successful man."
Standing beside Trump, Pratt then said he "would not have invested in this plant if it wasn't for President Trump's election, [which] has given us an incredible faith in investing in America."
But in recent months, according to sources, Pratt told investigators that he now supports the current U.S. government, describing himself as someone who tends to just "side with the king."
Representatives for Pratt did not respond to messages seeking comment from ABC News.
A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
by dryrunguy The NY Times is reporting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has announced he will run as an independent in 2024.
by Suliso That's great for Biden, isn't it?
by ponchi101 Not GREAT, but sure, he will take some of the fringe lunatic votes with him. And those are on the right.
by ti-amie Ryan Struyk
@ryanstruyk
"Tonight, House Democrats unanimously voted to renominate Leader Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker of the House," says House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar and Vice Chair Ted Lieu.
by ti-amieHouse Republicans pick Rep. Steve Scalise as speaker nominee
House Republicans on Wednesday chose House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) as their party’s nominee for speaker. He still must win a majority vote from the full House, including Democrats, to become leader of the chamber. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, also vied to succeed Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose ouster as speaker last week was led by hard-line conservatives. To prevail on the House floor, Scalise will need the support of most of Jordan’s backers.
The full House is scheduled to convene at 3 p.m.
Ahead of the voting, House Republicans shot down a proposed rule change that would have increased the threshold needed to nominate a speaker to well beyond a simple majority of the conference.
All you need to know about Scalise
Republicans Pick Man Who Compared Himself to David Duke As Next House Speaker
Republicans have nominated Representative Steve Scalise as their next House speaker—and that speaks volumes.
A Scalise victory means that the farthest-right wing of the Republican Party would be in complete control. Scalise has refused to say outright that the 2020 election was legitimate, instead remaining loyal to Donald Trump.
But even long before that, Scalise had embraced the extremist movement. At the start of his congressional career, Scalise reportedly described himself as being like Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan, but “without the baggage.”
Scalise also attended a white supremacist conference that Duke organized in 2002. Scalise later described attending the conference as “a mistake.”
But Duke said Scalise was invited because he would “communicate a lot” and was “friendly” with Kenny Knight, Duke’s political advisor.
by ti-amie VoteVets
@votevets
·
Steve Scalise voted:
- to cut Veterans benefits by 22 percent
- against providing healthcare to Veterans with cancer
- to overturn the 2020 election.
A vote for Steve Scalise is a vote against Veterans and the country we swore to protect.
by ti-amie James Gleick
@JamesGleick@zirk.us
If and when Republicans allow a floor vote for Speaker, the leader after the first ballot, by a large plurality, will be Hakeem Jeffries. At some point that’s going to occur to them.
by ti-amie I dunno I think that the GQP wouldn't mind Jeffries because they can go after him for many, many reasons and appear to be unified and try and gloss over the fact that they created the situation in the first place.
by ti-amie
Palmer Report
@PalmerReport
House Democrats are now asking the House Republicans in moderate districts to vote “present” so the Democrats can elect Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. Won’t happen right now. But if there’s still no Speaker by say, Monday, this just might get real traction.
The House Republicans in moderate districts know that if the Speakership is vacant long enough, they’ll take the brunt of it when moderate voters decide to punish the Republican Party for it. So at some point they’ll decide they have to make the vacancy go away.
Someone asked the question and it hasn't been answered: Has the Speaker ever been a member of the minority party. I'm sure some talking head will respond.
IF, and I mean IF Jeffries becomes Speaker if I'm the Democrats I'd be running ads about this in ad nauseam, even in red states. This is the worst political own goal I've ever seen.
by ti-amie By Mariana Alfaro
Reporter on the breaking political news team
The House will not hold floor votes tonight — which means another day will pass without a speaker elected.
Republicans instead have been called to another closed-door conference at 7:30 p.m. Eastern.
Democrats, meanwhile, have been advised that Republicans plan to adjourn for the day, but that they should remain in Washington for any potential votes.
by texasniteowl CNN just reported that Scalise is dropping out. No path towards 217 votes.
by ti-amie
texasniteowl wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:32 am
CNN just reported that Scalise is dropping out. No path towards 217 votes.
What a s**t show.
by dryrunguy At the risk of stating the obvious, when you elect people who have willfully surrendered their ability to think, you've also elected people are incapable of thinking things through and grasping the consequences of their actions.
by Suliso Jim Jordan is now a strong favorite, right?
by patrick Only if they keep Jeffries from becoming Speaker
by ashkor87 Hmm..dems would look bad if they pushed HJ through..more likely is a moderate Republican they can vote for, or, at least, vote Present.
by Suliso
patrick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 9:32 am
Only if they keep Jeffries from becoming Speaker
That's a nonsense trick Democrats are playing. Speaker comes from a majority party. They would be better off supporting the best possible (for them) Republican candidate.
by Owendonovan Those republicans sure make the "ugly American" uglier.
by texasniteowl
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 9:21 am
Jim Jordan is now a strong favorite, right?
I hope not. I feel like he has just as many, if not more, against him than Scalise did. But at this point, who knows?
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 9:21 amJim Gym Jordan is now a strong favorite, right?
Fixed that for ya!
More on Gym:
Rep. Eric Swalwell @RepSwalwell
Imagine 519 days into defying a subpoena you were rewarded with being 2nd in line to the American presidency.
Imagine no longer. That person will be Speaker Jordan.
by ti-amieHouse GOP hearing from speaker hopefuls Jim Jordan and Austin Scott
Updated 2 min ago
House Republicans are holdilng a closed-door forum Friday afternoon at which they’ll hear from at least two candidates for speaker: Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Austin Scott (Ga.). The conference is scrambling to find a nominee after Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) dropped out of the race Thursday night as he struggled to round up the necessary 217 votes to get elected by the full chamber. It’s unclear when a vote for speaker could take place on the House floor.
Who is Rep. Austin Scott, the new candidate for House speaker?
Return to menu
By Azi Paybarah and Jacqueline Alemany
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) speaks to reporters as House Republicans hold a caucus meeting Friday on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) announced Friday that he will challenge Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to become the next House speaker.
Scott, 53, who is in his seventh term in the House, is the dean of Georgia’s Republican delegation, which includes one of Jordan’s most visible allies, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Scott, with his candidacy, is now the anti-Jordan candidate. Moderate and vulnerable Republicans have been seeking someone in that lane.
Scott represents Georgia’s 8th District, which includes the central and southern parts of Georgia. He serves on the Intelligence Committee as well as the Armed Services and Agriculture committees.
Unlike many of his Republican colleagues, Scott voted to certify President Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, saying in a statement on Jan. 6, 2021, “Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to overturn a state’s electoral votes.”
More recently, Scott criticized the eight Republicans who voted to oust the previous speaker, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), describing the group on social media as “grifters” who essentially aligned with Democrats “in the name of their own glory and fundraising.”
by ti-amieHouse GOP picks Jim Jordan as next speaker nominee
House Republicans on Friday voted to make Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) their next nominee for speaker. Jordan, who was endorsed by former president Donald Trump, is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Jordan finished second to Rep. Steve Scalise (La.) in internal balloting earlier this week. Scalise dropped out Thursday night as he struggled to attract the votes he would need to be elected by the full chamber. The voting Friday suggests Jordan could have a difficult time reaching the threshold as well.
They made the updated wording a little less ambiguous about Gym's chances.
by texasniteowl I saw somewhere that the first vote today was 124-81 and the 2nd vote was 152-55. And that there are only 207 Republicans in attendance today, so 14 others not there to vote. I really hope Jordan does not get the votes. I mean, I don't want this to continue, but please not Jordan.
by Owendonovan I can't think of a single republican qualified for that position.
by ti-amie They've taken the weekend off to "think about it". In other words they are checking in with their backers to see what they should do and by backers I don't mean the marks that vote for them.
by Togtdyalttai
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:00 pm
I can't think of a single republican qualified for that position.
The House has delayed its second vote for Speaker until Wednesday after Jim Jordan failed to win the support of enough Republicans.
by ti-amieRep. Jim Jordan falls short of House speakership; no more votes tonight
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a conservative firebrand allied with former president Donald Trump, failed to win over enough Republican holdouts to reach a majority on the House floor to become the next speaker. The Ohio Republican confirmed Tuesday evening there would not be another round of voting until at least 11 a.m. on Wednesday. Jordan is seeking to succeed Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was ousted as speaker two weeks ago. Jordan became the Republican nominee after Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the first choice of the GOP conference, withdrew from the race last week.
Here's what to know
The House is in recess, subject to the call of the chair, as House Republicans discuss how to proceed...
Jordan can lose no more than four Republicans to win the gavel, but 20 members of his conference voted for someone other than him in the first round.
by ti-amieJim Jordan’s remarkably thin legislative track record
Analysis by Aaron Blake
Staff writer
October 16, 2023 at 5:23 p.m. EDT
In a historically fraught time marked not only by partisan gridlock but also a remarkably incohesive Republican Party, the House GOP could soon elect a speaker with a remarkably thin legislative track record and precious little experience building the bipartisan consensus he would soon need.
Critics of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have increasingly pointed to this — most notably the fact that he has yet to get a bill signed into law since being elected in 2006.
“House Republicans have just elected a speaker nominee who in 16 years in this Congress hasn’t passed a single bill,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Friday, “because his focus has not been on the American people.”
(...)
The most oft-cited data on legislative success comes from the Center for Effective Lawmaking, a joint project of Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia. It tracks not only bills that become law, but bills that get some kind of traction, along with how significant the bills are. (i.e. you don’t get the same credit for getting a bill naming a post office passed as you would for an overhaul of health care.)
Lawmakers of both parties often tout these rankings when boasting that a member has had a bona fide impact on our nation’s laws.
Jordan has not had much impact, at least by this measuring stick.
CEL data have routinely ranked Jordan near the bottom of the House when it comes to his effectiveness. To wit:
Last Congress, only four lawmakers ranked below him.
He has ranked in the bottom five among House Republicans each of the past four Congresses.
He has ranked in the bottom quarter of House Republicans in every full Congress he served in.
Before this Congress, its data don’t record any bills Jordan sponsored passing or receiving any action — whether in committee or on the floor.
How unusual is this? Part of the reason is that Jordan doesn’t sponsor a lot of bills. But other prominent members have significantly more robust track records.
For instance, CEL data show Jeffries last Congress sponsored nine “substantive” bills — i.e. not commemorative things like naming a post office — which went on to pass, including four that became law. (Jeffries was in the majority with Democrats controlling both the Senate and the presidency, but Jordan has been in a majority for most of his tenure, and his party had that same trifecta from 2017 to 2019.)
Ousted former speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) during Jordan’s tenure has sponsored 17 bills that passed and eight that became law. Five of those laws were regarded as “substantive.”
And House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) during Jordan’s tenure has sponsored eight “substantive” bills that passed, including one that became law.
by ti-amieRep. Jim Jordan falls short of House speakership on second ballot
Updated 25 min ago
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) failed to reach a majority on the House floor Wednesday, drawing one fewer vote for speaker than on the first ballot Tuesday. Jordan, a conservative firebrand allied with former president Donald Trump, is seeking to succeed Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was ousted as speaker two weeks ago. Twenty-two Republicans voted against Jordan on the second ballot. He can afford to lose only four.
KEY UPDATE
By Paul Kane
Senior congressional correspondent and columnist
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) set a modern record: lowest vote tally for majority’s nominee to be speaker. Just 199 Republicans voted for him on second ballot. No majority nominee has received less than 200 votes in a really long time.
by ti-amie So is it back to McCarthy for these idiots?
by ti-amie It seems Gym's supporters used the third chapter of Tony Soprano's handbook when "wooing" his party members.
GOP Rep. Reveals Threatening Texts His Wife Received About Jim Jordan Vote
Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon's' wife fired back at the anonymous messages.
By Lee Moran
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) says his wife received multiple anonymous text messages that warned what would happen to his political career if he didn’t back Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) run for the House speaker role.
“Jim’s been nice, one-on-one, but his broader team has been playing hardball,” Bacon told Politico in a story published Tuesday.
In an exchange that Politico’s Olivia Beavers shared on X, formerly Twitter, the unidentified texter asked Bacon’s wife: “Why is your husband causing chaos by not supporting Jim Jordan? I thought he was a team player.”
Bacon’s wife replied: “Who is this???”
The texter said: “Your husband will not hold any political office ever again. What a disappoint (sic) and failure he is.”
Bacon’s wife fired back: “He has more courage than you. You won’t put your name to your statements.”
In another message, Bacon’s wife was urged: “Talk to your husband tell him to step up and be a leader and help the Republican Party get a speaker there’s too much going on in the world for all this going on in the Republican Party you guys take five steps forward and then turn around take 20 steps backwards no wonder our party always ends up getting screwed over.”
Bacon ended up voting for Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was ousted from the position earlier this month.
Jordan, whose allies have reportedly engaged in other strong-arm tactics as part of his campaign, lost the first floor vote on Tuesday night.
“We’re going to keep going,” the Donald Trump-backed congressman vowed afterward.
It appears that English is not this person's first language...
by Owendonovan Meanwhile, the GOP blames the dems for this mess. The Dems haven't changed their votes once, 212 for Hakeem Jeffries. Jordan doesn't need 50 more votes, Hakeem needs 5.
by patrick Who will be the brave souls to cross the line for Jeffries?
by Owendonovan
patrick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:49 pm
Who will be the brave souls to cross the line for Jeffries?
Hmmm, current GOP reps. with souls. Lemme get back to you.
by ti-amieJordan emerges from meeting to say he is ‘still running for speaker’
By Mariana Alfaro, Amy B Wang and Leigh Ann Caldwell
After an eventful morning and a heated Republican conference meeting, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) emerged to say that he was “still running for speaker.”
After telling his conference in the morning that he would back a plan to temporarily expand the powers of Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) and delay a third ballot, Jordan suggested the plan wouldn’t move forward as of now.
“We made the pitch to members on the resolution as a way to lower the temperature and get back to work,” Jordan said. “We decided that wasn’t where we’re going to go.”
It is unclear if Jordan was suggesting he or other Republicans were abandoning the plan to empower McHenry entirely. Other members of GOP leadership, including Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) have come out against the plan to empower McHenry.
Jordan’s spokesman said the Ohio Republican could call for a third vote as early as today, despite the lawmaker’s earlier assessment that there would not be a vote Thursday.
“I’m still running for speaker, and I plan to go to the floor and get the votes and win this race,” Jordan said, without specifying a time or date. “But I want to go talk with a few of my colleagues. Particularly, I want to talk with the 20 individuals who voted against me so that we can move forward and begin to work for the American people.”
Twenty Republicans voted against Jordan in the first ballot on Tuesday. On Wednesday’s ballot, 22 Republicans voted against him.
By Paul Kane
Senior congressional correspondent and columnist
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) acknowledged that former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) screamed at him in the meeting. Gaetz’s challenge led to McCarthy’s ouster.
“I think his passions are a little inflamed. I think he’s working through the stages of grief,” the far-right antagonist told reporters.
Gaetz also acknowledged a clash, more verbal in nature, with Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.).
“I think he was pretty animated. I don’t know if I’d describe it as a lunge,” he said.
Gaetz said his comments at the microphone that might have sparked the shouting matches were his opposition to the proposal to empower the speaker pro tempore.
“I said that I thought that having ‘speaker light’ was a bad idea,” he said, adding that he continues to support Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
by ti-amiePath forward for Jordan, Republicans on House speaker now uncertain
Updated 43 min ago
The path forward for House Republicans on choosing a speaker remained unclear Thursday after a day of lengthy and, at times, heated meetings. Earlier Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the embattled GOP speaker nominee, told his conference that he would back a plan to temporarily expand the powers of Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), the interim speaker, and delay a third ballot for speaker. Jordan later suggested to reporters that the plan won’t move forward right now. He said he would seek a third ballot for speaker, with a vote delayed until Friday morning at the earliest.
Here's what to know
House Republicans have three speakers at once — ousted speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), speaker designate Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) — but none has real power.
by ti-amieHouse Republicans vote to drop Jim Jordan; more candidates enter speaker race
Updated 10 min ago
House Republicans, meeting behind closed doors, voted Friday by secret ballot for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to step aside as the GOP speaker nominee after a third vote on the House floor in which Jordan fell well short of a majority of the full chamber. The vote to remove Jordan was 112 to 86. The move leaves the Republican conference without a nominee more than two weeks after the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker. House Republicans will return Monday to start the process again. Members have until Sunday to declare speaker candidacies.
Here's what to know
In a vote for speaker Tuesday, 20 fellow Republicans opposed Jordan’s bid. That number grew to 22 Wednesday and to 25 Friday. Jordan could afford to lose four Republican votes in the closely divided chamber if everyone was present.
Texas GOP Rep. Pete Sessions announces speakership bid
By Maegan Vazquez
The list of Republicans throwing their hats into the ring to become the next House speaker is growing.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) announced Friday that he’s joining the race, saying in a statement that he “believes he can forge a positive path as a conservative leader who can unite the Conference.”
Sessions served as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee from 2009 through 2012. He represented Texas’s 32nd Congressional District from 2003 through 2019, when he lost the seat to Colin Allred (D). Sessions has represented Texas’s 17th Congressional District since 2021.
By Marianna Sotomayor
Congressional reporter covering the House of Representatives
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), who serves as vice chair of the Republican conference, is also making calls to his colleagues to gauge whether he should run for speaker, according to his spokeswoman.
A member of the House Freedom Caucus, he is well-liked by the group and his candidacy could play well across the conference, given the relationships he has strengthened since becoming vice chair in 2021.
GOP Reps. Jack Bergman and Austin Scott announce speakership bids
By Maegan Vazquez
Republican Reps. Jack Bergman (Mich.) and Austin Scott (Ga.) announced Friday afternoon that they’re officially entering the ring to be the next House speaker, joining Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) in the race.
“My hat is in the ring, and I feel confident I can win the votes where others could not,” Bergman, who has been in Congress since 2017, said in a statement. “I have no special interests to serve; I’m only in this to do what’s best for our Nation and to steady the ship for the 118th Congress.”
Bergman, the statement says, “is not beholden to any faction of any party, but has gained respect in Congress as a leader — within the GOP conference and also among moderate Democrats.”
Scott, who ran for the speakership in an earlier voting round and lost, announced he plans to run again.
“If we are going to be the majority we need to act like the majority, and that means we have to do the right things the right way. I supported and voted for Rep. Jim Jordan to be the Speaker of the House. Now that he has withdrawn I am running again to be the Speaker of the House,” Scott wrote on the social media platform X.
Hern announced his bid immediately after the GOP conference withdrew its support from Jordan (R-Ohio).
by ti-amieAnalysis: Threats couldn’t save Jim Jordan. But Trump-era intimidation has had an impact.
By Aaron Blake
CNN on Thursday aired harrowing audio of the kind of intimidation and threats that an increasing number of Republican lawmakers say they’ve faced over their opposition to the speakership bid of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). And it’s ugly. The caller leaves a message for an unnamed lawmaker’s wife and, while repeatedly qualifying that they aren’t talking about violence, they do threaten to harass the woman endlessly in public.
by ponchi101 Mafia politics. Next: some GOP person falling from an 8th floor balcony.
by ti-amieTom Emmer drops out hours after becoming the latest Republican pick for speaker
Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the House majority whip, and the third Republican speaker pick since the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), had been elected as the GOP nominee on an internal ballot earlier Tuesday. However, it became clear that he could not attract a majority vote on the full House floor because of Republican holdouts in the narrowly divided chamber. Former president Donald Trump took direct aim at Emmer as he was trying to convert holdouts. In a social media post, Trump called Emmer a RINO — Republican in name only — and “totally out-of-touch with Republican Voters.”
By Azi Paybarah
National reporter covering campaigns and breaking politics news.
The tenure of the House Republicans’ latest speaker designate, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), can be measured in hours not days.
He was elected the conference’s nominee at 12:16 p.m.
By 4:26 p.m., Emmer had dropped out.
By Jacqueline Alemany and Amy B Wang
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s (R-Minn.) voting record was what turned her against him, echoing other hard-right lawmakers’ criticisms that Emmer was not sufficiently conservative.
Greene said she “openly” opposed Emmer in the roll-call vote, adding that the Republican conference was becoming more conservative.
“He’s dropped out now and I think this is good,” she said. “Here’s what’s going on: The GOP conference is changing.”
GOP could return to plan to empower McHenry
By Marianna Sotomayor
It’s unclear what Republicans will do now that Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) has withdrawn from the speaker’s race. Does the conference vote for Vice Chair Mike Johnson (R-La.), Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) or Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.)? Does the conference start all over again?
by ti-amie
by ti-amieHouse Republicans pick Rep. Mike Johnson as their fourth speaker nominee
Updated 1 min ago
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) was elected the Republican speaker nominee Tuesday in an internal vote by the GOP conference during a dramatic day in which Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) won a nomination vote but later dropped out. Johnson, 51, is the fourth Republican speaker pick since the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). He is an attorney and former radio host who has served in the House since 2017 and is the vice chair of the House Republican conference.
By Amy B Wang
National politics reporter
After the second ballot, we’re down to two GOP candidates for speaker: Reps. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Mike Johnson (R-La.). Reps. Roger Williams (R-Tex.) and Mark Green (R-Tenn.) are out.
By Mariana Alfaro
Reporter on the breaking political news team
Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) speaks to journalists while holding a vote count, inside the Longworth House Office Building on Tuesday. (Tom Brenner/For the Washington Post )
Here are the vote totals on the second ballot: Johnson: 97; Donalds, 31; Green, 21; Williams, 20; Others, 34; Present, 3.
by ti-amie Laffy
@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Via an author/journalist who I know from email list so I can't share name. This is his area of expertise:
"Johnson's elevation to Speakership is historic triumph in the Christian Right's long march to power. IMO, greater in important respects than election of Trump. Johnson is 1 of them but Trump never was.
The Christian Right political movement will be around long after Trump exits national stage. Johnson is 51. He epitomizes the generational and ideological changes that are well underway"
2/ Via Kyle Griffin:
The new House Speaker Republicans just unanimously elected:
• Architect of House GOP's efforts to overturn the 2020 election
• Voted AGAINST the Violence Against Women Act
• Voted AGAINST the Women's Health Protection Act
• Voted AGAINST bipartisan legislation to codify same-sex marriage
• Authored the federal Don't Say Gay legislation
• Co-sponsored legislation that would make it a felony for providers to perform gender affirming care
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 7:26 pm
Laffy
@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Via an author/journalist who I know from email list so I can't share name. This is his area of expertise:
"Johnson's elevation to Speakership is historic triumph in the Christian Right's long march to power. IMO, greater in important respects than election of Trump. Johnson is 1 of them but Trump never was.
The Christian Right political movement will be around long after Trump exits national stage. Johnson is 51. He epitomizes the generational and ideological changes that are well underway"
2/ Via Kyle Griffin:
The new House Speaker Republicans just unanimously elected:
• Architect of House GOP's efforts to overturn the 2020 election
• Voted AGAINST the Violence Against Women Act
• Voted AGAINST the Women's Health Protection Act
• Voted AGAINST bipartisan legislation to codify same-sex marriage
• Authored the federal Don't Say Gay legislation
• Co-sponsored legislation that would make it a felony for providers to perform gender affirming care
He epitomizes misogynistic homophobic people in America, not a generational and ideological change. The Johnsons of this world have been around forever.
by ti-amieWhat’s Up With Mike Johnson’s Very Shady-Seeming Financial Disclosures?
The new House leader lists no bank accounts, including checking or savings, on financial disclosure forms going back to 2016.
BY BESS LEVIN
NOVEMBER 1, 2023
In the week since Mike Johnson was elected Speaker of the House, we’ve learned a tremendous amount about the Louisiana Republican, and virtually none of it has been good. For instance, the man the GOP just elevated to one of the most powerful jobs in the federal government tried to help Donald Trump steal a second term, is virulently antiabortion, thinks America doesn’t have a gun problem, very possibly does not believe in evolution, definitely doesn’t believe in separation of church and state, has claimed homosexuality is “sinful” and “destructive,” and is married to someone who founded a company that equates being gay with bestiality and incest. And now, for something totally different, we’ve learned the new House Speaker…doesn’t have any bank accounts listed on his financial disclosure forms.
The Daily Beast reports that in financial disclosures dating back to 2016, the year he joined Congress, Johnson never reported having a savings or checking account in his name, his spouse’s name, or in the name of any of his children. In his latest filing, which covers last year, he doesn’t list a single asset either. Which, given that he made more than $200,000 last year—in addition to his wife’s salary—is more than a little odd.
As reporter Roger Sollenberger notes, it‘s unlikely that Johnson literally does not have any sort of bank account, and that he’s, like, stuffing his money in a mattress. Rather, the most probable explanation is that the Speaker lives paycheck to paycheck, and the money he does have in various accounts doesn’t meet the reporting threshold set by the House Ethics Committee; members must disclose any accounts, at any financial institution, that has at least $1,000 in them and a combined value of more than $5,000. (Accounts belonging to members’ spouses and dependent children count toward that minimum.) And while it’s a fact that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and that about a third would not have the money on hand to cover an unexpected $400 expense, when it comes to Johnson, the numbers don’t really add up.
Per The Daily Beast:
Johnson’s household income puts him in the top 12% of earners in the United States. And it’s extraordinarily rare for members of Congress to not list a qualifying bank account—let alone zero assets whatsoever.… Brett Kappel, a government ethics expert at Harmon Curran, told The Daily Beast it would be “very unusual for a member not to have to disclose at least one bank account.”
Jordan Libowitz, communications director for watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, offered a more blunt assessment, saying that if Johnson truly doesn’t have any assets, it “raises questions about his personal financial wellbeing.”
“It’s strange to see Speaker Johnson disclose no assets,” Libowitz told The Daily Beast. “He made over $200,000 last year, and his wife took home salary from two employers as well, so why isn’t there a bank account or any form of savings listed?” Johnson has also carried debts over for several years, which Libowitz said would sharpen the question. “He owes hundreds of thousands of dollars between a mortgage, personal loan, and home equity line of credit, so where did that money go?” Libowitz said. “If he truly has no bank account and no assets, it raises questions about his personal financial wellbeing.”
As Libowitz explained, “One of the reasons we have these financial disclosures is to know whether politicians are having financial difficulties—which could make them ripe for influence buying.” Which apparently is just one of the many things to be concerned about when it comes to the new House leader.
by ti-amie The new Speaker also adopted an African American male child who is either 10 or 11 years younger than him named Michael. Maybe he's a friend of Gaetz' adopted son Nestor.
by ti-amie Raskin voted against expelling "George Santos" because he rightly saw the measure as a way for the MAGAt's to start proceedings against their perceived enemies in the House.
Dr. Jack Brown :verified:
@DrJackBrown@mstdn.social
This note from Rep. Jamie Raskin to George Santos is a must for the Smithsonian.
by ponchi101 So when I go full Nazi and I say that you need some sort of minimal credentials before you can be elected to public office, I am a Nazi.
How is this guy in congress? (Santos).
by ti-amie Sore losers club is open for business
by ti-amieRick Santorum Says Quiet Part Out Loud After Republican Election Losses
Tori Otten
Wed, November 8, 2023 at 2:48 PM GMT
Former Senator Rick Santorum complained that the major election losses Republicans suffered are actually a sign of how “pure democracies” are a bad form of government.
Republicans faced devastating losses on Tuesday, as voters in Ohio overwhelmingly chose to legalize marijuana and enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution. In Virginia, Democrats flipped the state House of Representatives, taking control of the entire legislature. While abortion was not explicitly on the ballot, the future of reproductive rights in Virginia hinged on which party controlled the government.
“You put very sexy things like abortion and marijuana on the ballot, and a lot of young people come out and vote. It was a secret sauce for disaster in Ohio,” Santorum whined Tuesday night on Newsmax.
“Thank goodness that most of the states in this country don’t allow you to put everything on the ballot, because pure democracies are not the way to run a country.”
...Santorum is upset that democracy is working.
As Republicans across the country try to push more extreme agendas, many issues such as protecting abortion, legalizing marijuana, and raising the minimum wage are being put forward for ballot referendums. Republicans lose those votes every time.
But rather than take the actual lesson here and start proposing policies that voters like, Republicans are digging their heels in. Take, for instance, Santorum’s other gripe, that young voters turned out because the issues were “sexy” (again, ugh).
Maybe young voters didn’t want to just hop on some social trend. Maybe young voters actually care about protecting their rights.
by ti-amieWill of the voters? Republicans in Ohio pledge to push back on abortion, marijuana
Haley BeMiller, USA TODAY NETWORK
Updated Wed, November 8, 2023 at 9:56 PM GMT
A majority of Ohio voters on Tuesday chose to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution and legalize recreational marijuana.
Almost immediately, the state's top Republican leaders promised they would try to unravel what voters approved.
Unofficial results show about 56% of voters backed Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that codifies the right to abortion access and other reproductive health care. Issue 2, which also passed with 56% of the vote, is a state law that will allow adults 21 and older to buy, possess and grow marijuana. Both take effect in 30 days.
"I can't believe in 2023 we're actually talking about elected officials not respecting the will of the voters and not respecting the outcome of an election," said Tom Haren, a spokesman for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. "I expect, I think that every single voter in Ohio has a right to expect, that elected officials will implement and respect the will of voters."
Since Issue 2 is an initiated statute, lawmakers can easily change it − and were promising to do so even before the election. House Speaker Jason Stephens, R-Kitts Hill, said Tuesday night that the Legislature should reallocate tax revenue from the adult-use program to invest more in jail construction and law enforcement training.
Stephens' home Lawrence County voted in favor of Issue 2, as did several other reliably Republican counties.
Meanwhile, Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, has a full list of changes he wants to make.
"This statute was written by the marijuana industry and should not be treated as a cash grab for their cash crop at the expense of a state trying to emerge from the opioid epidemic," Huffman said. "The General Assembly may consider amending the statute to clarify the questionable language regarding limits for THC and tax rates as well as other parts of the statute."
What Ohio Republicans are saying about Issue 1
The two GOP leaders issued similar warnings about the abortion amendment, even though it's difficult to repeal a constitutional amendment once it's on the books. Both Huffman and Stephens supported a failed effort in August to make it harder to change the constitution, which aimed to thwart the abortion amendment.
Stephens said Tuesday's vote isn't the end of the conversation: "The legislature has multiple paths that we will explore to continue to protect innocent life."
Huffman echoed that sentiment, suggesting voters could see abortion issues on the ballot again in the future.
"Life is worth fighting for. As a grandparent of eight, the life of a baby is always worth the fight," Huffman said. "The national abortion industry funded by wealthy out-of-state special interests spent millions to pass this radical language that goes far past abortion on demand. This isn't the end. It is really just the beginning of a revolving door of ballot campaigns to repeal or replace Issue 1."
A spokesman for Gov. Mike DeWine declined to comment Tuesday night.
Democrats, for their part, said the election proved Ohioans support abortion access and don't want the GOP-controlled Legislature restricting it.
"I never underestimate with this Republican supermajority that is drunk on power, what they will plan to do," House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, said. "But at the end of the day, the people of Ohio have spoken very loudly and clearly on this issue − not (just) tonight, but also in August − that they want abortion rights and they want personal freedom."
USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau reporter Jessie Balmert contributed.
Haley BeMiller is a reporter for the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, which serves the Columbus Dispatch, Cincinnati Enquirer, Akron Beacon Journal and 18 other affiliated news organizations across Ohio.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Republicans in Ohio pledge to push back on abortion, marijuana measures
by dryrunguy The NY Times is reporting that West Virginia senator Joe Manchin will not seek re-election.
by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:25 pm
The NY Times is reporting that West Virginia senator Joe Manchin will not seek re-election.
by Suliso That's a certain -1 for Democrats.
by ponchi101 Why? It is not as if Manchin was beloved by the Dems. They can do better than him.
by ti-amie West Virginia is the usual extremely GQP gerrymandered state. It will take a massive turnout to overcome that advantage they've given themselves.
He's also hinting at a presidential run.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:06 pm
Why? It is not as if Manchin was beloved by the Dems. They can do better than him.
Because West Virginia is a deep red state. Manchin was a relic from the past. Maybe the last conservative Democrat? At least at national level.
by Togtdyalttai Manchin was almost certainly going to lose reelection anyway. He only barely won in 2018, which was the most Democratic year since 2008, there was no Presidential election on the ballot to weigh him down, and West Virginia has if anything gotten redder since then.
by dryrunguy The NY Times is reporting Tim Scott has suspended his presidential campaign.
by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 3:44 am
The NY Times is reporting Tim Scott has suspended his presidential campaign.
Awww and he'd just debuted his girlfriend too!
/s
by Owendonovan "girlfriend"
by ti-amie 'The boss is not going to leave': Proffer videos show ex-Trump lawyers telling Georgia prosecutors about efforts to overturn 2020 election
ABC News obtained video from interviews held with Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell.
ByOlivia Rubin and Will Steakin
November 13, 2023, 4:43 PM
by ti-amieDid ‘vermin’ mark a turning point in Trump coverage?
By Dan Froomkin -November 13, 2023 11:41 am EST
Saturday night was a low point in the elite media’s coverage of Donald Trump.
The New York Times put a light-hearted headline on a news article about Trump’s Veterans Day address in New Hampshire, in which he vowed to “root out” what he called “the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”
“Trump Takes Veterans Day Speech in a Very Different Direction” was the initial headline over the story by Michael Gold.
Gold acknowledged in his second paragraph that Trump’s language was “incendiary and dehumanizing.” But that, of course, should have been the lede – and should have been in the headline.
The Times soon changed its headline to “In Veterans Day Speech, Trump Promises to ‘Root Out’ the Left,” but that wasn’t much better.
A social-media furor quickly erupted. (Twitter, the platform now called X by some, is still good for something.)
Meanwhile, the Washington Post made no mention of the speech at all.
Until Sunday night, that is.
That’s when the Post published a Marianne LeVine story under the blistering but appropriate headline: “Trump calls political enemies ‘vermin,’ echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini”.
Her lede:
Former president Donald Trump denigrated his domestic opponents and critics during a Veterans Day speech Saturday, calling those on the other side of the aisle “vermin” and suggesting that they pose a greater threat to the United States than countries such as Russia, China or North Korea. That language is drawing rebuke from historians, who compared it to that of authoritarian leaders.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung only added fuel to the fire when he told The Post that those who argue that Trump’s rhetoric echoes that of dictators will find “their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”
Would the Post have written the story that way (or at all) were it not for the outcry about the Times’s profound cowardice?
Probably not, I’d wager.
After all, it’s hardly the first time Trump has trafficked in Nazi tropes or engaged in Hitler-like behavior.
Should the Post have put it on the front page, instead of the bottom of A2? Definitely...
I sensed a tonal switch, which I hope and pray will be permanent, from covering Trump as a plausible future president to covering him as a dangerous demagogue.
Some senior editor made the call and I hope there’s no looking back.
by ponchi101 "Reminiscent of authoritarians"? It is STRAIGHT OUT OF THE AUTHORITARIANS play book.
Is this news, by now?
by mmmm8
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 12:50 pm
"Reminiscent of authoritarians"? It is STRAIGHT OUT OF THE AUTHORITARIANS play book.
Is this news, by now?
I'd say it's straight out of nationalist authoritarians' playbook, not even the "normal" kind that just ostracizes thinly veiled "enemies of the state." This is like Rodrigo Duterte-style, except Duterte was talking about drug traffickers.
by ti-amie11 of the most scathing allegations in the House ethics report about Santos
By Mariana Alfaro and Maegan Vazquez
November 16, 2023 at 7:34 p.m. EST
House investigators found “substantial evidence” that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) knowingly violated ethics guidelines, House rules and criminal laws, according to a report released by the House Ethics Committee on Thursday.
After the report was released, Santos — who has for months faced demands to resign from several of his House colleagues — announced that he would not seek reelection next year.
The 56-page report details a sweeping array of alleged misconduct. According to investigators, Santos allegedly stole money from his campaign, deceived donors, reported fictitious loans and engaged in fraudulent business dealings. The congressman, the report alleges, spent hefty sums on personal enrichment, including visits to spas and casinos, shopping trips to high-end stores, and payments to a subscription site that contains adult content.
The report frequently cites Santos’s dealings with his former treasurer Nancy Marks — who last month pleaded guilty to filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission. Earlier this week, an aide to Santos pleaded guilty to a federal charge of fraud in connection with a scheme that included impersonating the then-chief of staff for former House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to attract donors to Santos’s campaign.
Santos faces nearly two dozen federal charges, including allegations of defrauding his donors, using their money for his personal benefit and stealing the identities of family members and using donors’ credit cards to spend thousands of dollars. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The House Ethics report details evidence to support a lengthy list of allegations. Here’s some of what investigators found:
Santos boasted about family wealth. In reality, investigators say he was frequently broke.
Santos’s personal finances, the report found, were “drastically different from what he disclosed” on his financial statements, and “even more irreconcilable with the narrative he broadcast to his constituents, campaign supporters, and staff.”
While Santos would boast about “significant wealth” and claimed to have access to a trust managed by a family firm, the report alleges that Santos was “frequently in debt, had an abysmal credit score, and relied on an ever-growing wallet of high-interest credit cards to fund his luxury spending habits.”
In a particularly scathing section, investigators noted that Santos, throughout both of his campaigns, claimed he had a background in finance and wealth management. “That background was largely fictional,” the report states. Had Santos filed accurate financial statements, the investigators wrote, “his constituents may have had cause to question whether he was actually ‘good at’ money management and growth, or balancing costs and budgets — or, indeed, whether he had any experience in finance at all.”
At one point, the report says Santos texted a staffer that Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen was proposing changes that would end up “taxing people like me to death.”
He was referring to the Biden administration’s proposal to tax “unrealized gains taxable income” — meaning, taxes that would primarily impact the ultrawealthy.
Campaign funds are alleged to have been used for Botox and shopping at luxury stores.
The report accuses Santos of having repeatedly funneled money through his campaign, a PAC and LLCs under his purview toward paying for personal expenses.
The committee identified expenditures at spas and cosmetic clinics that “could not be verified as having a campaign nexus.” On two occasions, the expenses were noted as “Botox” in spreadsheets that Marks gave the committee.
Other funds, sent by contributors intending to bolster his political candidacy, appear to have been used to “pay down personal credit card bills and other debt; make a $4,127.80 purchase at Hermes; and for smaller purchases at Only Fans; Sephora; and for meals and for parking.”
Santos allegedly lied to donors about his 2020 campaign loans — and then failed to pay a staffer for months.
Investigators found that, during his unsuccessful 2020 campaign for a House seat from New York, Santos reported “fictitious loans to his political committees to induce donors and party committees to make further contributions to his campaign — and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported ‘repayments’ of those fictitious loans.”
Santos benefited politically and financially from the fake loans, the report alleges, which helped him inflate his 2020 campaign’s final cash-on-hand totals, which he then reported to the FEC. In his July 2020 FEC quarterly filing, Santos reported having $73,355.64 on hand. In reality, he only had $13,761.88. Per the report, Santos made only one of six of his reported loans.
“The reality was that the campaign did not have the funds to pay outstanding debts,” the report states. These debts included staffers’ paychecks — per the report, at least one of them went eight months without being paid for his work.
The Santos campaign also reported “repayments” for five of the six personal loans — four of which investigators say were never made. While Santos denied to investigators that he was aware of these fictitious loans — he blamed Marks for the bad bookkeeping — according to the report, evidence shows that he texted Marks about at least one of the fictitious loans. In total, the report says Santos was “reimbursed” for $29,200 in loans that he never made.
Santos’s campaign staff saw him as a “fabulist” and urged him to seek treatment.
Per the report, Santos “sustained all of this through constant lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience.” But members of his own staff viewed him as a “fabulist,” whose “penchant for telling lies was so concerning that he was encouraged to seek treatment.”
Members of Santos’s campaign prepared a 141-page “Vulnerability Report” on him, which they showed him on December 2021, according to the ethics report. It noted, among other things, that there was “no evidence” to support his claims that he graduated from New York University with an MBA, or that he graduated from Baruch College with a bachelor of economics and finance. The report also raised questions over his finances.
“As a result of the report, Representative Santos was encouraged by his campaign staff to drop out of the race and, when he refused, three staffers quit his campaign altogether,” investigators wrote.
In 2022, Santos allegedly faked campaign loans again, this time for even larger sums.
In June 2021 and March 2022, Santos reported having loaned his second campaign $80,000 and $500,000 respectively. According to the investigation, “Santos did not have sufficient funds in his bank accounts to loan his campaign those amounts.” He, once again, inflated the numbers in his filings to the FEC.
Marks pleaded guilty last month to conspiring to defraud the government and admitted that she had a role in misreporting the $500,000 loan. As a result, House investigators concluded that Santos actively took part in the scheme.
The campaign is alleged to have made unidentified transfers and deposits — including one for $20,000, part of which was used to shop at Ferragamo.
Per the report, Santos’s campaign made a transfer of $20,000 to the congressman’s Devolder Organization. According to investigators, in the week the transfer was made, the money was used to make about $6,000 worth of purchases at the luxury store Ferragamo. Another $800 was withdrawn at a casino ATM, and $1,000 was withdrawn from an ATM near Santos’s apartment. Some of the money was used to pay for the congressman’s rent, according to the report.
Investigators say thousands also were transferred from the campaign to RISE — a state PAC that Santos managed alongside his sister, Tiffany, and Marks. In early 2022, the campaign transferred about $44,000 to the PAC. This money was not reported to the FEC.
Santos’s campaign falsified information related to campaign contributors’ names.
Marks’s plea agreement included testimony about a conspiracy between her and Santos to falsify information about donors. In agreement with Santos, Marks said she “filed a list of false donors with the FEC on the year-end 2021 report knowing it was not true, and the donors, who are the real people, didn’t give [her] permission to use their names.” Per Marks, this was done to “obtain money for his campaign by artificially inflating his funds to meet thresholds set by a national political committee.”
Santos allegedly spent large sums of the misreported campaign money on pricey travel and meals.
Per the report, Santos’s campaign “incurred significant travel expenses for flights, hotels, Ubers, and meals.”
Witnesses affiliated with the campaign gave investigators “conflicting” testimony regarding the congressman’s out-of-district travel, with some saying there were only two trips taken out of state during the campaign, and another saying Santos traveled “once per month.” A staffer said they often worried about “the look of the campaign spending all this money on … all these dinners and travel outside of the district.” Another staffer said Santos “was definitely a high roller.” Per the report, Santos spent nearly $4,000 in campaign funds at resorts and spas in July 2022, despite not having any campaign-related events listed on his schedule near any of the places where he was staying.
Also that month, Santos spent more than $3,000 at an Airbnb, which he reported to the FEC as a “hotel stay.” Investigators, upon reviewing his campaign calendar, found that those days had been written off as Santos being “off at [the] Hampton’s for the weekend.”
In December 2021, investigators say Santos placed taxi and Las Vegas hotel charges on his campaign credit card — at the time, Santos had told his campaign staff that he was on his honeymoon and would not hold campaign events.
Santos repeatedly ignored his campaign staffers’ warnings that something was wrong with the bookkeeping.
Per the report, Santos said he wasn’t aware of issues with his campaign’s FEC reporting until it was too late. But multiple witnesses told investigators that they voiced concerns about Marks’s bookkeeping directly to him. “But we didn’t receive a satisfactory answer,” a former staffer told investigators. “It was just, well, I’ll have to check with Nancy, get clarification on that.”
Santos told investigators he does not own any property.
Although Santos in a financial disclosure in 2022 reported four assets — including an apartment in Rio de Janeiro valued between $500,001 and $1,000,000 — he told the committee through his counsel that he “does not and has never owned real property.”
Santos, the report states, “commonly claimed to own property, not just in Brazil but also in New York and Florida. During his 2022 campaign, Representative Santos claimed to own 13 rental properties and discussed how the pandemic-era eviction moratorium affected him as a landlord.”
Santos is accused of failing to report some income in his taxes.
According to the report, in 2021, Santos filed a late tax return reporting a negative $70,481 in total income — claiming he had suffered more than $90,000 in business losses and received $20,304 in unemployment compensation. While he claimed the losses were primarily because of payments made to a company owned by one of his campaign consultants, in reality, those payments were made in 2022, not 2021. Investigators say Santos also failed to disclose his unemployment income and income from Harbor City Capital, a now-defunct Florida-based investment firm that the SEC has described as a “fraud.” Santos also is accused of failing to report in his taxes unearned income from other assets, including more than $20,000 in stock transactions. Despite claiming in his taxes that he had a negative salary in 2021, in credit card applications, Santos claimed to have an income of $9,000 per month.
Intentionally failing to report income in a tax return can result in criminal charges.
by ti-amie He's not going to be the VP candidate for the GQP? He's got the credentials.
/s
Seriously does he still have a passport for either the US or Brazil?
by ti-amie Kailee
@skykiss@sfba.social
Donald Trump and His Personal Attorney Rudy Giuliani Worked With #Russian Intelligence Agents to Try to #Steal the 2020 U.S. #Presidential #Election.
Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) charged parliament member Oleksandr Dubinsky with treason, working with Russian FSB/KGB agents of commie russia, indicting him alongside Andriy Derkach and former prosecutor Kostyantyn Kulyk, who have both fled the country. The three were part of a Kremlin-backed effort to feed Giuliani russian disinformation in an attempt to harm President Joe Biden.
Additionally, the U.S. intelligence community released a report on Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. According to the declassified DNI report released on March 16, 2021, there was evidence of broad efforts by Russia to shape the election’s outcome.
The report detailed a massive disinformation push that successfully targeted, and was openly embraced, by Trump’s allies. The Russian government meddled in the 2020 election with an influence campaign “denigrating” President Joe Biden and “supporting” Donald Trump.
The chief U.S. intelligence office concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw sweeping efforts aimed at “denigrating” President Joe Biden’s candidacy ahead of the 2020 election.
The report also mentioned that Russian proxies met with and provided materials to Trump-administration-linked U.S. figures.
by ti-amieWarped Front Pages
Researchers examine the self-serving fiction of ‘objective’ political news
NOVEMBER 20, 2023
By DAVID M. ROTHSCHILD, ELLIOT PICKENS, GIDEON HELTZER, JENNY WANG, AND DUNCAN J. WATTS
Seven years ago, in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, media analysts rushed to explain Donald Trump’s victory. Misinformation was to blame, the theory went, fueled by Russian agents and carried on social networks. But as researchers, we wondered if fascination and fear over “fake news” had led people to underestimate the influence of traditional journalism outlets. After all, mainstream news organizations remain an important part of the media ecosystem—they’re widely read and watched; they help set the agenda, including on social networks. We decided to look at what had been featured on the printed front page of the New York Times in the three months leading up to Election Day. Of a hundred and fifty articles that discussed the campaign, only a handful mentioned policy; the vast majority covered horse race politics or personal scandals. Most strikingly, the Times ran ten front-page stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server. “If voters had wanted to educate themselves on issues,” we concluded, “they would not have learned much from reading the Times.”
We didn’t suggest that the election coverage in the Times was any worse than what appeared in other major outlets, “so much as it was typical of a broader failure of mainstream journalism.” But we did expect, or at least hope, that in the years that followed, the Times would conduct a critical review of its editorial policies. Was an overwhelming focus on the election as a sporting contest the best way to serve readers? Was obsessive attention to Clinton’s email server really justified in light of the innumerable personal, ethical, and ultimately criminal failings of Trump? It seemed that editors had a responsibility to rethink both the volume of attention paid to certain subjects as well as their framing.
After the 2022 midterms, we checked back in, this time examining the printed front page of the Times and the Washington Post from September 1, 2022, through Election Day that November. As before, we figured the front page mattered disproportionately, in part because articles placed there represent selections that publishers believe are most important to readers—and also because, according to Nielsen data we analyzed, 32 percent of Web-browsing sessions around that period starting at the Times homepage did not lead to other sections or articles; people often stick to what they’re shown first. We added the Post this time around for comparison, to get a sense of whether the Times really was anomalous.
It wasn’t. We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. The main point of contrast we found between the two papers was that, while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime.
By the numbers, of four hundred and eight articles on the front page of the Times during the period we analyzed, about half—two hundred nineteen—were about domestic politics. A generous interpretation found that just ten of those stories explained domestic public policy in any detail; only one front-page article in the lead-up to the midterms really leaned into discussion about a policy matter in Congress: Republican efforts to shrink Social Security. Of three hundred and ninety-three front-page articles in the Post, two hundred fifteen were about domestic politics; our research found only four stories that discussed any form of policy. The Post had no front-page stories in the months ahead of the midterms on policies that candidates aimed to bring to the fore or legislation they intended to pursue. Instead, articles speculated about candidates and discussed where voter bases were leaning. (All of the data and analysis supporting this piece can be found here.)
Exit polls indicated that Democrats cared most about abortion and gun policy; crime, inflation, and immigration were top of mind for Republicans. In the Times, Republican-favored topics accounted for thirty-seven articles, while Democratic topics accounted for just seven. In the Post, Republican topics were the focus of twenty articles and Democratic topics accounted for fifteen—a much more balanced showing. In the final days before the election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).
Stepping back, if the Times and other major news outlets went through any critical self-reflection after the 2016 election, it doesn’t seem to have affected their coverage. Nor did the leadership of the Times publicly acknowledge any failings. Quite to the contrary, in early 2022, Dean Baquet, the outgoing editor at the time, said in an interview that he didn’t have regrets about the paper’s Clinton-email stories. In the same interview, Baquet acknowledged critiques of his paper’s political coverage but pushed back on them aggressively: “My job is to try to convince my newsroom that they should not be overly influenced by criticism from Twitter,” he said. “If Twitter doesn’t like it, Twitter can jump in the lake.” Baquet—and his successors, and peers at other major outlets—seem to view themselves as exhibiting objective (or pure, independent) judgment. Indeed, A.G. Sulzberger, the chairman of the New York Times Company and publisher of the Times, made exactly that argument in a piece for CJR this spring: “I continue to believe that objectivity—or if the word is simply too much of a distraction, open-minded inquiry—remains a value worth striving for,” he wrote, adding that “independence, the word we use inside the Times, better captures the full breadth of this journalistic approach and its promise to the public at large.”
Regardless of what journalists and owners of major papers proclaim, however, news judgments are inherently subjective. Any claims to objectivity are a convenient fiction. On any given day there are many accurate and arguably newsworthy stories that could appear on a front page. (In our study period, the overlap in front-page-story selection at the Times and the Post was only about a third.) Which topics editors choose to emphasize is neither accurate nor inaccurate; they simply reflect subjective opinions. Likewise, the way an article is written also involves a series of choices—which facts are highlighted, whose voices are included, which perspectives are given weight. Words such as “objectivity” and “independence”—even “truth”—make for nice rhetoric but are so easily twisted to suit one’s agenda as to be meaningless. After all, Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson—who, unlike the Times and the Post, don’t operate within the realm of reality—also stake claims to veracity and independence.
What appears in a newspaper is less a reflection of what is happening in the world than what a news organization chooses to tell about what is happening—an indicator of values. Last year, for instance, the Times decided to heavily cover the Russian invasion of Ukraine—understandable, to be sure—but also largely ignored policy implications of the midterm election on the war, as Republicans were threatening to block military aid. Abortion rights were clearly critical to the midterms (with potential impact on laws and judges), whereas crime rates were essentially irrelevant (with no discernible policy hanging in the balance), yet the Times chose to publish twice as many articles on crime (a topic generally favored by Republicans) as on abortion (a topic key to Democrats). The paper also opted to emphasize inflation, rather than job or wage growth, in economic coverage—another choice that catered to Republicans. The Times provided admirably extensive coverage of potential threats to democracy, but in general, midterms coverage didn’t engage much with the dangers posed to the integrity of the election.
The choices made by major publishers are not wrong, per se, for the same reason that one newsroom cannot objectively know how to cover an issue, or how much to cover it: no one can. Still, editorial choices are undeniably choices—and they will weigh heavily on the upcoming presidential race. Outlets can and should maintain a commitment to truth and accuracy. But absent an earnest and transparent assessment of what they choose to emphasize—and what they choose to ignore—their readers will be left misinformed.
David M. Rothschild, Elliot Pickens, Gideon Heltzer, Jenny Wang, and Duncan J. Watts are the authors of this piece. David Rothschild is the senior principal researcher at Microsoft Research. Elliot Pickens is a PhD candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Gideon Heltzer is at the Latin School. Jenny Wang is a predoctoral researcher at Microsoft Research. Duncan Watts is the Stevens University Professor and Penn Integrates Knowledge (PIK) Professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
by ti-amie‘It doesn’t look good’: George Santos expects to be expelled from Congress
On X Spaces Friday night, Republican congressman charted his rise from ‘It girl’ to ‘Mary Magdalene of the United States Congress’
George Santos leaves the Capitol in Washington DC, on 31 January 2023. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock
Associated Press
Sat 25 Nov 2023 20.23 GMT
Republican George Santos has said he expects to be expelled from Congress following a scathing report by the House ethics committee that found substantial evidence of lawbreaking by the lying New York representative.
In a defiant speech Friday sprinkled with taunts and obscenities aimed at his congressional colleagues, Santos insisted he was “not going anywhere”. But he acknowledged that his time as a member of Congress may soon be coming to an end.
“I know I’m going to get expelled when this expulsion resolution goes to the floor,” he said Friday night during a conversation on X Spaces. “I’ve done the math over and over, and it doesn’t look really good.”
The comments came one week after the Republican chair of the House ethics committee, Michael Guest, introduced a resolution to expel Santos once the body returns from Thanksgiving break.
While Santos has survived two expulsion votes, many of his colleagues who formerly opposed the effort now say they support it, citing the findings of the committee’s months-long investigation into a wide range of alleged misconduct committed by Santos.
The report found Santos used campaign funds for personal purposes, such as purchases at luxury retailers and adult content websites, then caused the campaign to file false or incomplete reports.
“Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit,” investigators wrote. They noted that he did not cooperate with the report and repeatedly “evaded” straightforward requests for information.
On Friday, Santos said he did not want to address the specifics of the report, which he claimed were “slanderous” and “designed to force me out of my seat”. Any defense of his conduct, he said, could be used against him in the ongoing criminal case brought by federal prosecutors.
Instead, Santos struck a contemplative tone during the three-hour livestream, tracing his trajectory from Republican “It girl” to “the Mary Magdalene of the United States Congress”. He lashed out at his congressional colleagues, accusing them of misconduct – such as voting while drunk – that he said was far worse than anything he’d done.
“They all act like they’re in ivory towers with white pointy hats and they’re untouchable,” he said. “Within the ranks of United States Congress, there’s felons galore, there’s people with all sorts of shystie backgrounds.”
His decision not to seek re-election, he said, was not because of external pressure, but due to his frustration with the “sheer arrogance” of his colleagues.
“These people need to understand it’s done when I say it’s done, when I want it to be done, not when they want it to be done,” he added. “That’s kind of where we are there.”
by ti-amie Owen did you find your violin? Mine seems to be missing as well.
It seems that he's threatening persons unknown with exposure. Let's see what "George Santos" does.
by ashkor87 Can't help thinking this is all Obama's fault..in 2016, he pushed Biden aside so Hilary could run, probably because he felt guilty for having defeated her in the primary...Biden would have beaten Trump that time, and he wouldn't be too old now! Anyone with any political savvy could have seen that Hilary is just a very poor candidate, and Obama has lots of savvy . Ego, hubris, thinking he can nominate his successor..
by skatingfan Biden didn't run in 2016 because his son had just died.
by ashkor87
skatingfan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:39 am
Biden didn't run in 2016 because his son had just died.
But it is a reported fact that obama took him to lunch to ask him not to run.
by Suliso A colleague of mine who's well versed in US politics, but perhaps doesn't follow as much recently is convinced that Biden's goose is cooked. Too old and senile looking.
by Owendonovan
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 1:50 pm
A colleague of mine who's well versed in US politics, but perhaps doesn't follow as much recently is convinced that Biden's goose is cooked. Too old and senile looking.
I've started the process of trying to gain EU citizenship via Italy through my Italian grandparents. I'm so over the USA, I've had enough and would love to run around to watch the clay season. The more time I spend in Europe the more I see how immature America is. The overprotective parents, painfully inept politicians, lack of personal responsibility, indifference to history, amongst other things. Hip-Hop culture is about the only American culture to pay any attention to.
by Suliso If you were to live here you'd see that there are issues here as well. Different to the ones in USA perhaps.
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 1:50 pm
A colleague of mine who's well versed in US politics, but perhaps doesn't follow as much recently is convinced that Biden's goose is cooked. Too old and senile looking.
yes, too bad.. Haley is going to be the next POTUS.. Trump will be in jail.. I wish someone like Gretchen Whitmer would run but it wont happen
Disclaimer: speaking purely as an observre.. not being a US citizen, I really should not opine on US politics but it is good spectator sport..!
by Suliso Haley would be ok, but I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about Trump being in jail and if he isn't Haley has no chance. Trump is the real deal for so many in US.
by ti-amie
by ashkor87 the trouble with people like her is they just dont understand economics, especially post gold-standard economics. America is not creating a mountain of debt its chldren and grandchildren will have to repay.. the dollar is a sovereign currency, the government can create as many as it needs, by just a keystroke. Yes, inflation is an issue but then the question should shift to - how much inflation are we willing to accept in return for xxxxx (whatever it is)..in any case, inflation will not happen if the money is spent productively ...
by Suliso First of all the title "moderate" is not some kind of sign of virtue, but more importantly it's just in comparison to Trump and DeSantis.
by Owendonovan There is no republican, in or seeking office, that I have heard wants to govern for the majority of people in this country. Their constituents are exclusively their large donors.
by dryrunguy George Santos has been expelled from Congress.
CALL TO ACTIVISM
@CalltoActivism MAJOR BREAKING: Republican Max Miller reveals a major bombshell about George Santos and says he’ll vote to expel him.
Miller, a staunch MAGA Republican, claims Santos’ campaign fraudulently bilked thousands of dollars from his and his mom’s personal credit cards.
Today, he released a full statement to the Republican caucus and it is shocking:
Here it is in full:
“Colleagues -
Late yesterday on the floor I alluded to a personal impact of Rep. Santos's conduct.
Earlier this year I learned that the Santos campaign had charged
my personal credit card - and the personal card of my Mother - for contribution amounts that exceeded FEC limits.
Neither my Mother nor I approved these charges or were aware of them. We have spent tens of thousands of dollars in
legal fees in the resulting follow up.
I've seen a list of roughly 400 other people to whom the Santos campaign allegedly did this. I
believe some other members of this conference might have had the same experience.
While I understand and respect the position of those who will vote against the expulsion resolution, my personal experience related to the allegations and findings of the Ethics Committee compels me to vote for the resolution.
Since I alluded to this on the floor yesterday, and because of the significance of the question before us, I believe you're entitled to this further explanation for my position.
Max”
by ti-amie Every accusation is projection.
Moms For Liberty co-founder in raunchy three-way sex relationship rape probe
Brad Hunter
Published Dec 01, 2023
A parental rights crusader and her hubby were allegedly part of a three-way sex relationship that has now come off the rails with accusations of rape.
Bridget Ziegler is the co-founder of right wing Moms for Liberty and a trustee with the Sarasota County School board. Her hubby Christian Ziegler is chairman of the Florida Republican Party.
Together the pair are the preeminent power couple in the Florida GOP — until now.
Cops say a woman claiming to be part of a three-way sexual relationship with the pair is now claiming Christian raped her.
Florida Trident, a non-partisan government watchdog, obtained the heavily redacted complaint filed on Oct. 4 with the alleged victim claiming the rape occurred in her home.
The woman claimed she had been involved in a longstanding, consensual three-way sexual relationship with the couple. She said the rape occurred when Bridget Ziegler was away.
So far no criminal charges have been filed and Christian Ziegler’s legal eagle has denied the allegations against his client. Sarasota cops are now investigating.
Sources told the Trident that Christian Ziegler allegedly videotaped the sexual encounters with the woman and his wife.
The shocking revelations are certain to knock conservative rising star Bridget Ziegler’s ambitions for a loop. The GOP doesn’t much go for bisexual threesomes but still, Ziegler was backed by Florida Governor and presumed 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis.
Bridget Ziegler co-founded Moms for Liberty in the blowback against COVID-19 restrictions at schools across the U.S. In addition, Bridget helped write DeSantis’ Parental Rights in Education Bill, AKA the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law.
Article content
“Bridget Ziegler, we should have her in every county in Florida. We have to do a better job in these school board races,” DeSantis said in the past.
According to Britain’s Daily Mail, Bridget now works for a conservative group training the next generation of the movement’s leaders. One of the programs encourages mothers and fathers to run for local school boards.
Moms for Liberty came to Bridget Ziegler’s defence in a now-deleted post on X: “Yet another attempt today to ruin the reputation of a strong woman fighting for America.”
As for Florida Republicans, the lurid allegations came as a “shock” and members expressed their “disappointment”. The GOP said in a statement: “The Republican Party takes all such allegations of potential criminal conduct very seriously and will fully cooperate with investigators.”
Meanwhile, Christian Ziegler’s lawyer is confident his client “will be completely exonerated.”
“Unfortunately, public figures are often accused of acts that they did not commit whether it be for political purposes or financial gain,” Derek Byrd told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
“I would caution anyone to rush to judgment until the investigation is concluded. Out of respect for the investigation, this is all Mr. Ziegler or myself can say at this time.”
by ti-amieFlorida Republican party chair suspended amid rape accusation
Party demands Christian Ziegler’s resignation after he was accused of raping woman he and wife had prior relationship with
Associated Press
Sun 17 Dec 2023 21.20 GMT
The Republican party of Florida suspended its chairman, Christian Ziegler, and demanded his resignation during an emergency meeting on Sunday, adding to calls by Governor Ron DeSantis and other top officials for him to step down as police investigate a rape accusation against him.
Ziegler is accused of raping a woman with whom he and his wife, Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, had a prior consensual sexual relationship, according to police records.
“Christian Ziegler has engaged in conduct that renders him unfit for the office,” the party’s motion to censure Ziegler said, according to a document posted on the social media platform Twitter/X by the Lee county GOP chairman, Michael Thomason.
Ziegler tried to defend himself during the closed-door meeting, but the party board quickly took the action against him, Thompson said.
“Ziegler on soap box trying to defend himself, not working,” Thompson posted before confirming the votes.
The party’s executive committee will hold another vote in the future on whether to remove Ziegler.
The Sarasota police department is investigating the woman’s accusation that Ziegler raped her at her apartment in October. Police documents say the Zieglers and the woman had planned a sexual threesome that day, but Bridget Ziegler was unable to make it. The accuser says Christian Ziegler arrived anyway and assaulted her.
Christian Ziegler has not been charged with a crime and says he is innocent, contending the encounter was consensual.
The accusation also has caused turmoil for Bridget Ziegler, an elected member of the Sarasota school board, though she is not accused of any crime. On Tuesday the board voted to ask her to resign. She refused.
The couple have been outspoken opponents of LGBTQ+ rights, and their relationship with another woman has sparked criticism and accusations of hypocrisy.
In addition to DeSantis, the Republican senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio, US representative Matt Gaetz and Florida’s Republican house and senate leaders have all called for Christian Ziegler’s resignation.
by ti-amie‘Poisoning the blood’: Trump’s ugliest moments on immigrants
Analysis by Aaron Blake
Staff writer
December 18, 2023 at 1:51 p.m. EST
When Donald Trump began saying that immigrants poison the blood of our country in September, he could have argued plausibly that he didn’t know the construct was one of Adolf Hitler’s infamous talking points.
Today, that argument isn’t going to fly, thanks to the thorough airing that his use of the phrase received — including here — in a way Trump couldn’t have missed. Yet he is saying it again.
Over the weekend, Trump returned to this rhetoric about undocumented immigrants.
“They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done,” he said in New Hampshire. “They poison — mental institutions and prisons all over the world. Not just in South America. Not just the three or four countries that we think about. But all over the world they’re coming into our country — from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”
Trump’s comments are particularly notable in that he explicitly links the poisoning of our blood to predominantly non-White areas of the world. Back in September, Trump linked the term blood-poisoning to how “people are coming in with disease.”
His new comments are merely the latest in a long compendium of ugly and racist comments about immigrants, Muslims and racial minorities.
by dryrunguy The NY Times is reporting the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is disqualified from the 2024 election ballot for engaging in insurrection.
It will be appealed and probably won't stick.
by ti-amieTrump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules
It’s the first court to find that the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment applies to Mr. Trump, in addition to affirming that he engaged in insurrection.
By Maggie Astor
Dec. 19, 2023
Updated 6:37 p.m. ET
Former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, accepting the argument that the 14th Amendment disqualifies him in an explosive decision that could upend the 2024 election.
In a lengthy ruling ordering the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot, the justices reversed a Denver district judge’s finding last month that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which disqualifies people who have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it from holding office — did not apply to the presidency.
They affirmed the district judge’s other key conclusions: that Mr. Trump’s actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated.
“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the court wrote in a 4-to-3 ruling. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority wrote. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Mr. Trump will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, his campaign said in a statement.
Tuesday’s ruling applies only to Colorado, but if the Supreme Court were to affirm it, he could be disqualified more broadly. The Colorado Supreme Court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4, 2024, to allow time for Mr. Trump to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If he does, the ruling could be stayed for longer while proceedings unfold.
The Colorado Supreme Court is the first court to find that the disqualification clause applies to Mr. Trump, an argument his opponents have been making across the country. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify him. The plaintiffs there have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Tuesday’s ruling “is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country,” Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. His organization represented the voters seeking to disqualify Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s campaign denounced the ruling.
“Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said. “We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”
The case hinged on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?
Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who made the district court ruling in Colorado, had said yes to all but the last question.
Because Section 3 enumerates several offices but not the presidency, and because the presidential oath is worded differently from the oaths of the enumerated offices, Judge Wallace concluded that the broad phrase “officers of the United States” was not intended to include the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed.
“We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that the presidency is not specifically mentioned in Section Three,” the justices wrote. “It seems most likely that the presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an ‘office.’”
by ti-amie Question: Does SCOTUS decline to take the case?
by dryrunguy
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:49 am
Question: Does SCOTUS decline to take the case?
I don't think so. Trump owns a significant portion of the court.
by Suliso It's a political mistake. He'll be even more of a martyr now. Looks bleak for Biden to be honest.
by ashkor87 I am not so sure it is a clever move by Trump to take it to the SCOTUS.. they may be his appointees but (with one possible exception) they are judges who know, and are committed to the Constitution.. they are not likely to simply rule the way he wants, they do have a conscience and a sense of professional integrity.. we shall see.
by ashkor87 And I repeat my earlier prediction..Nikki Haley is going to be President...I always believed there would be a female President but it would be a Republican ...just think how formidable a credible/viable female Republican would be : many liberals would vote for her because she is a woman, conservatives because she is a Republican!
Again, my caveat .I am not taking sides, merely enjoying the race...
by ashkor87 The SC could well rule that he has not actually been convicted of anything yet, these are all merely accusations, which is never enough?!
Though the judge in the Colorado court did say he was guilty but was that even the right court to rule?
by ti-amieCalifornia lieutenant governor calls for Donald Trump to be removed from ballot
Thursday, December 21, 2023 5:14AM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A historic ruling potentially pulling former President Donald Trump's name from the Colorado primary ballot could now have an impact on California elections.
On Wednesday, California's Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis called on the Secretary of State to look into legal options to remove Trump from the State's presidential primary.
She based it on the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Those justices say former President Trump can't be on the ballot in the state because of his actions on January 6, 2021, citing the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding public office.
Trump could still end up on the ballot in Colorado.
The ruling will be placed on hold until January 4, pending Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court.
by Owendonovan He should be removed from society. Not sure anyone is a greater obvious threat to the USA than him.
by ponchi101 And therefore, the world.
If he gets to be president again, more than one nation will be affected.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 6:04 pm
And therefore, the world.
If he gets to be president again, more than one nation will be affected.
that is true of anybody.. but I think the danger to the US is much more than to any other country.. Indeed, on the whole, I think Trump's foreign policy is better than most people's.. Clinton was a war-monger who would have set the Middle East ablaze (not that it isn't now!) - Trump did not commit the kinds of atrocities Bush and his gang did.. he did not kill millions and destroy entire countries..
by Suliso Inaction can lead to death of millions too. Look at Obama, had he intervened in Syria and supported Ukraine strongly in 2014 we would likely be in a much better situation now.
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 1:43 pm
Inaction can lead to death of millions too. Look at Obama, had he intervened in Syria and supported Ukraine strongly in 2014 we would likely be in a much better situation now.
true but somehow it doesnt seem right to blame someone for inaction - there is plenty of that to go around..Myanmar, for instance..
by ponchi101 I don't think anybody dislikes Bill Clinton as much as I do, but how was he a warmonger? His sole intervention was in the Balkans, and that seems pretty justified to me.
Please elaborate.
by Suliso What do you dislike him for ponchi?
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 8:22 pm
I don't think anybody dislikes Bill Clinton as much as I do, but how was he a warmonger? His sole intervention was in the Balkans, and that seems pretty justified to me.
Please elaborate.
Hilary I meant
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 9:18 pm
What do you dislike him for ponchi?
The man is a consummate liar. I know, he is a politician, but he takes it to extremes that I really feel are appalling.
Plus, he is a coward. When the whole Monica Lewinsky affair was playing, he was not man enough to stand up and say "Hey, this is on me.". Any real gentleman (and he is far from being one) would have at least have the decency and the courage to shield her. He did nothing of the sort.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 8:22 pm
I don't think anybody dislikes Bill Clinton as much as I do, but how was he a warmonger? His sole intervention was in the Balkans, and that seems pretty justified to me.
Please elaborate.
Hilary I meant
Which makes me even more confused, Hillary was secretary of state during Obama's administration, during which the USA entered no wars. How was she a warmonger?
by ashkor87 Her campaign - supported the invasion of Iraq, repeatedly called for the bombing of Iran etc
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:43 am
Her campaign - supported the invasion of Iraq, repeatedly called for the bombing of Iran etc
She was in favour of the invasion of Iraq before she ran for President, and she only said she would attack Iran if Iran first attacked Israel.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:43 am
Her campaign - supported the invasion of Iraq, repeatedly called for the bombing of Iran etc
She was in favour of the invasion of Iraq before she ran for President, and she only said she would attack Iran if Iran first attacked Israel.
anyway, I suppose it doesnt matter any more...
by Fastbackss
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:37 pm
And I repeat my earlier prediction..Nikki Haley is going to be President...I always believed there would be a female President but it would be a Republican ...just think how formidable a credible/viable female Republican would be : many liberals would vote for her because she is a woman, conservatives because she is a Republican!
Again, my caveat .I am not taking sides, merely enjoying the race...
Not sure if this helps or hurts her with the Republican base.
[Nikki Haley declined to say that slavery was a cause of the Civil War on Wednesday evening, placing the blame, instead, on the role of government]
by ti-amie She knows better.
by ti-amieHaley seeks to clarify Civil War comments as backlash mounts
By Ebony Davis, CNN
Berlin, New Hampshire
CNN
—
Nikki Haley on Thursday sought to clarify her comments about the Civil War one day after a voter in New Hampshire called her out for not mentioning slavery as a cause of the war.
“I mean, of course the Civil War was about slavery,” Haley told radio host Jack Heath Thursday morning.
“But what’s the lesson in all of that?” she continued. “That we need to make sure that every person has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way. That was the goal of what that was at. Yes, I know it was about slavery. I’m from the South, of course I know it’s about slavery.”
Her comments come amid intense backlash inside and outside the GOP after Haley told a New Hampshire town hall crowd that the Civil War was about government interfering in people’s freedoms.
“I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” Haley had said Wednesday in a visit to Berlin — the first of five events in the Granite State as she attempts to close the gap with Republican front-runner Donald Trump ahead of next month’s primary.
The former South Carolina governor then asked the voter who had asked her about the Civil War what he thought the cause was, to which the voter responded, “I’m not running for president.”
“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley added. “I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people,” she added.
The voter criticized her for not mentioning slavery in her answer. “In the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery,” the voter said.
“What do you want me to say about slavery?” Haley asked.
“You answered my question,” he responded.
“Next question,” Haley said as attendees applauded.
Speaking to reporters after the town hall Wednesday evening, the voter, who only identified himself as Patrick, called his question “pretty fundamental and frankly pretty easy.”
He said a video of Haley being asked “essentially” the same question when she was running for governor of South Carolina had prompted him to ask it again now that she’s running for president.
“The answer that she gave was very similar to the answer that she gave tonight,” he said, adding “I was just curious if she would answer it any different.”
Democrats and President Joe Biden’s campaign quickly seized on the moment on social media. Biden posted on X, “It was about slavery,” along with a video of the exchange shared by one of his campaign accounts.
And criticism didn’t just fall along party lines. A spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign called Haley’s attempts to clarify her remarks “embarrassing.”
“If she can’t handle a question as basic as the cause of the Civil War, what does she think is going to happen to her in a general election,” DeSantis spokesman Andrew Romeo wrote on X Thursday. “The Democrats would eat her lunch.”
As the former governor of South Carolina — the first state to secede during the Civil War — Haley has had a complicated public posture toward the confederacy. As CNN’s KFile has reported, she once defended states’ rights to secede from the United States, South Carolina’s Confederate History Month and the Confederate flag in a 2010 interview with a local activist group when she was running for governor.
Haley also described the Civil War as two sides fighting for different values, one for “tradition” and one for “change.”
The 2015 shooting at a historically Black church in Charleston, South Carolina, spurred Haley, as governor, to call for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the statehouse grounds where it had been since being removed from the state’s Capitol dome in 2000.
This story has been updated with additional information.
by ti-amieBoebert switches congressional districts, avoiding a Democratic opponent who has far outraised her
BY JESSE BEDAYN AND NICHOLAS RICCARDI
Updated 10:52 PM EST, December 27, 2023
Share
DENVER (AP) — Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert announced Wednesday she is switching congressional districts, avoiding a likely rematch against a Democrat who has far outraised her and following an embarrassing moment of groping and vaping that shook even loyal supporters.
In a Facebook video Wednesday evening, Boebert announced she would enter the crowded Republican primary in retiring Rep. Ken Buck’s seat in the eastern side of the state, leaving the more competitive 3rd District seat she barely won last year — and which she was in peril of losing next year as some in her party have soured on her controversial style.
Boebert implied in the video that her departure from the district would help Republicans retain the seat, saying, “I will not allow dark money that is directed at destroying me personally to steal this seat. It’s not fair to the 3rd District and the conservatives there who have fought so hard for our victories.”
“The Aspen donors, George Soros and Hollywood actors that are trying to buy this seat, well they can go pound sand,” she said.
Boebert called it “a fresh start,” acknowledging the rough year following a divorce with her husband and video of her misbehaving with a date at a performance of the musical “Beetlejuice” in Denver. The scandal in September rocked some of her faithful supporters, who saw it as a transgression of conservative, Christian values and for which Boebert apologized at events throughout her district.
She already faced a primary challenge in her district, as well as a general election face-off with Democrat Adam Frisch, a former Aspen city council member who came within a few hundred votes of beating her in 2022. A rematch was expected, with Frisch raising at least $7.7 million to Boebert’s $2.4 million.
Instead, if Boebert wins the primary to succeed Buck she will run in the state’s most conservative district, which former President Donald Trump won by about 20 percentage points in 2020, in contrast to his margin of about 8 percentage points in her district. While it’s not required that a representative live in the congressional district they represent, only the state the district is in, Boebert said she would be moving — a shift from Colorado’s western Rocky Mountain peaks and high desert mesas to its eastern expanse of prairie grass and ranching enclaves.
In 2022, Frisch’s campaign found support in the conservative district from unaffiliated voters and Republicans who’d defected over Boebert’s brash, Trumpian style. In this election, Frisch’s campaign had revived the slogan “stop the circus” and framed Frisch as the “pro-normal” alternative to Boebert’s more partisan politics.
In a statement after Boebert’s announcement, Frisch said he’s prepared for whoever will be the Republican candidate.
“From Day 1 of this race, I have been squarely focused on defending rural Colorado’s way of life, and offering common sense solutions to the problems facing the families of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District.” he said. “My focus will remain the same.”
The Republican primary candidate who has raised the second most behind Boebert in the 3rd District, Jeff Hurd, is a more traditional Republican candidate. Hurd has already garnered support from prominent Republicans in the district, first reported by VailDaily.
Boebert rocked the political world by notching a surprise primary win against the incumbent Republican congressman in the 3rd District in 2020 when she ran a gun-themed restaurant in the town of Rifle, Colorado. She then tried to enter the U.S. Capitol carrying a pistol and began to feud with prominent liberal Democrats like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
by dryrunguy Maine's Secretary of State has ruled that Trump cannot be on the ballot because of his role in the insurrection. It will be appealed and increased the likelihood this issue will end up on the U.S. Supreme Court docket.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:43 am
Her campaign - supported the invasion of Iraq, repeatedly called for the bombing of Iran etc
She was in favour of the invasion of Iraq before she ran for President, and she only said she would attack Iran if Iran first attacked Israel.
Weren't almost all members of Congress and the Senate in favor of the invasion of Iraq?
by mmmm8
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 7:58 pm
She knows better.
Haley's father taught a Historically Black College (doesn't mean one can't be racist, but certainly helps knowledge of slavery).
She knows exactly what she's doing.
by dryrunguy Wayne LaPierre has resigned from his leadership position at the NRA. Before anyone celebrates, remember... Someone will replace him. And chances are it will not constitute an improvement.
by ponchi101 Exactly the same as if the president of the KKK would step down. It is not as if somebody better will take the position.
by ti-amieLauren Boebert’s Ex Called The Cops After Physical Fight in Public on Saturday Night
BREAKING
Police confirmed an “active investigation” into the incident, while a Boebert aide told The Daily Beast that the congresswoman was acting in self-defense.
Roger Sollenberger
Senior Political Reporter
Updated Jan. 07, 2024 2:05PM EST / Published Jan. 07, 2024 11:08AM EST
On Saturday night, three years to the day after supporters of Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol building, election objecting Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is the subject of an active police investigation into an alleged physical altercation with her ex-husband, Jayson Boebert, at a restaurant in her district Saturday night.
The Silt Police Department confirmed an “active investigation” in a phone call Saturday night, but would not comment further. A Boebert aide told The Daily Beast that no one was arrested.
According to the aide, on Saturday, Jayson Boebert had called the police to the Miner’s Claim restaurant in Silt, claiming that he was a “victim of domestic violence.” The aide emphasized that Lauren Boebert denies any allegation of domestic violence on her part, and that the events as depicted in social media posts on Saturday were not accurate.
An anti-Boebert super PAC called “American Muckrakers” first publicized the rumor of the incident Saturday night, in eye-popping posts on X, formerly Twitter. On Sunday, Jayson Boebert told The Daily Beast that the details of the altercation on American Muckrakers was accurate and that his ex-wife had “punched” him in the face multiple times. Jayson Boebert also purported to have a witness to the events and said that he took back his claim that police were too aggressive with him: “I respect our officers and appreciate what they have to endure. I shouldn’t have said anything negative toward them. I was unhappy.”
Jayson Boebert added that he was going to phone the police and ask them to call off the investigation.
In an official statement to The Daily Beast on Sunday, Lauren Boebert said: “This is a sad situation for all that keeps escalating and another reason I’m moving. I didn’t punch Jayson in the face and no one was arrested. I will be consulting with my lawyer about the false claims he made against me and evaluate all of my legal options.” (Boebert recently announced she would be moving to a new, more conservative district in her bid to win a third term in 2024. She narrowly won reelection in her current district in 2022 by only 500 votes.)
While The Daily Beast has not been able to verify the specific claims about the incident, on Saturday night, the aide to Lauren Boebert provided more detail about the events as Congresswoman Boebert had described them
In the early evening on Saturday, the aide said, it was already getting physical. Lauren Boebert had driven to her ex-husband’s house to pick up one of her sons for dinner at her mother’s house. Jayson Boebert was home, the aide said, and as Lauren Boebert and her son were leaving for the car, he tried to move in close to hug her; she put her hand on his chest to keep him back, the aide said.
When Jayson Boebert called later that evening to apologize, he asked if they could meet in person. Lauren Boebert agreed; however, the aide said, she wanted to go to a public place, anticipating that—especially given the alleged behavior earlier that day—he might be confrontational. The congresswoman “didn’t want it to be he said/she said” situation, the aide said.
They chose to meet at Miner’s Claim, a restaurant in Boebert’s small hometown of Silt. (Miner’s Claim is, apparently, the only game left in town, now that the Boeberts have closed their old restaurant, Shooter’s.)
Inside, at the table, Jayson Boebert apparently started “being disrespectful,” “being an asshole,” and getting “lewd,” the aide relayed. The alleged behavior revolted Lauren Boebert, but that seemed to make her ex more aggressive, the aide said. There was then apparently a physical altercation of indeterminate severity.
Jayson Boebert “made a motion” towards his ex-wife, “to grab her.” It was “an aggressive move, not romantic,” the aide relayed.
As Lauren Boebert described it, the aide said, she tried again to keep him back and in the process “put her hand in his face, put her hand on his nose.” (The Muckrackers’ post describes a violent confrontation, with the congresswoman landing two punches on her ex’s nose. The aide said that Boebert maintains she didn’t punch him.)
Jayson Boebert, apparently outraged, called the police, claiming that he was “a victim of domestic violence,” the Boebert aide said. Lauren Boebert then called the non-emergency number and told the police there was no domestic violence, and that she’d be happy to speak with an officer at the restaurant.
The police did come, but they arrested no one, the aide said, adding that a friend drove Boebert home, and that she and her former husband were both safe.
Contacted Saturday night, Silt police would not comment other than to confirm an “active investigation” into the alleged events, along with the existence of a police report.
Jayson Boebert told The Daily Beast on Sunday, “I made a mistake. We both overreacted. I only want what’s best for [the] boys and I still love her very much. We both share some hurt deep down inside ... It seems we just keep pushing each other further apart.”
“I want the best for her,” he added. “It’s probably just best that I remain silent.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated with comment from Jayson Boebert after he initially declined to comment on Saturday night.
by ashkor87 I hate to say this but my experience is many Indians are racist when it comes to blacks and Muslims and even Chinese..Haley is, of course, born of Indian parents.
by ashkor87 Re Presidential immunity, someone should ask Trump if he would be ok if Biden, who is the actual President, orders the army to shoot Trump as he leaves the courtroom...would he be ok with that?
by ponchi101 No, because Tiny has no concept of equality or the Golden rule. You know that.
His whole life has been about the rules not applying to him.
by ti-amie I mean this has to be a joke right?
by ashkor87 Haley is obviously relying on the same calculation I am - that Trump is going to jail, not the Presidential election. So there is value to being in the race - she would be the default now if Trump is removed...
Rep. Michael McCaul says on Fox that House Republicans want to impeach #Mayorkas to "send a message to the administration."
No high crimes. Not even a misdemeanor! Just naked politics -- and they aren't even trying to hide it.
by ti-amie Cotton is a graduate of Harvard but still functions on the all Asians are Chinese level.
Katie Phang @KatiePhang
Hey
@SenTomCotton
:
• Singapore is not China
• Singapore has been self-governed since 1959
• Singapore is not a communist state
And, here’s the real kicker for you:
• Not all Asians are Chinese and we aren’t all secretly members of the “Chinese Communist Party”
by ti-amieIn stunning vote, House Republicans fail to impeach Secretary Mayorkas
By Jacqueline Alemany, Amy B Wang, Marianna Sotomayor and Paul Kane
Updated February 6, 2024 at 8:05 p.m. EST|Published February 6, 2024 at 6:24 a.m. EST
A measure to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas narrowly failed in the House on Tuesday, after three Republicans voted with Democrats against what would have been the first impeachment of a Cabinet member in nearly 150 years. The failed vote was a stunning rebuke of a months-long investigation into Mayorkas that legal experts and even some Republicans had raised concerns about.
Reps. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) bucked the party line to vote against the measure, joining with Democrats who have decried the process as a sham with only two hearings last month that featured no fact witnesses or testimony from the secretary. Even if the measure had passed, Mayorkas was unlikely to have been convicted in a trial in the Democratic-led Senate.
When the vote unexpectedly came to a tie after Gallagher’s vote against the measure, he was swarmed by his colleagues on the House floor in a last-ditch attempt to change his mind. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) were among the members who approached Gallagher and animatedly tried to persuade him to flip his vote. Gallagher stood listening with his arms folded across his chest as he intermittently gesticulated and shook his head. As Democrats shouted “order” in unison to bring the tied vote to a close, Rep. Blake D. Moore (R-Utah) eventually approached the lectern and changed his vote against the measure, allowing Republican leadership to possibly bring the measure up for a vote again at a later date.
Johnson told reporters after the embarrassing defeat that he planned to bring up the vote to impeach Mayorkas again.
In a statement after the vote failed, a spokesperson for DHS said, “If House Republicans are serious about border security, they should abandon these political games, and instead support the bipartisan national security agreement in the Senate to get DHS the enforcement resources we need.”
During the first scheduled vote on the floor Tuesday evening, both Democrats and Republicans had one member absence — meaning that Republicans could afford to lose three votes in the vote to impeach Mayorkas. But Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) suddenly appeared for the impeachment vote, which was second.
One of Green’s closest friends, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), told The Washington Post in an interview that he realized Green had missed the previous vote and might be the difference in the margin. He called the Texan — twice — at 6:13 p.m., according to his phone’s call logs. But Green showed up at the last minute, tying the vote at 215. “I panicked,” Cleaver said.
The remarkable scene on the House floor was preceded by a suspenseful day of vote counting as several members voiced concerns in a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Tuesday morning about supporting the impeachment of Mayorkas in the absence of compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Reps. David Joyce (R-Ohio) and Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) were among those who were on the fence about the measure in the lead up to the vote but ultimately voted to advance the two articles of impeachment.
“A lot of people trying to make someone change their opinion,” Joyce, who considered voting no, told reporters of the gaggle around Gallagher after the vote. Gallagher and Joyce spoke at length earlier Tuesday, which Joyce found reassuring.
“It’s very thoughtful, well-reasoned,” he said of Gallagher’s vote.
In a statement released on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, Gallagher said that he was against “creating a new, lower standard for impeachment, one without any clear limiting principle” that wouldn’t “secure the border or hold Mr. Biden accountable and will set a dangerous new precedent that will be weaponized against future Republican administrations.”
When Johnson was asked by reporters about how he planned to convince colleagues to advance the measure in a future vote, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) responded that they needed to “pray.”
“I don’t understand why they don’t count the votes,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) told reporters, referring to Republican leadership.
“If we can’t convince the Gallaghers, the Bucks, the McClintocks, know it before you go and make the call before we get on the floor,” Norman added, referring to the three Republicans who voted against impeaching Mayorkas.
As House GOP lawmakers worked to lock up the votes for Mayorkas’s impeachment throughout the day, they simultaneously worked to kill the potential for a legislative remedy to secure the border. Despite their opposition to policy changes that would address some of their shared concerns, Republicans in the House railed against Mayorkas for willfully failing to enforce existing immigration law and for breaching public trust.
Democrats countered that Republicans failed to make a constitutionally viable case and that Mayorkas, in his capacity as a Cabinet secretary, has broad discretionary authority to implement the Biden administration’s immigration policy. They also argued that Mayorkas, like other DHS secretaries who served before him, has lacked adequate funding and personnel to detain every migrant as outlined under the law.
Last week, the House Homeland Security Committee advanced two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, accusing him of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and breach of the public trust. Democrats repeatedly asserted during the hearing that Republicans have no constitutional basis to impeach Mayorkas, and they said that GOP lawmakers have struggled in two recent hearings to detail clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) opened debate Tuesday by claiming Mayorkas’s negligent handling of the southern border had left House Republicans with no other option than to proceed with articles of impeachment. By the end of the two-hour debate period, Green had raised his voice to a shout, and accused Mayorkas of throwing the Constitution “in the garbage.”
Democrats have criticized the impeachment proceedings as politically motivated, pointing out that Republicans are trying to oust Mayorkas for supposedly neglecting to secure the southern border while at the same time opposing a bipartisan package in the Senate that would seek to improve border security, echoing former president Donald Trump’s opposition.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said it was a miracle that senators had reached a bipartisan immigration agreement that was acceptable to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and dozens of GOP senators. And yet, he said, House Republicans would not consider it.
“Why? Because Donald Trump doesn’t want a border solution,” Raskin said. “He wants a border problem. Nothing else to run on.”
Standing next to a sign that read “STUNTS OVER SOLUTIONS” during floor debate Tuesday, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) said House Republicans were focused on impeaching Mayorkas “without any evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors” rather than the Senate’s bipartisan border security bill.
“That is the breach of public trust here,” Clark said.
In a statement Monday, the White House said it strongly opposed the anticipated impeachment in the House.
“Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would trivialize this solemn constitutional power and invite more partisan abuse of this authority in the future,” the White House said in a statement. “It would do nothing to solve the challenges we face in securing our Nation’s borders.”
by ti-amie It should be noted that Rep. Al Green came from the hospital in a wheel chair after undergoing surgery to break the tie.
by ti-amieMcDaniel is expected to leave as RNC chair amid pressure from Trump
Ronna McDaniel, who is in her fourth term, was expected to serve until 2025 but has considered leaving for months
By Josh Dawsey
February 6, 2024 at 8:48 p.m. EST
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel is expected to leave her job this spring after former president Donald Trump had increasingly grown critical of her leadership, according to people familiar with the matter.
The decision came as she visited Mar-a-Lago and met with Trump on Monday, but the situation remained fluid, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal private discussions.
The news of her departure was first reported by the New York Times, which reported it was likely to occur after the South Carolina primary on Feb. 24. McDaniel, who is in her fourth term as chair of the RNC, was expected to serve until 2025 but has considered leaving for months. Her relationship with Trump soured over the Republican primary debates featuring his challengers this past fall, according to the people familiar with the discussions. Trump wanted her to cancel them and she declined.
Trump then received a drumbeat of criticism from conservative activists and donors — along with his own advisers — about McDaniel.
Trump’s campaign has increasingly grown frustrated with McDaniel’s leadership. They have worried over what they view as the RNC’s lackluster fundraising, as well as the more muscular role they hoped the committee could play in a general election matchup with President Biden. The party had about half as much money as the DNC at the end of December.
Trump also has repeatedly told advisers that McDaniel was not doing enough on “election integrity,” according to people who heard his comments, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal discussions.
But in private, he has been nice to her, the people familiar with the meetings say, and has not forcefully pushed for her ouster even as some of her critics have called for it. The pair met for over two hours on Monday.
About two weeks ago, Trump began telling people he wanted to make a change at the RNC, these people said. “Is it time for Ronna McDaniel to step aside?” a Newsmax reporter asked Trump in a televised interview Monday.
“I think she knows that, I think she understands that,” Trump responded.
Trump is weighing other candidates for the job and has focused on Michael Whatley, the North Carolina GOP chairman who has supported Trump’s false claims of election fraud, as a favorite, two people familiar with his comments said. McDaniel has promised a lengthy and smooth transition, they said.
“Nothing has changed,” RNC spokesman Keith Schipper said Tuesday night. “This will be decided after South Carolina.”
Mike Reed, the RNC’s chief of staff, announced Tuesday that he planned to step down from his role at the committee as well. Reed had privately long told confidants that he planned to leave after the RNC’s winter meeting this past weekend in Las Vegas, and had a job lined up since the fall.
McDaniel ran for a fourth term as RNC chair against the advice of some leading Republicans and advisers.
“Many people were concerned about the RNC’s ability to fundraise heading into the chair election last year and unfortunately we’re seeing a fruition of those concerns. I hope that we can come to the determination of a nominee sooner than later to help resolve the financial disparity that is necessary to win the presidency,” Tyler Bowyer, an RNC member from Arizona who has been a frequent McDaniel critic, said last week.
Her defenders say McDaniel held the party together during seven difficult years and that Trump was to blame for much of the party’s struggles, not McDaniel.
McDaniel — the niece of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) who stopped using the Romney name after the 2016 election — comes from a storied family in Republican politics and was viewed as a bridge between Trump and the party’s more establishment, corporate class. She was well liked by some of the party’s top donors, including hotelier Steve Wynn.
Ashley Parker and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.
I think this is likely true and not at all surprising for an 81 year old man. The point is not that Trump is mentally fitter (I doubt that very much), but that USA should really be able to do better than a race between two guys more than a decade past the normal retirement age.
by ponchi101 Who can the dems offer that is young? AOC?
Who can the GOP offer that is young and not evil? Rubio? Cruz? Boebert or MTG?
Agree with you. Biden is doing alright, for an 81 yo man. But this guy can keel over at any minute. No need to explain that the psycho could too. But neither party seems to be able to offer somebody young and capable.
The Dems could go with Newson (Newsom?). But he is governor of California, and there is no way anybody from the central states will vote for him.
Devil and the deep blue sea.
by Suliso I'm not sure I agree there is no one. If Biden and/or Trump were to die today there would be an absolute army of alternate contenders.
Actually the danger is not more that he would die, there is a VP for that, but that he would get elected and then slowly lose the ability to do the job entirely. That's more or less what happened to Dianne Feinstein. She wouldn't resign, but in the last year or two would hardly understand where she is...
by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 12:08 pm
Who can the dems offer that is young? AOC?
Who can the GOP offer that is young and not evil? Rubio? Cruz? Boebert or MTG?
Agree with you. Biden is doing alright, for an 81 yo man. But this guy can keel over at any minute. No need to explain that the psycho could too. But neither party seems to be able to offer somebody young and capable.
The Dems could go with Newson (Newsom?). But he is governor of California, and there is no way anybody from the central states will vote for him.
Devil and the deep blue sea.
Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Gavin Newsome for the dems, whatever misogynistic racist mouthpiece of the month for the repubs.
by ponchi101 Kamala has a reputation of being very ineffective.
Beto could not beat Ted Cruz in Texas, with a war chest of $70mm
I already said Newsome is good, but nobody in Nebraska is going to vote for the governor of California. Nor any other red state.
I guess we will not disagree on your characterization of the GOP's options
by ti-amie I didn't know that the man who released this report was appointed by TFG hence the hatchet job on President Biden.
The report also indicates that President Biden, when alerted to the fact that there were classified docs in his possession immediately returned them. It does this 32 times.
by Owendonovan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:19 pm
I didn't know that the man who released this report was appointed by TFG hence the hatchet job on President Biden.
The report also indicates that President Biden, when alerted to the fact that there were classified docs in his possession immediately returned them. It does this 32 times.
As soon as I heard anything about Biden's memory I knew it was a an appointee of tfg. Shall we apply the same metric to anyone charged with anything who said they "Don't recall" as someone with a memory issue? That would be most anyone, especially tfg and his family.
by Togtdyalttai Gretchen Whitmer would be the best choice to replace Biden IMO. Swing state governor who's over performed electorally, helped get full Democratic control of her state for the first time in 40 years, and enacted sensible legislation there. I doubt Newsom or Harris would do any better than Biden.
by ponchi101 Forgot about her. You are right.
by ti-amieGeorgia Republican Party official denies voting fraud charges in court
Brian K. Pritchard is accused of illegally voting nine times while serving a felony sentence
Brian K. Pritchard testifies on the witness stand Friday as Senior Assistant Attorney General Russell Willard, foreground, asks questions in a Gilmer County courtroom in Ellijay. Pritchard, a talk show host and Republican Party vice chairman, is accused of voting illegally while he was serving a felony sentence. (Hyosub Shin / Hyosub.Shin@ajc.com)
By Mark Niesse
Feb 9, 2024
ELLIJAY — A top Georgia Republican Party official and talk show host accused of election fraud, Brian K. Pritchard, testified Friday that he never voted illegally while serving a felony sentence for forging checks, but state attorneys showed evidence that he repeatedly voted after his probation had been revoked.
Pritchard, the first vice chairman for the state Republican Party, allegedly broke the law when he voted in nine Georgia elections from 2008 to 2010. Georgia law prohibits felons from voting, and attorneys for the state said Pritchard’s probation didn’t end until 2011.
“There is nothing to the allegations,” Pritchard said after the hearing in the Gilmer County Courthouse. ”I’m just disappointed that this much time is being put into this effort for me when there’s real voter fraud out there, and real things that need to be investigated.”
by ashkor87 Sounds like treason to me..attacks on NATO are an attack on the US, by treaty..encouraging that is treason.
by Owendonovan Yet, we can't REALLY express what should happen to tfg without it being considered some kind of threat.
by ti-amie "George Santos" seat now belongs to the Democrats. He'll have to run again in November I think.
by ti-amie Victor Shi
@Victorshi2020
·
1h
BREAKING: Democrat Jim Prokpiak just WON his special state house election in Pennsylvania's 140th district. This now means that the Pennsylvania State House, State Senate, AND governorship are *all* Blue. Another Democratic trifecta. Amazing news for Pennsylvania & Democrats.
by ti-amie TL;dr
She thought he'd never do to her what he's done to everyone else and even though he did she's still licking his boots.
Inside Trump’s ouster of Ronna McDaniel as RNC chair
“Loyalty is a one-way street” for the former president, one party committeeman said
By Josh Dawsey and Ashley Parker
February 16, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. EST
For much of the fall, Donald Trump was annoyed at Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel. She was refusing to cancel the party’s primary debates, insisting to him that they were crucial to the early presidential nominating process, that they were actually helping him and that other candidates and members would complain.
“People are really mad at you,” Trump warned McDaniel in one of their many phone calls, recounting both public and private criticism he said he heard about her. “They’re mad at you.”
At one point, McDaniel said the nominee deserves an RNC chair they trust and said she would resign if Trump became the nominee and wanted her out.
Trump — who personally liked McDaniel — did not immediately accept her offer. But the moment epitomized McDaniel’s long and tumultuous relationship with the former president, which began when she ran Trump’s successful 2016 effort in her home state of Michigan once he became the party’s nominee; solidified when he chose her as RNC chair in late 2016; and is now winding to a fraught conclusion as Trump seeks to retake the White House — this time with someone else at the party’s helm.
“She’s been kissing his butt for years,” said Bill Palatucci, a New Jersey committeeman. “But loyalty is a one-way street with Donald Trump.”
This account of McDaniel’s rise and fall at the RNC is based on interviews with 14 Republicans close to Trump and McDaniel.
McDaniel’s looming departure first emerged following an in-person meeting at Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., earlier this month. Then on Monday, Trump released a statement suggesting his daughter-in-law and two others as leaders of the RNC going forward.
McDaniel, the second woman ever to lead the RNC, prepares to end her tenure — the longest for a GOP leader — with some accomplishments. Advisers say she helped raise more than $1.5 billion for the organization, helped launch WinRed — a small-dollar fundraising platform for Republicans that now rivals the Democratic behemoth, ActBlue — and created a permanent department to fund election-related lawsuits.
Trump often praises her for helping him win Michigan in 2016. And she enjoyed wide support among the committee’s 168 members, winning a record four elections as chair.
But despite spending much of her time working to placate the former president — a tempestuous and nearly implacable personality — she regularly sparked the ire of Trump, a boss who demands loyalty from his subordinates but rarely returns it. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has repeatedly lost or underperformed in national and state elections in recent years, is dealing with turmoil in a number of state parties key to 2024, and has far less money than the Democratic National Committee.
McDaniel also encountered deep skepticism and hostility from the hard-right, grassroots wing of the party, who viewed her — the niece of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and granddaughter of the late Michigan Gov. George Romney — as establishment royalty to be overthrown. Mitt Romney, for his part, warned McDaniel about continuing to stay in the role after Trump left office, a person familiar with his outreach said. He declined to comment.
People close to Trump described McDaniel’s departure as being driven by a confluence of factors that caught his attention, including the primary debates, a cash crunch, a stretch of negative news media attention, election defeats that he refused to take blame for and complaints from campaign allies and donors.
But the crux of Trump’s frustration with McDaniel, fairly or unfairly, hinged on fights over money and the 2020 election. During that race, the Trump campaign and the RNC regularly clashed, with the campaign believing that the RNC was not sufficiently supporting it financially and the RNC arguing it was doing as much as it could and that Trump’s operation was flawed.
Through a spokeswoman, McDaniel declined to comment for this story. A Trump spokesman also declined to comment.
McDaniel’s problems with Trump grew further after a gathering of Republican donors in Houston last fall. There, donors who had grown frustrated with McDaniel’s leadership of the RNC criticized McDaniel to Trump and said they might not give going forward. The former president, this person added, was taken aback.
More recently, the RNC disclosed it had just about $9 million on hand, its lowest amount since 2015, according to Federal Election Commission reports — roughly half of the $17.7 million the DNC reported. Party officials say they expect that number to soon climb, and that Democrats benefit from holding the White House — but Trump and his advisers were upset about the party’s standing.
And so, by the time McDaniel traveled to South Florida for a meeting with Trump on the first Monday of February, her ouster was essentially a foregone conclusion. The only question was one of timing.
Her departure was unfortunate, said Henry Barbour, an influential committee member from Mississippi who has criticized McDaniel at times. “Trump was listening to the wrong people whistling and whispering in his ear,” Barbour said. “Ronna wasn’t perfect but she has done a lot for the party.”
‘She’s not good on election integrity’
One of Trump’s repeated criticisms of McDaniel was that she did not forcefully back his false claims of election fraud in 2020 — and that, in his words, she did not do more in that cycle to block states from changing election laws during the coronavirus pandemic. (The RNC was subject to a decades-long federal ruling, called a consent decree, that limited its activities challenging votes and election laws until it was lifted in 2018.)
“She’s not good on election integrity,” Trump would grumble repeatedly, people close to him said.
In the days after the November election, McDaniel and her team tried to help Trump fight his loss in battleground states, even winning a minor court case in Pennsylvania. McDaniel even took part in arranging alternate — false — electors, according to the Jan. 6 congressional committee and federal prosecutors. McDaniel and many of her top advisers were either eventually subpoenaed or questioned as part of the federal probe, which examined the party’s fundraising off election claims during the period, among other things.
But after Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s attorneys, held a widely panned news conference at RNC headquarters — hair dye apparently dripping down his face — and after his ragtag gang of lawyers made an escalating series of false claims, McDaniel backed away from defending Trump on TV. RNC lawyers also concluded that claims from Trump’s lawyers were hogwash, leading to clashes between the teams.
In recent days, Trump repeatedly mentioned he thought Michael Whatley, the chair of the North Carolina Republican Party, would do more to fight for what he viewed as election integrity. In North Carolina, he told one adviser, no one brought in boxes of ballots after Election Day to swing the election to Democrats — a reference to false allegations he and some of his allies made about other states.
Many Republicans view McDaniel’s inaction in 2020 as her cardinal sin, said Stephen K. Bannon, the former president’s strategist and host of the “War Room” podcast.
“We saw the RNC not do anything beforehand and afterward,” he said, echoing the false claim that Biden lost. “That’s the burning heart of this issue. This is a MAGA revolt to take over the Republican Party.”
McDaniel repeatedly told Trump that she was going to work harder ahead of 2024 on “election integrity” and tried to defend her actions in 2020. The party has filed 77 lawsuits in the 2024 cycle and created a permanent “Election Integrity Department,” RNC officials said. But in some cases, McDaniel told others that she just couldn’t back Trump’s most outlandish claims.
During the 2020 election, McDaniel also regularly clashed with Trump’s campaign leaders.
Most of the fights were about money, as the campaign struggled financially at times while the RNC was flush with cash. Trump campaign advisers say McDaniel and her staff were secretive and ended the campaign with tens of millions of dollars in their bank account that could have been spent on Trump.
Trump was generally on good terms with McDaniel during the 2020 election, though he would occasionally grow annoyed or make snide remarks to the chairwoman, people familiar with the matter said.
McDaniel’s team says Trump was surrounded by an inept coterie of advisers, leading the RNC to produce their own TV advertisements, and that much of the money that remained was designated for other bills.
Still, Trump’s aides were enraged when the RNC sent money to other committees designed to win House and Senate seats for Republicans in the final weeks of the election, as the party had in past cycles.
By the end of the campaign, McDaniel and Trump’s team were barely on speaking terms even as she continued to speak with Trump — and told him he needed a better team.
‘Why is she doing this?’
On the night of Jan. 6, 2021, McDaniel was ensconced in a suite of the Ritz Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., for a RNC meeting. She was running for reelection, but McDaniel had broken her foot and was traversing with a motorized wheelchair.
“How bad is this?” she asked one aide about the attack.
She later told people that, with her team stuck in back-to-back meetings, she had not immediately realized how fully out of control the situation in Washington had spiraled.
She put Trump on speakerphone when he called the next day.
“We love you!” chanted RNC members, less than 24 hours after the Capitol had been cleared. He told the members he backed McDaniel.
It was among the first signs Trump was going nowhere, and he and McDaniel were still inextricably bound.
By that spring, McDaniel came under criticism for moving part of the party’s donor retreat to Mar-a-Lago. McDaniel defended herself by saying her members wanted to be there.
Soon, she was enmeshed in Trump-related court cases — and agreed to pay at least some of Trump’s legal bills, angering some members. She began trekking to Trump’s properties to meet regularly. She signed onto a heavily-criticized resolution that defended some of the alternate electors as participating in “legitimate political discourse,” pleasing Trump.
The two had a good relationship and she worked to keep it that way. McDaniel could also be candid with Trump privately.
McDaniel, for example, counseled Trump to wear a mask during the covid pandemic, even as other advisers did not. Before the 2020 debate in Nashville, she stood backstage with Trump and urged him to “flirt with the American people.” His performance was viewed as vastly better than the first debate.
She also convinced Trump to cut a video for a new RNC program called “Bank Your Vote,” which encourages voting early by mail — techniques Trump had long attacked to the detriment of Republicans. Trump has since said voting should all be done on Election Day.
“Honey,” he would say to her. “You’re doing great.”
But he was also constantly asking others about McDaniel and hearing from her critics unprompted. In 2023, McDaniel began to clash with Trump’s team over the primary debates, as the organization struggled to raise money and criticism on the right grew. Trump would repeatedly mock her for saying she was “neutral.” She also stopped paying his legal bills when he became a candidate.
Battles over primary debates began at the Four Seasons in Nashville, hours before Trump spoke to top GOP donors last April. Chris LaCivita, one of Trump’s top aides, argued loudly with David Bossie, who was leading the debate process for the RNC. LaCivita wanted to cut RNC debates. Bossie and McDaniel would not agree.
Over the course of several months, Bossie and LaCivita continued to disagree in phone calls, according to people familiar with the matter, while Trump kept expressing bewilderment to advisers that she was scheduling more. “Why is she doing this?” he asked one.
“People in the non-Trump campaigns claimed she was too pro-Trump, and Trump people claimed she was anti-Trump, undermining him and wasting money,” said Richard Porter, a national committeeman from Illinois, who praised McDaniel.
‘Forced to defend her constantly’
The beginning of the end of McDaniel’s tenure came in November, when tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, then a GOP primary candidate, called for her ouster at a debate in Miami. She was “apoplectic,” one person who spoke with her said, and spent the evening calling allies despondent and asking if she should attack back.
McDaniel had been unhappy for months, complaining to “almost anyone who would listen,” said a person in regular touch with her. At times, she had questioned whether she should have even sought a fourth term, according to a person who talked to her, and that she did not expect things to go this way.
Now, the steady drumbeat of criticism that began in 2022 grew into a cacophony.
Kim Borchers, a national committee member from Kansas, said she was flooded with emails and calls attacking McDaniel after the 2022 midterms. She responded to more than 100 of them, hearing a list of complaints about McDaniel that, she said, originated in the right-wing echo chamber and were unfounded. Borchers said she often could convince critics otherwise.
“Critics have been beating her up since the day she won that last election,” Borchers said. “It is just terrible.”
Bannon and Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, were effectively waging opposition to McDaniel in part because she previously used Romney as her middle name, said Porter, the McDaniel ally. McDaniel dropped Romney from her name in 2017 after Trump suggested she do so, but she has said that is not why she abandoned the name.
“They made Ronna the face of the establishment — they froze her and they polarized her,” Porter said.
McDaniel sought to assuage factions that wanted her ouster. At least once, she went over to see Bannon at his Capitol Hill townhouse a few blocks from the RNC.
“Her presentation was very good,” he said, recounting extensive RNC efforts she said were happening. “It’s just not reality. None of this is happening.”
For their part, RNC officials say they boosted the number of donors to 2.9 million in the midterms, built community centers across the country and grew their email and texting files to record numbers — and that their presentation to Bannon was entirely factual.
Meanwhile in private, LaCivita, told others that RNC staff had too little campaign experience or were insufficiently loyal to Trump — and that he planned to overhaul the building. On Monday, Trump announced he asked LaCivita to serve as the RNC’s chief operating officer, along with Whatley as chair and Lara Trump as co-chair.
“The president was being forced to defend her constantly,” one person said. About three weeks ago, Trump started saying a change was needed, and McDaniel flew to Florida.
Unknown to her, Trump had already taped two interviews saying a new RNC chair was needed before she arrived.
One of her final moves as RNC chair was to publicly say Trump would be the nominee during a Fox News interview on the night of the New Hampshire primary, drawing criticism from challenger Nikki Haley and some fellow RNC members.
McDaniel told others she wanted to begin fundraising with Trump — and he was clearly certain to win.
It did not work.
On Monday, Trump decided to issue a statement about new RNC leadership, weeks before he previously said he would.
While McDaniel knew her days were probably over, Trump’s statement upset her, people who talked to her said. It did not even mention her and implicitly criticized the party.
“The RNC MUST be a good partner in the Presidential election. It must do the work we expect from the national Party and do it flawlessly,” he wrote, adding: “Every penny will be used properly. New Day.”
She said nothing publicly in response. And soon she was on the phone, trying to schedule a March meeting for members to formally approve Trump’s choice of her replacement.
by ti-amie What was that about impeaching President Biden?
Mueller, She Wrote
@MuellerSheWrote
THREAD: The indictment of Jim Comer's star witness - Alexander Smirnov - for lying to the FBI is fascinating. Especially the timelines and people associated with it. 1/
I'm very curious as to why Barr's college buddy Scott Brady - the Pittsburgh US Atty he put in charge of coordinating Ukraine stuff with Rudy Giuliani, didn't indict Smirnov back in 2020 when he lied to them. He just quietly closed the case. 2/
I'm also wondering how David Weiss ended up with this case, and why he's charging this informant NOW. The indictment says in July 2023, "the FBI" asked Weiss to assist them in investigating the allegations Smirnov made in that 1023 that Comer jizzed in his pants over. 3/
I guess Weiss is trying to say that the FBI thought he was the right guy to investigate these lies from 2020 that Barr didn't prosecute because he was also investigating Hunter Biden. Seems like a pretty weak association. 4/
But Weiss says in the indictment that since he was made special counsel, he can handle anything arising out of his investigation into Hunter Biden, and that would include Smirnov. But he was made special counsel AFTER the FBI apparently asked him to help them out. 5/
Sounds to me like bc Weiss was about to have to hand over a discovery to Hunter Biden, which would include this stuff, he said "Hey, I'm a special counsel now, so I'll indict this guy who should have been indicted in 2020 to cover my ass, Barr's ass, and Scott Brady's ass." 6/
Seems like Scott Brady was installed to insulate Giuliani and his associates, including Smirnov, from criminal investigation and indictment to hide the fact that Rudy and Trump were conspiring to tarnish Biden and Ukraine. 7/
by ti-amie Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
JUST IN: Feds say in a detention memo that Alexander SMIRNOV — charged with fabricating claims that Joe Biden was bribed by Ukrainians — had high-level contacts with Russian intelligence operatives. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.15.0.pdf
by Owendonovan I just don't know people like this.
by ti-amie And yet Gym Jordan is saying that despite their informant being a foreign agent and that this entire mess was a real psyop by a foreign government doesn't mean the "facts" of the case aren't true.
by ti-amieEx-FBI source accused of lying about Bidens and having Russian contacts is returned to US custody
BY KEN RITTER AND RIO YAMAT
Updated 5:45 PM EST, February 22, 2024
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A former FBI informant accused of lying about multimillion-dollar bribery allegations against President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and purportedly having links to Russian intelligence was again taken into custody Thursday, two days after a judge said he could be freed ahead of trial, his attorneys said in court documents.
The arrest during a meeting Thursday morning with his lawyers came after prosecutors appealed a ruling allowing 43-year-old Alexander Smirnov, who holds dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, to be released with a GPS monitor ahead of trial on charges alleging he lied to the FBI.
He was taken into custody on a warrant for the same charges issued in California, where the case was originally filed, his lawyers said. Several sealed entries were listed in the court docket, but no additional details about his return to custody were immediately available.
A spokesman for Justice Department special counsel David Weiss confirmed Smirnov had been arrested again, but did not have additional comment. He is in custody of U.S. Marshals in Nevada, said Gary Schofield, the chief marshal in Las Vegas.
Smirnov is charged with making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record. He was arrested last week in Las Vegas, where he now lives, and a judge allowed him to be released with a GPS monitor on Tuesday.
Smirnov was arrested Thursday morning at their law offices in downtown Las Vegas on the same charges, attorneys David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld said. They requested an immediate hearing on his detention.
Prosecutors say Smirnov falsely told his handler that executives from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid President Biden and Hunter Biden $5 million each around 2015. The claim became central to the Republican impeachment inquiry of President Biden in Congress.
Smirnov has not entered a plea to the charges, but his lawyers have said their client is presumed innocent and they look forward to defending him at trial.
As part of their push to keep him in custody, prosecutors said Smirnov told investigators after his arrest last week that “officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story” about Hunter Biden. They said Smirnov’s self-reported contact with Russian officials was recent and extensive, and said he had planned to meet with foreign intelligence contacts during an upcoming trip abroad.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts on Tuesday had ordered him released ahead of trial, saying he was concerned about Smirnov’s access to money prosecutors estimated at $6 million but noting that federal guidelines required him to fashion “the least restrictive conditions” ahead of trial. Smirnov was also ordered to stay in the area and surrender his passports.
“Do not make a mockery out of me,” Albregts said to Smirnov, warning that he’d be placed back into the federal government’s custody if he violated any of his conditions. His lawyers say he’s been “fully compliant” with his release conditions.
Prosecutors appealed to U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright in California, where the case is based.
“The circumstances of the offenses charged — that Smirnov lied to his FBI handler after a 10-year relationship where the two spoke nearly every day — means that Smirnov cannot be trusted to provide truthful information to pretrial services,” prosecutors wrote in court documents. “The effects of Smirnov’s false statements and fabricated information continue to be felt to this day. Now the personal stakes for Smirnov are even higher. His freedom is on the line.”
Smirnov had been an informant for more than a decade when he made the explosive allegations about the Bidens in June 2020, after “expressing bias” about Joe Biden as a presidential candidate, prosecutors said.
But Smirnov had only routine business dealings with Burisma starting in 2017, according to court documents. No evidence has emerged that Joe Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes in his current role or previous office as vice president.
While his identity wasn’t publicly known before the charges were filed, Smirnov’s claims have played a major part in the Republican effort in Congress to investigate the president and his family, and helped spark what is now a House impeachment inquiry into Biden. Republicans pursuing investigations of the Bidens demanded the FBI release the unredacted form documenting the unverified allegations, though they acknowledged they couldn’t confirm if they were true.
Democrats called for an end to the probe after the Smirnov indictment came down last week, while Republicans distanced the inquiry from his claims and said they would continue to “follow the facts.”
Smirnov’s lawyers say he has been living in Las Vegas for two years with his longtime girlfriend and requires ongoing treatment and daily medications for “significant medical issues related to his eyes.” He lived in California for 16 years prior to moving to Nevada.
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed to this story.
Feds leaned hard into argument to get former FBI informant back in custody, saying he’s loaded with millions of dollars, a flight risk… and claims to have contact with Russian foreign agents, who peddled false story about Pres. Biden
by ti-amieAlabama Lawmakers Move to Protect I.V.F. Treatments
A court ruling declaring frozen embryos to be legally considered children has set off a scramble among leaders in both parties to preserve access to a crucial reproductive treatment.
By Eduardo Medina and Emily Cochrane
Feb. 23, 2024
Updated 3:52 p.m. ET
Alabama lawmakers are considering legislation that would protect in vitro fertilization, after a State Supreme Court ruling last week led some clinics to halt I.V.F. treatments and left many women in limbo.
The ruling, which declared that frozen embryos should be legally considered children, set off a scramble among leaders in both parties to preserve access to a crucial reproductive treatment for families who have struggled with infertility and for L.G.B.T.Q. couples who are seeking to have children.
The court’s ruling, handed down by an 8-to-1 majority, applies only to three couples who were suing a fertility clinic over the accidental destruction of their embryos. But its wording — paired with a fiery opinion from the chief justice encouraging lawmakers to push its scope further — has left many wondering about the possible wider implications for people seeking I.V.F. treatment.
At least three major fertility clinics in Alabama have halted I.V.F. treatments this week as doctors and lawyers assess the possible consequences of the ruling. On Friday, a major embryo shipping company said that it also was “pausing” its business in Alabama.
And while only Republicans sit on the State Supreme Court, many conservatives in Alabama and across the nation sought to quickly distance themselves from the ruling and any perception that they are out of step with the many Americans who support I.V.F. and access to reproductive medicine.
Alabama’s attorney general, Steve Marshall, “has no intention of using the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision as a basis for prosecuting I.V.F. families or providers,” Katherine Robertson, the office’s chief counsel, said in a statement on Friday.
State Senator Tim Melson, a Republican who has worked as an anesthesiologist and clinical researcher, is planning to introduce a measure that would ensure people can continue to pursue I.V.F. treatment.
Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signaled she would support such a proposal, saying in a statement on Friday that fostering “a culture of life” included helping “couples hoping and praying to be parents who utilize I.V.F.”
Because Republicans hold a supermajority in the State Legislature, their support is essential for any bill to become law. On Friday, former President Donald J. Trump, the overwhelming favorite to become the Republican nominee for president this year, called on the Legislature to “act quickly to find an immediate solution to preserve the availability of I.V.F. in Alabama,” and for the protection of I.V.F. in all 50 states.
Democrats have also put forward their own measure. Anthony Daniels, the House minority leader in Alabama, filed a bill on Thursday that says “any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists outside of a human uterus is not considered an unborn child or human being for any purpose under state law.”
“There will be an opportunity for lawmakers to come together to really address the issue head on in a bipartisan manner,” Mr. Daniels said in an interview. He added that he planned to speak to Mr. Melson and other Republicans about their proposals.
Nationally, the party has not only condemned the ruling, but also tied it directly to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended nationwide protections for abortions, a ruling that has galvanized women and suburban voters to support Democrats across the country. Republicans have struggled to respond to that political backlash.
The issue could also reverberate in hotly contested congressional races. Mr. Daniels, the House Democratic leader, is one of several lawmakers running for a newly drawn congressional district in Alabama widely viewed as a possible pickup for his party.
But by Friday, it became clear that many Republican leaders, in Alabama and across the country, had little interest in leaving open the possibility that the ruling would jeopardize reproductive access.
Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, a Republican, said at the Politico Governors Summit on Thursday that while he was not familiar with the full details of the ruling, he supported I.V.F. treatment because many parents “wouldn’t have children” if it wasn’t for the procedure. U.S. Senator Katie Britt, a Republican, said that the procedure “helps create life and grow families, and it deserves the protection of the law.”
And in Tennessee, State Representative Jeremy Faison, a member of House Republican leadership, told reporters that he believed the procedure to be “very pro-life.” When asked about the Alabama ruling, he said would be “nervous about that.”
The Senate Republican campaign arm circulated a memo, obtained by The New York Times, that made clear that candidates should “clearly and concisely reject efforts by the government to restrict I.V.F.”
“It is imperative that our candidates align with the public’s overwhelming support for I.V.F. and fertility treatments,” Jason Thielman, the executive director, wrote.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:58 pm
Democrats have also put forward their own measure. Anthony Daniels, the House minority leader in Alabama, filed a bill on Thursday that says “any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists outside of a human uterus is not considered an unborn child or human being for any purpose under state law.”
Correct me here.
Is this man aware of what he has done? If you include the word OUTSIDE in this declaration, then you can claim that any human embryo INSIDE a human body IS CONSIDERED an unborn child, and therefore, you grant the Anti-Abortion lobby fodder for their claims that ALL EMBRYOS are indeed BABIES.
What am I missing?
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:58 pm
Democrats have also put forward their own measure. Anthony Daniels, the House minority leader in Alabama, filed a bill on Thursday that says “any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists outside of a human uterus is not considered an unborn child or human being for any purpose under state law.”
Correct me here.
Is this man aware of what he has done? If you include the word OUTSIDE in this declaration, then you can claim that any human embryo INSIDE a human body IS CONSIDERED an unborn child, and therefore, you grant the Anti-Abortion lobby fodder for their claims that ALL EMBRYOS are indeed BABIES.
What am I missing?
Sadly you're right.
That said it's interesting that the GQP in Alabama is scrambling to try and neuter this law. Everyone from their governor to the front runner for their presidential nomination is now on the record as saying that IVF is prolife.
by ti-amie‘My ultimate and absolute revenge’: Trump gives chilling CPAC speech on presidential agenda
Unbound and unhinged, ex-president vilifies immigrants before devolving into bizarre riffs, including calling himself ‘total genius’
David Smith in Oxon Hill, Maryland
Donald Trump styled himself as a “proud political dissident” and promised “judgment day” for political opponents in an address that offered a chilling vision of a democracy in imminent peril.
In classic carnival barker form, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination accused Joe Biden of weaponising the government against him with “Stalinist show trials”. He pledged to crack down on border security and deliver the biggest deportation in US history if he wins the 5 November election.
“For hard-working Americans, November 5th will be our new liberation day,” Trump told a packed ballroom at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Maryland. “But for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be their judgment day!”
He added: “Your victory will be our ultimate vindication, your liberty will be our ultimate reward and the unprecedented success of the United States of America will be my ultimate and absolute revenge.”
The overwhelmingly white crowd, many wearing Make America Great Again regalia, rose to their feet and roared their approval.
The former US president was speaking hours before an expected victory over Republican rival Nikki Haley in the South Carolina primary, making him all but certain to be the party nominee.
Meanwhile, organizers held a straw poll at the convention for Trump’s running mate: South Dakota governor Kristi Noem tied with tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy at 15%, followed by former Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, current New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik and South Carolina senator Tim Scott. In last place was Nikki Haley at 2%. About 1,500 people voted.
Trump’s visit marked his 14th appearance at CPAC, breaking the record previously held by former president Ronald Reagan, according to his campaign. He appeared unbound and at times unhinged. The 77-year-old was bilious and bleak but also energetic and at times even humorous, less commander-in-chief than stand-up comedian. He told self-deprecating jokes about his wife Melania’s reviews of his speeches (“I ask our first lady, I say. So, baby, how good was that? She goes you were OK”).
His puerile parody of the speaking style, finger pointing and gait of 81-year-old Biden earned roars of laughter. And in a nod to his days as host of the reality TV show the Apprentice, Trump delighted the audience by shouting: “Crooked Joe Biden, you are fired! Get out of here. You’re destroying our country. You’re fired. Get the hell out of here!”
But, like demagogues of the past, the comedy and showmanship smuggled in a sinister undertow. Trump’s ability to play the crowd, turning its emotions from euphoria to fury as easily as flicking a switch, carry echoes that are hard to ignore.
The tone was set before he appeared on stage. A series of popular hits – Abba’s Dancing Queen, Johnny Cash’s Ring of Fire, Sinéad O’Connor’s Nothing Compares 2 U, Elvis Presley’s Suspicious Minds – was followed by the tinny sound of Justice for All, a rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner sung by defendants jailed over their alleged roles in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. The CPAC audience rose solemnly for the dirge that was recorded over a prison phone line.
As usual, Trump entered to Lee Greenwood’s God Bless the USA, hugged an American flag and painted an impossibly grim picture of an America overrun by bloodshed, chaos and violent crime. “If Crooked Joe Biden and his thugs win in 2024, the worst is yet to come,” he said. “A country that will go and sink to levels that are unimaginable.
“These are the stakes of this election. Our country is being destroyed, and the only thing standing between you and it’s obliteration is me.”
Facing 91 criminal charges in four cases, Trump projected himself as both martyr and potential saviour of the nation. “A vote for Trump is your ticket back to freedom, it’s your passport out of tyranny and it’s your only escape from Joe Biden and his gang’s fast track to hell,” he continued.
“And in many ways, we’re living in hell right now because the fact is, Joe Biden is a threat to democracy – really is a threat to democracy.”
Speaking days after the death of the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Trump hinted at a self-comparison by adding: “I stand before you today not only as your past and hopefully future president but as a proud political dissident. I am a dissident.”
The crowd whooped and applauded. Trump noted that he had been indicted more often than the gangster Al Capone on charges that he described as “(expletive)”. The audience again leaped to their feet, some shaking their fists and chanting: “We love Trump! We love Trump!”
Trump argued without evidence: “The Stalinist show trials being carried out at Joe Biden’s orders set fire not only to our system of government but to hundreds of years of western legal tradition.
“They’ve replaced law, precedent and due process with a rabid mob of radical left Democrat partisans masquerading as judges and juries and prosecutors.”
Trump also spent time on his signature issue: he said his “first and most urgent action” as president would be the “sealing of the border, stopping the invasion ... send Joe Biden’s illegal aliens back home”.
The ex-president, who has spent years demonising immigrants, said: “They’re coming from Asia, they’re coming from the Middle East, coming from all over the world, coming from Africa, and we’re not going to stand for it ... They’re destroying our country.”
He promised to carry out the biggest deportation in American history. “It’s not a nice thing to say and I hate to say it and those clowns in the media will say: ‘Oh, he’s so mean.’ No, they’re killing our people. They’re killing our country. We have no choice.”
He added: “We have languages coming into our country … they have languages that nobody in this country has ever heard of. It’s a horrible thing.”
But Trump broke from the teleprompter into a series of bizarre riffs. One was a convoluted story about flying into Iraq in darkness: “I sat with the pilots ... the best-looking human beings I’ve ever seen. Not my thing ... But they are handsome. Central casting. Better looking than Tom Cruise. And taller.”
Once again he had the faithful eating out of the palm of his hand – a scene that may set off alarm bells for defenders of democracy. “By the way, isn’t this better than reading off a fricking teleprompter?” he asked. The crowd cheered.
“Nobody can ramble like this,” he said, adding: “They’ll say: ‘He rambled, he’s cognitively impaired.’ Well, it’s really the opposite. It’s total genius – you know that.” The crowd cheered some more.
At CPAC, Trump Invokes Clashing Visions of America’s Future
He used his speech to focus on a general-election contest between him and President Biden, not once mentioning his main Republican rival, Nikki Haley.
By Jonathan Swan and Michael C. Bender
Reporting from CPAC in National Harbor, Md.
Feb. 24, 2024, 4:43 p.m. ET
Former President Donald J. Trump laid out what’s in store for America should he or President Biden win the 2024 presidential election, using a Saturday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference to cast one nearly utopian vision of the country’s future and one reminiscent of a postapocalyptic movie.
If Mr. Biden is re-elected for a second four-year term, Mr. Trump warned in his speech, Medicare will “collapse.” Social Security will “collapse.” Health care in general will “collapse.” So, too, will public education. Millions of manufacturing jobs will be “choked off into extinction.” The U.S. economy will be “starved of energy” and there will be “constant blackouts.” The Islamist militant group Hamas will “terrorize our streets.” There will be a third world war and America will lose it. America itself will face “obliteration.”
On the other hand, Mr. Trump promised on Saturday that if he is elected America will be “richer and safer and stronger and prouder and more beautiful than ever before.” Crime in major cities? A thing of the past.
“Chicago could be solved in one day,” Mr. Trump said. “New York could be solved in a half a day there.”
It’s impossible to fact-check the future. But Mr. Trump’s speech at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in Maryland sounded familiar — like 2016 or 2020 all over again.
In his 2020 campaign, Mr. Trump warned that Mr. Biden would “confiscate your guns,” and “destroy your suburbs.” He predicted that the economy would sink into a depression worse than the 1930s Great Depression and that the “stock market will crash.” A Biden presidency, he predicted four years ago, “would mean that America’s seniors have no air conditioning during the summer, no heat during the winter and no electricity during peak hours.” And, he warned in July 2020, “you will have no more energy coming out of the great state of Texas, out of New Mexico, out of anywhere.”
Some of those past predictions are now checkable, and have turned out to be fictions. The stock market has hit record highs under the Biden administration. Guns haven’t been confiscated. Air conditioning is as good or bad as it ever was. And under Mr. Biden, the United States is producing more oil — not only more than it did under Mr. Trump but more than any country ever has.
Mr. Trump also left office with a long list of his own unfulfilled campaign promises, including completing the construction of a wall along the southwestern border. On Saturday, he pinned the blame for that failure on fellow Republicans in Congress — and on his own inexperience.
“Don’t forget, I had never done this stuff before,” he said, describing his border wall negotiations.
Still, Mr. Trump’s vision of the country delivered at CPAC on Saturday has the potential to connect powerfully to the fears and lives of millions of Americans.
When Mr. Trump said on Saturday that Mr. Biden had allowed “hordes of illegal aliens stampeding across our borders,” he was speaking to a voting public that trusts Mr. Trump significantly more to handle immigration. Under Mr. Biden, record numbers of undocumented migrants have crossed the southern border, straining local services and infuriating even Democratic mayors and governors, who have pleaded with the White House to take the problem more seriously. (Mr. Trump did not mention in his speech how he has all but killed a bipartisan effort to help solve the problem because he wanted to deprive Mr. Biden of a legislative victory in an election year.)
And when Mr. Trump rails against what he portrays as a bad economy under Mr. Biden, his message empirically resonates with voters even if the Biden administration can point to any number of economic data points to brag about. Under Mr. Biden, unemployment is low, real wages are rising, the stock market is booming and inflation is finally cooling. But at the same time, many groceries and other living expenses are vastly higher now than they were under Mr. Trump. When Mr. Trump hammers Mr. Biden for inflation, as he often does, he taps into an issue that Democratic strategists fear as one of Mr. Biden’s biggest liabilities this fall.
On Saturday, after delivering a series of dire warnings about a second Biden term, Mr. Trump ditched his prepared remarks to share long, rambling anecdotes about what he portrayed as his brilliant behind-the-scenes negotiating as president. “Nobody can ramble like this,” he said of his own rambling, as he brought up his late uncle.
For his part, Mr. Biden has delivered his own warning, telling supporters that Mr. Trump would undo America’s democratic principles and be an agent of chaos if he returns to the White House. Last month, on the eve of the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by Mr. Trump’s supporters, Mr. Biden said in a speech, “There’s no confusion about who Trump is or what he intends to do,” adding, “We all know who Donald Trump is. The question is: Who are we?”
Mr. Trump’s CPAC speech came on the day of the G.O.P. primary election in South Carolina, the home state of his main Republican rival, Nikki Haley. He has dominated the primary race so much, and was leading Ms. Haley in polling averages by so many points, that Mr. Trump adopted the rhetoric and posture of a front-runner ignoring the primary and focusing on the general election in November. Not once in his entire speech did he say Ms. Haley’s name.
What made Saturday’s speech different for Mr. Trump from the 2016 and 2020 versions was how he has turned his unprecedented legal situation, as the first former president charged with crimes, into a core part of his campaign message. Even as Mr. Trump now insists that his only “revenge” will be success for the American people — a departure from his previous promises to direct the prosecutions of his political opponents — the theme of retribution coursed through CPAC.
“I stand before you today not only as your past and future president, but as a proud political dissident,” Mr. Trump said.
“For hard-working Americans,” he added, “Nov. 5 will be our new liberation day — but for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and impostors who have commandeered our government, it will be their judgment day.”
by ponchi101 Bob Geldof, during the last 15 minutes of The Wall.
And he will get 70MM votes. Mark it. Scary.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 12:29 pm
Bob Geldof, during the last 15 minutes of The Wall.
And he will get 70MM votes. Mark it. Scary.
by ti-amie
Boston Smalls
@smalls2672
This Alabama decision to call embryos children is wild to watch. Never mind how terrible it is. The precedent. All that stuff.
Just watching Republicans realize what they did is cracking me up.
Now, Republicans obviously don't give two (expletive) about pro life. They just want children produced because they want workers. It just happens to help with their evangelical base.
But the one thing Republicans care about most is money.
Now they're trying to figure out how to spin this as they piss everyone off, including rich ppl. Because now they're preventing ppl who want to have children from having one. But what they're also doing is messing up an 8 billion dollar industry because it's big money to have these procedures. I believe it's anywhere from like 8-14k dollars.
They've created this religious right monster, and now they don't know how to turn it off. Pretty soon Republicans are going to realize what the rest of us already know.
You can't negotiate with the Christian right, and they won't stop until they achieve their goals of a complete theocracy.
Contraception is coming next.
Goldwater Lashes Religious Pressure
'Sick and Tired of Political Preachers'
By David S. Broder
September 15, 1981 at 8:00 p.m. EDT
Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), long the symbol of the conservative movement, said yesterday he will fight "every step of the way" against religious groups that seek to pressure public officials.
In a breakfast interview with a group of reporters and in a speech on the Senate floor, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee said, "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that, if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C or D....I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate."
Goldwater clashed sharply a few weeks ago with anti-abortion groups and the Moral Majority, when they criticized President Reagan's choice of Arizona Circuit Judge Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court. He told reporters yesterday morning he had been looking for a public forum in which to broaden his attack. After rehearsing the speech at breakfast, he decided to deliver it on the Senate floor.
"I don't like the New Right," Goldwater said. "What they're talking about is not conservatism."
In the formal speech, the Arizonan asked Americans to "look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon," all of which he said stemmed from "injecting religious issues into the affairs of state."
"By maintaining the separation of church and state," Goldwater said, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars."
Citing such groups as the Moral Majority and "pro-life" organizations, Goldwater called "the religious factions that are growing throughout our land...a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."
He said, "Far too much of the time of members of Congress and officials of the Executive Branch is used up dealing with special-interest groups on issues like abortion, school busing, ERA, prayer in the schools and pornography."
Goldwater said he shared "many of the values emphasized by these organizations," but would "fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
Asked about the bill to encourage chastity among teen-agers that was sponsored by one of the "New Right" senators, Jeremiah Denton (R-Ala.), Goldwater asked, "How the hell are you going to regulate that? They've been trying ever since the apple. It's just like abortion. You can make them unconstitutional but they're still going to go out and have one."
In the press breakfast, Goldwater also poked a bit of fun at President Reagan, even while saying his political protege "is doing all right." After saying he had been converted to support of the draft by the need for trained manpower in the military, Goldwater was asked what he thought it would take to persuade Reagan that the volunteer army was not working. The senator replied:
"It would take a recognizable national calamity--if they woke him up in time and told him about it."
by ti-amieExclusive: Key figure in fake electors plot concealed damning posts on secret Twitter account from investigators
By Em Steck, Andrew Kaczynski, Marshall Cohen and Allison Gordon, CNN
CNN Kenneth Chesebro, the right-wing attorney who helped devise the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot in 2020, concealed a secret Twitter account from Michigan prosecutors, hiding dozens of damning posts that undercut his statements to investigators about his role in the election subversion scheme, a CNN KFile investigation has found.
Chesebro denied using Twitter, now known as the platform X, or having any “alternate IDs” when directly asked by Michigan investigators last year during his cooperation session, according to recordings of his interview obtained by CNN.
But CNN linked Chesebro to the secret account based on numerous matching details — including biographical information regarding his work, family, travels and investments. The anonymous account, BadgerPundit, also showed a keen interest in the Electoral College process and lined up with Chesebro’s private activities at the time.
The Twitter posts reveal that even before the 2020 election, and then just two days after polls closed, Chesebro promoted a far more aggressive election subversion strategy than he later let on in his Michigan interview.
Chesebro’s lawyers confirmed to CNN that the BadgerPundit account belonged to Chesebro, describing it as his “random stream of consciousness” where he was “spitballing” theories about the election – but insisted that it was separate from his legal work for Trump’s campaign.
“When he was doing volunteer work for the campaign, he was very specific and hunkered-down into being the lawyer that he is, and gave specific kinds of legal advice based on things that he thought were legitimate legal challenges, versus BadgerPundit, who is this other guy over there, just being a goof,” said Robert Langford, an attorney for Chesebro.
Chesebro has not been charged with any crimes in Michigan and sat for an hourslong interview with the state attorney general’s office in early December. In his retelling to Michigan prosecutors, Chesebro has cast himself as a moderate middleman who was duped by Trump’s more radical lawyers.
Asked about the secret tweets, Danny Wimmer, a spokesman for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, said in a statement to CNN, “Our team is interested in the material and will be looking into this matter.”
Chesebro claimed to investigators he saw the alternate slates of Republican electors only as a contingency plan to have ready in case the Trump campaign won any of its more than 60 lawsuits challenging the election results — which it didn’t. He also told Michigan investigators that in his conversations with the Trump campaign, he made clear that “state legislatures have no power to override the courts.”
But just days after the 2020 election, BadgerPundit tweeted that the court battles didn’t matter and that Republican-controlled legislatures should send in their own GOP electors, predicting even then that then-Vice President Mike Pence could use them to throw the election to Trump.
“You don’t get the big picture. Trump doesn’t have to get courts to declare him the winner of the vote. He just needs to convince Republican legislatures that the election was systematically rigged, but it’s impossible to run it again, so they should appoint electors instead,” wrote BadgerPundit on November 7, 2020, the day multiple media outlets, including CNN, called the election for Joe Biden.
Yet in his interview with Michigan investigators, Chesebro said the very opposite, claiming that the entire electors plan was contingent on the courts.
“I saw no scenario where Pence could count any vote for any state because there hadn’t been a court or a legislature in any state backing any of the alternate electors,” Chesebro said.
‘Clearly a conflict’
After the 2020 election, BadgerPundit tweeted more than 50 times that Pence had the power to count the electors benefitting Trump, according to a CNN KFile analysis of the account.
Chesebro also told investigators that he felt “misled” by the Trump campaign for concealing the entirety of their plan from him. He claimed that it wasn’t until last year that he fully realized the campaign had always intended to deploy the fake electors regardless of the outcome of its election lawsuits.
That idea was first raised in a September 2020 article in The Atlantic, which quoted a “Trump legal adviser” who described using alternate electors to overturn a Trump loss.
When asked by Michigan investigators if he had knowledge of The Atlantic article at the time it was published, Chesebro said he did not. Yet BadgerPundit tweeted about it the same day it was published and defended the plot.
Chesebro’s attorneys acknowledged in an interview with CNN that “there’s clearly a conflict” between some of his tweets and what he told Michigan prosecutors, and that some of the elector theories he embraced online were “inconsistent” with his subsequent legal advice to the Trump campaign.
Some of Chesebro’s anonymous tweets were previously reported by Talking Points Memo. The BadgerPundit account went private sometime in late 2022, but CNN was able to access the since-removed public tweets by using the Wayback Machine, an internet archive.
‘That was our screw-up’
The fake electors plot features prominently in special counsel Jack Smith’s federal election subversion indictment against Trump, who has pleaded not guilty. Chesebro has been identified by CNN as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case.
Chesebro was indicted alongside Trump in a separate 2020 election interference case in Georgia. He struck a plea deal there in October, agreeing to plead guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents. He gave proffer interviews to Georgia prosecutors as part of the cooperation agreement, though it’s unclear if he was asked about his social media accounts.
Michigan investigators secured Chesebro’s cooperation in December, after previously charging the 16 fake electors in that state with multiple felonies. Chesebro has additionally met with investigators in Wisconsin and Arizona who are probing their fake electors, and he avoided charges in Nevada after cooperating with prosecutors there.
If Chesebro intentionally misled investigators, he could face legal jeopardy.
“Chesebro appears to have pursued a legally perilous path in his dealings with Michigan authorities,” said Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, who reviewed the posts for CNN. “The Twitter posts strongly suggest Chesebro committed the crime of making false statements to investigators… his entire cooperation agreement may now fall apart.”
It appears Chesebro “hid highly important evidence in the form of these social media posts from the investigators,” Goodman said, adding that it could put Chesebro “at great legal risk.”
“We should have asked for clarity, and that was our screw-up,” Chesebro attorney Manny Arora told CNN about Chesebro denying to Michigan prosecutors that he used Twitter. Arora said he has since provided “all the information on BadgerPundit” to investigations in “all the different states that are involved,” where Chesebro sat for interviews.
CNN has not reviewed the agreement between Chesebro and the Michigan Attorney General’s office. Wimmer, a spokesman for the office, confirmed that it was a “proffer agreement,” where a witness can provide information with some protection from prosecution. Wimmer declined to describe the details of the agreement.
The same prosecutors signed a more sweeping cooperation deal with one of the 16 fake electors where they dropped his charges in exchange for his testimony and future cooperation. That deal required the fake elector to “provide full and complete information” and turn over “any and all relevant documents.” If the cooperator “gives false, incomplete, misleading testimony or information,” the deal would be voided and they’d be “subject to full prosecution, including perjury and obstruction of justice.”
Identifying BadgerPundit
CNN was able to verify Chesebro’s connection to the BadgerPundit account by reviewing emails between Chesebro and the Trump campaign that reference the account, as well as by matching numerous biographical details between the two.
In an email to Trump attorneys in early December 2020, Chesebro linked to a Google Drive account for the email address TheBadger14@Gmail.com, which was once used by BadgerPundit in a tweet as his contact information. Chesebro also cited the BadgerPundit account in emails to a Trump campaign official and attorney John Eastman on January 5, 2021, pointing to tweets from BadgerPundit arguing that Pence had the authority to pick the electors on January 6.
Other biographical details related to his personal life also matched Chesebro, including his current marriage, his past legal work on Bush v. Gore, investments in cryptocurrency, past references to high school and growing up in Wisconsin – the Badger state.
BadgerPundit, like Chesebro, said he was with right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on January 6, 2021. The account also references staying at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, from January 3 through the 8 – the same dates Chesebro told Trump lawyers he was staying at the hotel in emails obtained by the January 6 committee.
Chesebro distances himself from the plot
In his interview with Michigan investigators, Chesebro repeatedly tried to downplay his knowledge of the electors plan. He told investigators that he did not know that the Trump campaign planned to deploy “alternate electors” in contested states when he first spoke with the campaign in mid-November 2020.
“I naively assumed that it hadn’t occurred to them to have alternate electors. That is, I only thought of it because I’d been involved in Bush v. Gore in 2000 and I’d worked on a law review article with Professor [Laurence] Tribe in 2001 about Bush v. Gore,” Chesebro said. “So, I thought I was educating them about this.”
He continued to tell investigators that the plan went beyond what he advised them to do.
“The idea of alternate electors wasn’t something I’d come up with and then the Trump campaign learned about it and then backed off. My understanding is that they planned to do this all along,” Chesebro said.
Chesebro denied to investigators that at the time he was aware of The Atlantic article from September 23, 2020 detailing how a more radical fake electors plan might work, and he reiterated that he always viewed fake electors as a way to buy more time for lawsuits, and as a contingency to be used only if the Trump campaign had pending litigation in the seven contested states.
But privately, as BadgerPundit on Twitter, Chesebro was familiar with the fake electors plot as early as September 2020, and defended the Trump campaign’s ability to pursue the plan just days after the election.
As BadgerPundit, Chesebro rebutted a Twitter user who said The Atlantic article foreshadowed the “death of democracy.” Chesebro replied, “it’s called politics, dude,” and argued that state legislatures get the “ultimate call” on who wins and loses presidential elections.
Chesebro told investigators that only later did he realize that the Trump campaign had plans to pursue a more radical version of the fake electors scheme no matter what — something that he told investigators he did not advise at the time.
“And so my point is, it seems if you credit The Atlantic article, they wanted to do unconditional alternate electors, lobby the state legislatures, and then pressure Pence to back that,” said Chesebro.
“I just feel like I was misled into pushing alternate electors for a reason to win more time, to win litigation when there was, there was certainly more to the agenda. I mean, maybe not every person that was in touch with me had this plan, but the campaign as a whole had a different plan than [what] they revealed to me,” said Chesebro.
“I certainly would not have said what I said to the electors and advise them on what the campaign wanted if I’d known the campaign had a broader agenda than they told me,” said Chesebro.
In his interview with Michigan investigators, Chesebro said that after the 2020 election, he repeatedly advocated for a more conservative approach to the fake electors plot.
“Ultimately where I came down was I wanted conditional language in all the states that I suggested three times to Trump campaign on December 12th, that they make it conditional on winning litigation. Number two, I made clear in November 23rd that the state legislatures have no power to, to override the courts. And number three, I made clear in December 13th that I didn’t think Pence should be involved at all,” Chesebro told investigators, adding, “I was never on board with what apparently they planned to do from the beginning, and which they never told me they planned to do.”
Promoting the fake electors
Less than two days after polls closed on the 2020 presidential election, Chesebro, as BadgerPundit, began publicly tweeting the framework for the “alternate elector” strategy that the Trump campaign ended up pursuing.
That included embracing the end-around plan of using state legislatures to overturn the results – which he later claimed to oppose in his interviews with Michigan prosecutors. He tweeted: “the election can’t be rerun. This [sic] only solution is for the Legislature to intervene and select the electors.”
In another tweet from November 5, 2020, BadgerPundit outlined a potential plan for Trump.
“He will push it all the way to early January, and if necessary, rely on Pence to count only electoral votes sent in by the Republican legislatures, or count no disputed electoral votes, and throw the election to the House, which will elect Trump. 80/20 in Trump’s favor,” he wrote.
In a series of tweets, BadgerPundit suggested he knew the plan was extremely controversial and suggested how to make the plot more palatable after a user wrote that no state “will want to be first.”
“The key to the politics” of the plan would rest on state legislatures not invalidating the results of election day but rather “expressing their own preference… of electors to be sorted out in January,” Chesebro wrote.
Pence can count the votes
Speaking to Michigan investigators, Chesebro criticized the more radical plan put forth by conservative attorney John Eastman, which included having state legislatures choosing their own slates of electors for Pence to count on January 6.
“So, Eastman, he had this idea the state legislatures could somehow be effective in overturning the courts, which I thought was ridiculous,” Chesebro told investigators.
But under his online alter ego, BadgerPundit, after the election he tweeted numerous times that Pence had the power to count the fake electors benefitting Trump.
“I think Pence, in counting electoral votes, could decide that the electoral votes of the legislature take priority,” the pseudonymous Twitter account wrote on November 7, 2020, hours after the election was called for Biden by multiple media outlets.
Though Chesebro’s lawyers told CNN that BadgerPundit and the Trump campaign “never intersected,” emails obtained by CNN reveal that he sent two emails to the campaign citing a BadgerPundit thread arguing that Pence had the power to count disputed electoral votes. Chesebro sent the thread to Eastman and Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn, but he did not tell them it was his account, the emails show.
On November 9, 2020, BadgerPundit wrote, “I predict that on December 14, in several states both the Trump and Biden electors will cast their votes, and the electoral votes of any State still in dispute on January 6 won’t be counted. If neither candidate has 270 votes, the House will then vote Trump a second term.”
A few days later, on November 11, 2020, BadgerPundit repeatedly tweeted that the fake electors could cast their votes for Trump and that Republican legislatures would certify only those votes.
“It’s obvious Trump will win. You overlook the power of the Republican legislatures to certify that Trump is the winner, thus leading the Senate not to find that Biden attained 270 electoral votes. Then, game over,” he wrote.
BadgerPundit wrote on December 28, 2020, “My understanding is that they’re the votes of the Trump-Pence electors who were actually on the ballot in the contested States. So if whoever counts electoral votes thinks they won … well, they won.”
Chesebro traveled to Washington in early January 2021, he told investigators, to be available for strategy meetings. He was seen outside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, following Alex Jones.
Even after the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, Chesebro continued to insist that Pence had the power to count electors to benefit Trump but “pretended his hands were tied.”
BadgerPundit tweeted on January 7, 2021, “But … There was a non-frivolous argument that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional, and the VP has the power to count, as Jefferson did. Pence could have set up a test case, yet he pretended his hands were tied. And, Trump really believes he won!”
Matt Rosendale has dropped out of the Senate race in Montana after getting his 20 year old aid pregnant, demonstrating one of the very few times that a man's career options have been limited by an unplanned pregnancy.
by ponchi101 Is it a coincidence that Matt Gaetz is in the background?
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:59 pm
Is it a coincidence that Matt Gaetz is in the background?
You're not the only one who has asked that question...
by ashkor87 interesting opinion piece I read smewhere that even if Trump goes to jail, Haley may not be nominated by the party. They might choose someone else.. can that even happen? Wouldnt that be the scenario I had laid out earlier, that would cause the GOP to implode?
I hasten to add my usual disclaimer - I dont care either way, just speculating scenarios..as a non-citizen, I would not want to comment on whom I prefer, I am only commenting on the scenario..
by Suliso Haley will not have enough delegates to be nominated outright. I too would rate her chances as very low.
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 4:06 pm
Haley will not have enough delegates to be nominated outright. I too would rate her chances as very low.
yes, but she would have more than anyone else not in jail, right? there is no second-preference vote, is there?
by dryrunguy Associated Press is reporting Mitch McConnell has announced he will step down as Senate Republican Leader.
by patrick Will be very interested to see who will be nominated to replace McConnell. Hopefully, not Scott.
by ti-amie3-Year-Old Among ‘Victims’ in Lauren Boebert’s Son’s Alleged Crime Spree
YIKES
The 18-year-old faces a total of 22 charges after a “string of vehicle trespass and property thefts.”
Dan Ladden-Hall
News Correspondent
Justin Rohrlich
Reporter
Updated Feb. 28, 2024 3:28PM EST / Published Feb. 28, 2024 8:03AM EST
Ultra-MAGA Rep. Lauren Boebert’s son victimized a toddler, a senior citizen, and four others during a recent crime spree, according to a police incident summary obtained by The Daily Beast.
New dad Tyler Boebert was arrested Tuesday and now faces 22 charges stemming from a string of alleged thefts and vehicle break-ins in Rifle, Colorado. He was taken into custody at around 2:30 p.m. the Rifle PD said in a statement. The town of 10,000 sits in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, which Tyler’s mom currently represents.
Three other suspects were also arrested as alleged accomplices, the incident summary shows. Because the three are underage, their names have been redacted. However, they are listed as a 16-year-old while male, a 16-year-old white female, and a 17-year-old white female.
A total of six victims are listed in the incident summary, also with their names and races redacted. The youngest is marked down as 3 years-old; the oldest is listed as 64. The rest range in age from 18 to 32, according to the summary.
The details are slim, and the specific items and forms of ID allegedly lifted by Boebert remain unknown. One “victim vehicle” is listed in the incident summary—a 2008 Kia Sorento, gold in color, with Colorado plates.
In an email, a Rifle PD spokeswoman said the investigation is ongoing and an affidavit accompanying the incident summary is not yet publicly releasable.
Rifle PD
The teen was hit with “four felony counts of criminal possession of ID documents - multiple victims, one felony count of conspiracy to commit a felony, criminal possession of a financial device, first-degree criminal trespass of an automobile with intent to commit a crime, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and three counts of theft of under $300.
“I love my son Tyler, who has been through some very difficult, public challenges for a young man and the subject of attention that he didn’t ask for,” Lauren Boebert said in a statement issued Wednesday. “It breaks my heart to see my child struggling and in this situation, especially when he has been provided multiple opportunities to get his life on track. I will never give up on him and I will continue to be there for him. As an adult and father, Tyler will take responsibility for his actions and should be held accountable for poor decisions just like any other citizen.”
The arrest is the latest drama involving Lauren Boebert’s family which has come as she runs for election in a new Colorado district. (In December, the congresswoman said the switch would offer her a “fresh start” after what has been “a pretty difficult year for me and my family.”)
The Trump loyalist’s ex-husband, Jayson Boebert, was arrested last month for an alleged assault on Tyler. That arrest also followed an incident three days earlier in which Jayson called 911 claiming that he had been repeatedly punched by Lauren Boebert, though authorities cleared her of wrongdoing.
She was granted a restraining order against Jayson earlier this month, a move that he described as a “cruel and unfair” attempt at stopping him from seeing his kids.
The conservative lawmaker was also caught up in another messy headline-generating incident last September relating to her behavior in a Denver theater during a live production of Beetlejuice.
After initially insisting she hadn’t been vaping during the show, she later admitted that she had when security camera footage emerged refuting her initial denials. Apologizing for the contradiction, she noted that she had been having a “challenging personal time” after a “public and difficult divorce.”
Tyler Boebert—who became a father last year, making his mom a 36-year-old grandmother—has also previously been in the public eye. In September 2022, at the age of 17, Tyler flipped his dad’s SUV, injuring Noble D’Amato, a friend who was also in the car at the time. D’Amato later criticized the Boebert family for allegedly downplaying the incident.
by ti-amieTrump White House Was Awash in Drugs Because No One Wanted to Be There
“You try working for him and not chasing pills with alcohol,” one former Trump staffer said.
Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the West Wing operated more like a pill mill than the White House, at least according to a January report by the Department of Defense inspector general, which capped a six-year investigation into the administration’s medical practices.
But sources knowledgeable on the matter paint an even more dramatic image than that, describing the nation’s highest office as “awash in speed,” reported Rolling Stone.
Common pills included modafinil, Adderall, fentanyl, morphine, and ketamine, according to the Pentagon report. But other, unlisted drugs—like Xanax—were equally easy to come by from the White House Medical Unit, according to sources that spoke to the magazine.
At least two senior staffers would regularly mix the depressant with alcohol, a potentially life-threatening combo, to deal with the stress of working with a highly erratic boss.
“You try working for him and not chasing pills with alcohol,” one source told Rolling Stone.
While other presidents were known to take a mix of drug cocktails to fight off back pain (like JFK) or bad moods (like Nixon), no previous administrations matched the level of debauchery of Trump’s, whose in-office pharmacists unquestioningly handed out highly addictive substances to staffers who needed pick-me-ups or energy boosts—no doctor’s exam, referral, or prescription required.
“It was kind of like the Wild West. Things were pretty loose. Whatever someone needs, we were going to fill this,” another source said.
Ultimately, the unmitigated access to controlled substances fostered an environment that would have been considered highly illegal and problematic anywhere else in the nation—if it weren’t inside the very office that helps craft those regulations.
“Is it being done appropriately or legally all the time? No. But are they going to get to that end result that the bosses want? Yeah,” said another, referring to the high demands of the office.
Meanwhile, pharmacists described an atmosphere of fear within the West Wing, claiming they would be “fired” if they spoke out or would receive negative work assignments if they didn’t hand pills over to staffers.
by ponchi101 Isn't it the other way around? She would be a good president because...
Never mind.
by ti-amieNavy demoted Ronny Jackson after probe into White House behavior
Trump’s former physician and GOP ally is now a retired captain, not an admiral
By Dan Diamond and Alex Horton
March 7, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. EST
Ronny Jackson, the former White House physician turned GOP congressman, regularly touts his military bona fides.
“As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country,” the two-term Texas representative writes on his congressional website, posted to a page listing his work on veterans issues.
But Jackson is no longer a retired admiral. The Navy demoted him in July 2022 following a damaging Pentagon inspector general’s report that substantiated allegations about his inappropriate behavior as a White House physician, a previously unreported decision confirmed by a current defense official and a former U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel move.
Jackson is now a retired Navy captain, those people said — a demotion that carries significant financial burden in addition to the social stigma of stripped rank in military circles.
Despite the demotion, Jackson has continued to refer to himself as a retired rear admiral, including in statements released since the Navy reclassified him as a retired captain. Former president Donald Trump and other Republicans have also continued to publicly describe Jackson using his former rank; it’s unclear if they were aware of his demotion.
Jackson’s office did not respond to requests for comment about the Navy’s 2022 personnel action and his demotion. The former White House physician has become a prominent voice in the 2024 campaign, repeatedly affirming Trump’s fitness to serve while castigating President Biden’s.
After publication of this story, the Navy provided Jackson’s service record, which shows the rank of captain retroactively applied to the date of his retirement in December 2019.
For an officer who served 24 years like Jackson, there is more than a $15,000 difference in annual pension payouts between a retired one-star admiral, the rank that Jackson held when he retired from the Navy in December 2019, and a retired captain, according to an estimate by Katherine L. Kuzminski, a military policy expert at Center for a New American Security. That payout gap is likely to widen over time as the military periodically increases its pay rates for each position.
Kuzminski also said that it was inappropriate for Jackson to describe himself as a retired rear admiral. “While it is possible that others will mistakenly refer to him as ‘Admiral’ in perpetuity, he himself should not make that mistake,” she said.
A Navy official confirmed that the service took unspecified action against Jackson in the wake of the 2021 inspector general’s report, which found that Jackson berated subordinates in the White House medical unit, “made sexual and denigrating statements” about a female subordinate, consumed alcohol inappropriately with subordinates and consumed the sleep drug Ambien while on duty as the president’s physician. At the time of the report, Jackson was classified by the Navy as a rear admiral (lower half), a one-star admiral that is distinct from the two-star rear admiral position.
“The substantiated allegations in the DoDIG [Department of Defense inspector general] investigation of Rear Adm. (lower half) Ronny Jackson are not in keeping with the standards the Navy requires of its leaders and, as such, the secretary of the Navy took administrative action in July 2022,” Lt. Cmdr. Joe Keiley, a Navy spokesman, said via email.
Keiley declined to comment on Jackson's current rank and whether he had been demoted. The Pentagon inspector general's report had recommended that the Navy secretary take action against the retired officer, concluding that Jackson did not behave in the “exemplary” manner that is required of Navy officers.
Military guidelines allow a provisional retirement rank if an officer is under investigation for misconduct at the time, as Jackson was during his departure from the Navy. Military officials have the option to downgrade the final rank if adverse findings are made, busting down an officer to the last grade at which they satisfactorily served.
Retired officers can respond to the decision, according to Navy regulations, but it is unclear if Jackson did so or otherwise challenged the Navy secretary’s determination.
In his July 2022 memoir, “Holding the Line,” Jackson dismisses the inspector general’s report as politically motivated.
“If I had retired and not gotten into politics, this investigation would have never gone anywhere,” Jackson wrote. “This was happening because I am a perceived threat to the Biden administration and because a few political appointees in the Department of Defense want to make a name for themselves.”
In the memoir, Jackson did not address the prospect of being demoted by the Navy.
The Pentagon oversees the White House medical team, which is staffed by career military medical personnel and has become the focus of several investigations in the wake of Jackson’s tenure. The Defense Department in January released a second inspector general report into the White House medical team’s operations that does not name Jackson but faults aspects of how the unit was run while he served in the White House, such as the unit’s lax controls for powerful drugs like Ambien and the stimulant Provigil.
Jackson, who first arrived at the White House in 2006, served as the medical unit’s director between 2010 and 2014 and as personal physician to Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump between 2013 and 2018.
Former colleagues, political officials and Jackson himself have all described his strategy of providing complimentary, round-the-clock care to numerous White House officials and even their friends and family. The Pentagon’s most recent investigation found that many of the patients who received complimentary care from the White House medical team were not eligible for it.
But in the White House, Jackson’s approach won him favor within two presidential administrations. Obama, who personally chose Jackson as his physician in 2013, considered him a friend and promoted him to a one-star admiral in October 2016.
Jackson also endeared himself to Trump, particularly after a January 2018 news conference in which the White House physician extolled Trump’s health — joking to reporters that the then-71-year-old president could “live to be 200 years old” if he only ate healthier. Jackson added that Trump performed exceedingly well during a cognitive exam, a test that Jackson scheduled to rebut growing questions about the president’s fitness for office.
Trump soon attempted to put Jackson in his Cabinet as secretary of veterans affairs, a failed nomination that prompted a whistleblower complaint to Congress and, later, the Pentagon’s inspector general’s investigations. Trump also twice nominated Jackson to become a two-star admiral, although the nominations stalled and he was not promoted.
Jackson retired from the military and left the White House in 2019 to run for Congress, a long-shot campaign that succeeded with the backing of Trump.
Jackson won reelection in 2022 and has emerged as a leading critic of President Biden’s fitness for office, injecting himself into this year’s presidential campaign with frequent TV appearances, news conferences and public statements assessing the 81-year-old Biden’s mental and physical health. Jackson also has publicly called for Biden to undergo a cognitive exam comparable to the one he administered to Trump in January 2018, invoking concerns that are shared by many independent voters and some Democrats. A Monmouth University poll conducted last month found that 32 percent of registered voters were confident in Biden’s physical and mental stamina, compared to 51 percent of voters who were confident in the 77-year-old Trump’s fitness.
Around Capitol Hill and in political circles, Jackson is frequently referred to by his onetime military rank.
“Where’s the admiral, Ronny Jackson? Come on up here,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a retired Pennsylvania Army National Guard brigadier general, urged at a House Republican news conference in July 2023 as lawmakers discussed a defense spending bill.
Speaking at the August 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference — days after the Navy privately demoted Jackson — Trump also extolled his former physician.
“He was an admiral, a doctor and now he’s a congressman, and I said, which is the best if you had your choice? And he sort of indicated doctor because he loved looking at my body, it was so strong,” Trump joked before pivoting to the reason for his affection for Jackson. “He said I’m the healthiest president that’s ever lived. … I said, I like this guy.”
by ti-amieRepublicans baffled by Katie Britt’s State of the Union response: ‘One of our biggest disasters’
The 42-year-old Alabama senator is a rising Republican star but her kitchen table speech did not land well even in her own party
Joe Biden delivers feisty State of the Union address with vision for his second term
Martin Pengelly in Washington
@MartinPengelly
Fri 8 Mar 2024 14.48 GMT
Katie Britt’s Republican response to Joe Biden’s State of the Union address drew reactions ranging from the baffled to the satirical to the appalled, even among fellow rightwingers.
“What the hell am I watching right now?” an unnamed Trump adviser told Rolling Stone.
“It’s one of our biggest disasters ever,” another unnamed Republican strategist told the Daily Beast.
Delivering the official State of the Union response can be a thankless task, as the former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and the Florida senator Marco Rubio, deliverers of previously panned speeches, would ruefully attest.
Nonetheless, the 42-year-old Alabama senator is a rising Republican star, widely respected on Capitol Hill and her selection to respond to Biden was a golden opportunity to introduce herself to the wider American electorate.
In his address Biden used his bully pulpit effectively, attacking Republicans in a fiery speech and inviting a strong response. But Britt’s speech, delivered with overt theatricality, oscillating in tone between the wholesome and the wholly horrific, did not land well even in her own party.
Charlie Kirk, founder of the far-right Turning Point USA youth group, said: “I’m sure Katie Britt is a sweet mom and person, but this speech is not what we need. Joe Biden just declared war on the American right and Katie Britt is talking like she’s hosting a cooking show, whispering about how Democrats ‘dont get it’.”
That pointed to widespread confusion over the setting for such a figure to give such an important speech: a kitchen.
As a Gallup poll showed 57% of American voters think the US would be better off if more women were in elected office, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a Trump aide turned never-Trumper, said: “Senator Katie Britt is a very impressive person … I do not understand the decision to put her in a KITCHEN for one of the most important speeches she’s ever given.”
Speaking to CNN, Griffin added: “The staging of this was bizarre to me. Women can be both wives and mothers and also stateswomen, so to put her in a kitchen, not at a podium or in the Senate chamber where she was elected after running a hard-fought race, I think fell very flat and was completely confusing to some women watching it.”
Allie Beth Stuckey, host of the Relatable podcast, which “analyses culture, news and politics from a biblical perspective”, said: “Ok, GOP. Never again. I know y’all were going for the relatable mom speaking in her kitchen from her heart, but it didn’t work. Just a straight, strong speech will do in the future. Thanks.”
Kirk asked followers if they liked the speech. Blue-ticked conservative verdicts included “Man, it was so disappointing”, “No, very babysitter-reading-a-bedtime story-like”, “way too dramatic”, and “the up and down emotion was bizarre”.
Among satirical responses, Tom Nichols, an anti-Trump conservative columnist, spoke for many when he said: “There is no way that this Katie Britt address does not end up as part of the Saturday Night Live cold open.”
Elsewhere, the gonzo filmmaker Tom Arnold said: “Katie Britt is so bad she couldn’t be in one of my movies.”
Julia Ioffe, Washington correspondent for Puck News, said: “Imagine you’re sleeping over at a friend’s house and you get up in the middle of the night to pee and you hear a weird sound so you follow it to the kitchen, where your friend’s mom is drunk, crying, and rambling about the national debt. Those are the vibes from Katie Britt right now.”
From the other side of the political spectrum, however, the gun control advocate Shannon Watts highlighted a darker side to Britt’s performance, as expressed in a particularly lurid passage.
With wavering voice, the senator described meeting a migrant woman who she said described being “sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12” and who, Britt said, spoke of being repeatedly raped “on a mattress in a shoebox of a room”.
Watts said: “Senator Katie Britt says sexual assault is the worst thing that can happen to a woman while encouraging Americans to vote for a convicted sexual predator.”
Last month, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was ordered to pay $83.3m in a civil defamation case arising from a rape allegation a judge said was “substantially true”. Accused of sexual assault or misconduct by more than 20 other women, Trump also faces trial this month on 34 charges arising from hush-money payments to an adult film star who claimed an affair.
by ti-amie I didn't watch the SOTU. Haven't for awhile. I put on my radio for my twenty minutes of local news and heard a women baby voicing about something. It took me all of three minutes to realize this was the GQP response to the SOTU and my first thought was who taught MTG to baby voice before turning the radio off.
Then I saw all of the responses on Xitter and elsewhere about how bad it was. I also saw a lot of former Evangelicals who say she was using "fundamentalist woman baby voice" and posted a video of the wife of the Speaker of the House in an interview using it as well.
I don't think it was a mistake at all. They wanted to show a "housewife" in her domain, the kitchen, speaking in a voice that shows she is at once submissive to her husband and firm in her beliefs. That she is a sitting Senator, married to a former NFL player who is now a lobbyist and living in a low cost of living state - Alabama - in a McMansion most likely - was not what they wanted their viewers to see. That the image they wanted to project has been ridiculed even by their own members says a lot.
by ashkor87 Yes, those subliminal messages are so important...they were probably trying to appeal to a bunch of dinosaurs, and did a good job of it
by ti-amie Not only was she sending subliminal messages someone - an independent journalist not associated with the NYTimes or WaPo or any major network did his research and guess what he found out about the "raping and trafficking" taking place at the border. It's a bit long but it's worth listening to. there's been no coherent response from her staff.
by ti-amie This is what I thought of when I finished listening to Mr. Katz
by ti-amieKatie Britt’s false linkage of a sex-trafficking case to Joe Biden
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
The Fact Checker
March 9, 2024 at 1:32 p.m. EST
“We know that President Biden didn’t just create this border crisis. He invited it with 94 executive actions in his first 100 days. When I took office, I took a different approach. I traveled to the Del Rio sector of Texas. That’s where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was raped. The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoe box of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end. We wouldn’t be okay with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.”
— Sen. Katie Boyd Britt (R-Ala.), in the Republican response to the State of the Union address, March 7
If you were watching Britt’s speech on Thursday night, you likely would have thought she was talking about a recent victim of sex trafficking who was abused in the United States and suffered because of President Biden’s policies.
If you did, you would have been wrong. Sean Ross, Britt’s communications director, confirmed that she was talking about Karla Jacinto Romero — who has testified before Congress about being forced to work in Mexican brothels from 2004 to 2008. (A viral TikTok by journalist Jonathan Katz first revealed that Britt was speaking about Romero.) In a phone conversation and a statement, Ross disputed that Britt’s language was misleading.
We disagree. Let’s take a look.
The Facts
Britt’s account of Romero’s experience was a centerpiece of her rebuttal to Biden’s address. The way Britt sets up the story, there is no indication that she is talking about a woman who was working in brothels in Mexico during the George W. Bush administration. This is how the passage unfolds.
She first blames Biden for the surge of migrants at the border.
Then she says she visited the border shortly after she took office. That would be 2023.
At length, she details the story of an unnamed victim that she says she met on her trip. The implication is that the woman recently crossed the border — because of “sex trafficking by the cartels.”
She strongly suggests that her abuse took place in the United States: “We wouldn’t be okay with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it.”
She ends by reinforcing that such alleged trafficking is Biden’s fault: “President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.”
But Biden has nothing to do with Romero’s story. As she testified nine years ago, her mother threw her out of her house at age 12 and she “fell prey to a professional pimp.” She says she then spent the next four years in brothels before a regular client helped her escape when she was 16 years old. There is no indication in her story that drug cartels were involved, though Britt said that in the State of the Union response and has made a similar claim on at least one other occasion. Romero was never trafficked to the United States; instead, she says many men who paid to have sex with her were “foreigners visiting my city looking to have sexual interactions with minors like me.”
In a YouTube video, Britt features images of her hugging Romero during her 2023 trip to the border. “If we as leaders of the greatest nation in the world are not fighting to protect the most vulnerable, we are not doing our job,” she said in the video. The implication again is that this happened on Biden’s watch.
When Donald Trump was president, he regularly decried human trafficking that he claimed was happening at the border, including that “thousands of young girls and women” were being smuggled across the border for prostitution. In 2019, we investigated that claim and found no evidence to support it. Most human trafficking prosecutions generally involve legal border crossings, visa fraud and travel into the United States on airplanes. Victim organizations say there are relatively few cases that involve forced kidnapping across the border. This might be one reason Britt regularly cites a case that happened long ago and did not involve crossing the border.
Ross, Britt’s spokesman, said that Romero’s story was indicative of trafficking that is now happening at the border and that should be clear from Britt’s framing in the speech.
He said the reference to a “Third World country” was generic and was not intended to refer to Mexico, which he said is not a Third World country. Third World is a dated Cold War-era term previously used to refer to poor or developing countries. Global South, indicating low income and high poverty, is a more common expression today. Mexico is considered part of the Global South, though it is also a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
In a written statement, Ross said:
“The story Senator Britt told was 100% correct. And there are more innocent victims of that kind of disgusting, brutal trafficking by the cartels than ever before right now. The Biden administration’s policies — the policies in this country that the President falsely claims are humane — have empowered the cartels and acted as a magnet to a historic level of migrants making the dangerous journey to our border. Along that journey, children, women, and men are being subjected to gut-wrenching, heartbreaking horrors in our own backyard. And here at home, the Biden administration’s policies are leading to more and more suffering, including Americans being poisoned by fentanyl and being murdered. These human costs are real, and it’s past time for some on the left to stop pretending otherwise.”
The Pinocchio Test
In a high-profile speech like this, a politician should not mislead voters with emotionally charged language. Romero’s story is tragic and may be evocative of other Mexican girls trapped in the sex trade in that country. But she was not trafficked across the border — and her story has nothing to do with Biden. Britt’s failure to make that clear earns her Four Pinocchios.
by ponchi101 Truth means nothing to the GOP. Nothing.
I said it before. One difference between the GOP and other parties is that the end always justifies the means. And if that means lying, so be it.
They are so alike to the leftist governments of S. America.
by ti-amieAbsolute bloodbath’ at RNC as new leadership loyal to Trump purges staff
Chair Michael Whatley and co-chair Lara Trump move to reorganize the RNC, with an expected cull of 60 staff
Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
Tue 12 Mar 2024 00.02 GMT
Donald Trump’s new leadership team at the Republican National Committee started the process of ousting scores of staffers on Monday night, clearing out its ranks as they prepare to bring the committee under the wing of the Trump 2024 presidential campaign, sources familiar with the matter said.
The RNC is expected to cull about 60 people across the political, data and communications departments. At least five members of the senior staff will be let go and some third-party contracts may also be cancelled. One source familiar with the situation described it as an “absolute bloodbath”.
In ousting large swathes of the RNC, the new chair, Michael Whatley, and the new co-chair, Lara Trump – the former president’s daughter-in-law – moved to reorganize the Republican party’s central committee to fall squarely behind the Trump campaign just days after they were formally elected.
The RNC is being brought under the Trump campaign to such an extent, the sources said, that the firings are mainly to ensure there is no overlap in roles between the RNC and the campaign. The Trump campaign, for instance, already has robust political and communications teams.
And, as ever with Trump’s operations, the firings are part of a strategy to ensure that only staffers committed to Trump and the Maga movement are left at the RNC as Trump tightens his grip on the party ahead of the presidential election in November.
“Chairman Whatley is in the process of evaluating the organization and staff to ensure the building is aligned with his vision of how to win in November,” the new RNC chief operating officer, Sean Cairncross, wrote in emails to the political, data and communications teams that were seen by the Guardian.
“During this process, certain staff are being asked to resign and reapply for a position on the team,” Cairncross wrote. The email added that if staffers chose not to reapply, they would be terminated from the RNC at the end of March.
An RNC spokesperson could not be immediately reached for comment. The news of the firings were first reported by Politico.
The purge at the RNC, coming days after Whatley and Lara Trump were unanimously elected on Friday as the new RNC leaders, has been widely expected for weeks inside the committee as it became increasingly apparent that Trump would force out the previous RNC chair, Ronna McDaniel.
In a speech after his election, Whatley said the RNC would “be the vanguard of a movement that will work tirelessly every single day to elect our nominee, Donald J Trump”, increase Republicans’ slim majority in the House and flip control of the Senate.
Both Whatley and Lara Trump were endorsed by the former president last month after Trump privately met with McDaniel at his Mar-a-Lago club and in effect suggested that she step down after Super Tuesday on 5 March, when 15 states held Republican primaries or caucuses.
At the meeting, Trump did not explicitly ask McDaniel to resign and McDaniel reiterated that she did not want to step down unless Trump asked. But the message was clear hours later when Trump sat for a pre-taped interview on Newsmax and remarked that McDaniel had to go.
McDaniel had come under intense pressure to quit over the RNC’s lackluster fundraising performance, which Trump blamed her for personally. The move to formally replace McDaniel came after Haley, Trump’s last remaining rival, exited the race after Super Tuesday to hand Trump the nomination.
The Guardian has previously reported the fundraising was becoming such an issue that top former RNC officials wanted Nikki Haley to drop out of the race weeks before she did so that it could establish a joint fundraising agreement with the Trump campaign to bolster its coffers.
by ti-amie Loyalty oaths and NDA's will be required. Do they really think he cares about down ticket GQPer's or Magats? This is solely to steal funds to help pay his legal bills. That the RNC has liquid assets of around $8.7m right now doesn't matter. It can become a passthrough for illegal donations from overseas.
by ti-amie Resolute Square
@ResoluteSquare
Just heard on MSNBC:
@TheRickWilson on the Trump RNC takeover: "what they've done is like a mafia-type bust out where they take over a business, run up the bills so they can never be paid and when they're done they burn the place down for the insurance money."
"They fired the research staff, communications staff, political staff, outreach staff, the early voting programs, what's left is to move money into the Trump crime family. What's left is just the bare-bones, to keep doing the fundraising, put it under the RNC hat, and ship it all off to Trump."
"This is now not a political party. It's a shell corporation set up to fund Trump's legal defenses. It's burning down 30 years of a political machine that wins elections. Now Trump has burned that down to the ground. For money."
by ashkor87 Sounds pretty accurate to me
by ponchi101 Uhm. Burnt down for MONEY is not totally accurate. There is a difference between MONEY and POWER. Just look at Putin. He is certainly the richest man in the world because his POWER translates into all the money in Russia.
And I am sure that Tiny, as stupid as he is, can see that. That political power means money, but also much more.
POWER, in dictatorships, means money. And a whole lot more.
by ti-amieTrump predicts ‘bloodbath’ if he loses election and claims ‘Biden beat Obama’
Republican candidate insists at Ohio rally that Biden had beaten ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ in elections that never took place
Richard Luscombe and agencies
Sun 17 Mar 2024 18.47 CET
Joe Biden tore into Donald Trump’s mental stability at a dinner in Washington DC on Saturday – just as the former president was making verbal gaffes at a campaign rally in Ohio as well as predicting a “bloodbath” if he met defeat in November’s election.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, confused the crowd at an appearance in Vandalia by insisting that Biden had beaten “Barack Hussein Obama” in elections nationally that never took place.
Freewheeling during a speech in which his teleprompters were seemingly disabled by high winds, Trump – a frequent critic of the 81-year-old Biden’s age and mental acuity – struggled to pronounce the words “bite” and “largest”. And he left the crowd scratching their heads over the reference to Obama, whom Biden served as vice-president from 2009 to 2017 before taking the Oval Office from Trump in 2020.
“You know what’s interesting? Joe Biden won against Barack Hussein Obama. Has anyone ever heard of him? Every swing state, Biden beat Obama but in every other state, he got killed,” Trump said.
Biden joked about Trump’s mental fitness at Saturday night’s Gridiron club dinner, a traditional “roast” attended by politicians and journalists dating to the 1880s.
“One candidate is too old and mentally unfit to be president. The other one is me,” the president said.
“Don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama, that’s what he said,” Biden added, referring to several previous occasions when the 77-year-old Trump has confused the incumbent and presumptive 2024 opponent with his Democratic predecessor.
Trump’s Ohio address, ostensibly in support of Bernie Moreno, his preferred candidate in the state’s Republican Senate primary Tuesday, also saw the former president returning to darker, more apocalyptic themes.
The US, Trump insisted during comments about the auto workers and the car industry, was headed for “a bloodbath” if he was rejected again at the polls in favor of Biden.
“Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath. That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country,” he said, without clarifying what he meant.
Later, he added: “I don’t think you’re going to have another election in this country, if we don’t win this election… certainly not an election that’s meaningful.”
His comments prompted a statement from Biden’s re-election campaign that said “this is who Donald Trump is”.
A Biden campaign spokesperson James Singer said: “He wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge.”
Two Republicans who have been critical of Trump, however, came to his defense. Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday: “You could also look at the definition of bloodbath and it could be an economic disaster. And so if he’s speaking about the auto industry, in particular in Ohio, then you can take it a little bit more context.”
Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice-president who this week refused to endorse his candidacy, made a similar argument. “[He] was clearly talking about the impact of imports devastating the American automotive industry,” Pence said on CBS’s Face the Nation.
Also during his speech, repeating unsubstantiated claims that foreign countries were “emptying” their prisons and mental institutions into the US, Trump took a familiar swipe at immigrants, calling some of them “animals”.
“I don’t know if you call them people. They’re not people, in my opinion,” he said. “But I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left says that’s a terrible thing to say.”
Moreno, a Colombian immigrant who made a fortune from his car dealerships, joined in the nationalistic rhetoric, demanding that anybody who comes to the US learned to speak English.
“We don’t need to vote in five different languages. We learn the language,” he said. “It means you assimilate. You become part of America – America doesn’t become part of you.”
At other times during an often wild 90-minute address, Trump tossed out personal insults at political opponents. He called Biden “stupid” several times; made a vulgar reference to the first name of Fani Willis, the Georgia prosecutor in his criminal case for trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat; called Democratic California governor Gavin Newsom “new-scum”; and attacked the personal appearance of JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, the New York Times reported.
He also attempted to blame the installation of the troublesome teleprompters on Biden, and he urged the event organizers not to pay the contractors.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic former US House speaker, condemned Trump’s comments during a Sunday appearance on CNN’s State of the Union.
“You wouldn’t even allow him in your house, much less then the White House,” she said.
“We just have to win this election, because he’s even predicting a bloodbath. What does that mean, he’s going to exact a bloodbath? There’s something wrong here. How respectful I am of the American people and their goodness, but how much more do they have to see from him to understand that this isn’t what our country is about?”
Biden echoed the warnings during the non-comedic section of his address to the Gridiron dinner, attended by more than 650 guests, continuing to refuse to use Trump’s name, and calling him only “my predecessor”.
“We live in an unprecedented moment in democracy,” Biden said. “An unprecedented moment for history. Democracy and freedom are literally under attack. [Russian president Vladimir] Putin’s on the march in Europe. My predecessor bows down to him and says to him, ‘do whatever the hell you want.’
“Freedom is under assault. The freedom to vote, the freedom to choose and so much more. The lies about the 2020 election, the plot to overturn it, to embrace the January 6 insurrection, pose the greatest threat to our democracy since the civil war.
“We live in an unprecedented moment of democracy, an unprecedented moment in history. Democracy and freedom are literally under attack.”
Trump-backed Senate candidate faces GOP worries that he could be linked to adult website profile
BY BRIAN SLODYSKO AND AARON KESSLER
Updated 10:30 PM EDT, March 14, 2024
Share
WASHINGTON (AP) — For Republicans eager to regain the Senate majority this year, Ohio offers a prime opportunity to pick up a critical seat.
But ahead of Tuesday’s primary election, there’s mounting anxiety inside the GOP that Bernie Moreno may emerge with the nomination. After vaulting into the top tier of contenders with a coveted endorsement from Donald Trump, Moreno — who has shifted from a public supporter of LGBTQ rights to a hardline opponent — is confronting questions about the existence of a 2008 profile seeking “Men for 1-on-1 sex” on a casual sexual encounters website called Adult Friend Finder.
“Hi, looking for young guys to have fun with while traveling,” reads a caption on a photo-less profile under the username “nardo19672,” according to an Associated Press review of records made public through a massive and well-publicized data breach of the website. Records also show the profile was last accessed about six hours after it was created.
The AP review confirmed that someone with access to Moreno’s email account created the profile, though the AP could not definitively confirm whether it was created by Moreno himself. Questions about the profile have circulated in GOP circles for the past month. On Thursday evening, two days after the AP first asked Moreno’s campaign about the account, the candidate’s lawyer said a former intern created the account as a prank. The lawyer provided a statement from the intern, Dan Ricci, who said he created the account as “part of a juvenile prank.”
“I am thoroughly embarrassed by an aborted prank I pulled on my friend, and former boss, Bernie Moreno, nearly two decades ago,” Ricci said. The AP couldn’t independently confirm Ricci’s statement and he didn’t immediately respond to messages left for him on multiple phone numbers listed to him. He donated $6,599 to Moreno’s campaign last year, according to campaign finance records.
Moreno’s lawyer, Charles Harder, insisted Moreno “had nothing to do with the AFF account.”
(...)
The dynamics have raised the stakes for Trump, who sided with Moreno in a crowded field that includes Secretary of State Frank LaRose and state Sen. Matt Dolan. Trump is scheduled to appear alongside Moreno on Saturday at a rally in Dayton, Ohio.
In a statement, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung blamed the media for being “obsessed with anyone who supports the America First movement.”
GOP frustration
Moreno’s potential vulnerability has sparked frustration among senior Republican operatives and elected officials in Washington and Ohio, according to seven people who are directly familiar with conversations about how to address the matter. The people requested anonymity to avoid running afoul of Trump and his allies. They described concerns surrounding Moreno’s candidacy as so acute that some party officials sought a review of data to determine his potential involvement.
That review, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, linked the profile to Moreno’s work email address.
The AP’s independent review reached the same conclusion. The AP obtained data from the Adult Friend Finder leak as well as information that remains publicly accessible on the company’s website. An analysis of those records show the profile was created and authenticated by someone who had access to Moreno’s work email account.
Beyond the work email, the profile lists Moreno’s correct date of birth, while geolocation data indicates that the account was set up for use in a part of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where property records show Moreno’s parents owned a home at the time. The account’s username — nardo19672 — appears to refer to Moreno’s full first name, Bernardo, as well as the year and month of his birth in February 1967.
“This is a telling example of how this data doesn’t just go away,” said Jake Williams, a prominent cybersecurity researcher and a former National Security Agency offensive hacker who independently confirmed that Moreno’s work email address was included in a copy of the leaked data from Adult Friend Finder.
Harder also provided a statement from Helder Rosa, a former vice president for Bernie Moreno Companies, that said Ricci was an intern in November 2008 and that people in such roles had duties that included checking emails. Rosa has donated $12,400 to Moreno’s two campaigns for Senate, according to campaign finance records. He didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Moreno, 57, was born in Colombia to a wealthy family before immigrating to Florida as a child and becoming a U.S. citizen at the age of 18, according to a biography on his website. He purchased his first car dealership in 2005 and used his wealth to build an empire that came to include high-end dealerships in multiple states.
Shifting views
And before Moreno began articulating anti-LGBTQ views during his runs for public office, he made comments that seemed to reflect acceptance of homosexuality.
When Cleveland and Akron won their bid to host the 2014 Gay Games, an Olympics-like international competition featuring LGBTQ athletes, Moreno was an enthusiastic supporter while his auto dealership company was a financial sponsor, according to an opinion article he wrote for the business publication Crain’s Cleveland Business.
“A successful Gay Games would go a long way toward boosting our images as cities that welcome all,” Moreno wrote while issuing a call for northeast Ohio’s philanthropic community to rally behind the event. “They need help to put them on. Hosting a complex multi-venue event requires a network of financial supporters and volunteers. It must be a community effort.”
During a 2016 question and answer session posted to his company’s YouTube page, Moreno noted that his eldest son is gay, while crediting the TV show “Modern Family” with changing perceptions about same-sex marriage.
“We watched these two guys and, we say: ’You know what? They’re good guys, they’re great people. ... They are not this distorted thing that is out there.’ And I think those are the kinds of ways that you can break down stereotypes,” Moreno said during the event.
When fliers appeared on the campus of Cleveland State University in October 2017 urging gay and transgender students to commit suicide, Moreno, who was then chairman of the school’s board of trustees, was the leading signer of a letter condemning the “abhorrent message” as “an attack on our whole campus.”
As recently as 2020, his companies were included on a list of Ohio businesses that supported a law banning discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Leaders of Equality Ohio, a leading LGBTQ rights group in the state, said Moreno joined the campaign supporting the legislation after a conversation with the organization’s leadership in 2017 during event promoting the bill.
But that all appeared to change when Moreno first ran for Senate in 2021 before bowing out of the race early. He began to distance himself from his past activism, professing to be unfamiliar with the anti-discrimination legislation, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported at the time.
During his current Senate campaign, Moreno has accused advocates for LGBTQ rights of advancing a “radical” agenda of “indoctrination.” He is endorsed by Ohio Value Voters, a group that opposes LGBTQ rights, including same-sex marriage. And his campaign’s social media accounts have blasted his opponents, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and State Sen. Matt Dolan, as supporters of a “radical trans agenda.”
A recent TV ad paid for by Buckeye Values, a pro-Moreno super PAC, superimposes a picture of LaRose over a rainbow flag while attacking him as “a champion for trans equality.” The ad cites LaRose’s past endorsement for a bill — which Moreno’s company previously supported — that would have banned discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.
“Can you trust Frank LaRose?” a narrator asks, while also criticizing LaRose for making favorable statements in the past about Equality Ohio, a prominent gay rights group. Moreno supported the same legislation through his companies.
Donald Trump Jr. later posted the ad to X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter, stating “I have no doubt” Ohio voters will elect “the real conservative @berniemoreno over leftwing, pro-trans Frank LaRose.”
Moreno’s shifting rhetoric on LGBTQ issues “is a real shame,” said Maria Bruno, the public policy director for Equality Ohio, which advocates for LGBTQ rights. ”Anyone who is going to be compromising their value system just to win an election, they lose a lot of credibility.”
___
Associated Press data journalist Larry Fenn contributed to this report from New York.
by ponchi101 Could be linked.
That is pretty inconclusive jargon.
by ti-amie Aside from the fun of watching MAGAt's lose their minds any ideas on the why of this? I know Sunak is in trouble but what else is going on?
by ti-amie
by ti-amieTrump’s invite to major donors prioritizes the committee paying his legal bills over the RNC
BY MICHELLE L. PRICE
Updated 2:24 PM EDT, March 21, 2024
NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s new joint fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee directs donations to his campaign and a political action committee that pays the former president’s legal bills before the RNC gets a cut, according to a fundraising invitation obtained by The Associated Press.
The unorthodox diversion of funds to the Save America PAC makes it more likely that Republican donors could see their money go to Trump’s lawyers, who have received at least $76 million over the last two years to defend him against four felony indictments and multiple civil cases. Some Republicans are already troubled that Trump’s takeover of the RNC could shortchange the cash-strapped party.
Trump has invited high-dollar donors to Palm Beach, Florida, for an April 6 fundraiser that comes as his fundraising is well behind President Joe Biden and national Democrats. The invitation’s fine print says donations to the Trump 47 Committee will first be used to give the maximum amount allowed under federal law to Trump’s campaign. Anything left over from the donation next goes toward a maximum contribution to Save America, and then anything left from there goes to the RNC and then to state political parties.
Adav Noti, the executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington, said that is a break from fundraising norms. Usually, Noti said, candidates prioritize raising cash that can be spent directly on campaign activity. Save America, on the other hand, is structured as a “leadership PAC” and thus barred from spending directly on Trump’s own campaign activities. The group devoted 84% of its spending to Trump’s legal costs as of February.
“The reason most candidates don’t do this is because the hardest money to raise is money that can be spent directly on the campaign,” said Noti, a former staff attorney for the Federal Election Commission. “No other candidate has used a leadership PAC the way the Trump campaign has.”
Representatives for the Trump campaign did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Trump’s handpicked leadership team for the RNC includes his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, who is the committee’s co-chair, and Chris LaCivita, who serves effectively as one of two campaign managers for the Trump campaign and is now also taking on a chief of staff role at the RNC.
Lara Trump in February said she thought Republican voters would like to see the RNC pay Trump’s legal fees.
But shortly before the leadership change was voted in at the RNC, LaCivita told the AP in an interview that “not a penny of the RNC’s money or, for that matter, the campaign’s money has gone or will go to pay legal fees,” he said.
Before Trump was a candidate, the RNC was paying some of his legal bills for cases in New York that began when he was president, The Washington Post reported. Former Chair Ronna McDaniel, who was ousted this month, said in 2022 that the RNC would stop paying once Trump became a candidate.
The new arrangement doesn’t direct RNC funds to lawyers, but it ensures that when checks are written to the new combined Republican campaign, Trump’s campaign and Save America get paid first.
According to the fine print, any donor who wishes can direct their contribution to be distributed differently. Donors could also bypass the fundraising arrangement and give directly to the RNC or any other entity.
Trump’s political operation is struggling to catch up to Biden on fundraising and organization. His main campaign account and the Save America PAC reported raising a combined $15.9 million in February and ended the month with more than $37 million on hand, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission Wednesday night.
The two committees are key parts of Trump’s fundraising operation but only a portion of the picture. The rest of his fundraising apparatus is scheduled to report updated numbers in April, along with the new Trump 47 Committee formed with the Republican National Committee.
“Trump is in dire need of money to pay his legal fees and he’s draining his PAC and he’s spending huge amounts of money out of his campaign committee,” said Brett Kappel, a longtime campaign finance attorney who has represented both Republicans and Democrats.
Biden’s campaign, meanwhile, said his political operation raised $53 million last month and ended February with $155 million on hand. That includes Biden’s joint fundraising with the Democratic National Committee. The full picture will not be available until April when some of the committees in his political operation are due to file reports.
His main campaign account raised $21 million in February, according to its latest filing with the FEC, and ended the month with $71 million on hand.
As the party’s presumptive nominee, Trump effectively controls the RNC and his political operation can now take advantage of the far higher contribution limits that apply to party committees. While candidates can accept a maximum donation of $3,300, under the joint fundraising agreement, a single donor could sign a check for just over $800,000, while a couple could contribute $1.6 million.
The April 6 fundraiser slated to benefit the Trump 47 Committee lists billionaire investor John Paulson as a host and co-chairs include Robert Bigelow, a Las Vegas-based businessman who had supported Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign; New York grocery billionaire John Catsimatidis; Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment executive and head of the Small Business Administration while Trump was president; casino mogul Steve Wynn; and former Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler.
Guests are asked to contribute $814,600 per person as a “chairman” contributor, which comes with seating at Trump’s table, or $250,000 per person as a “host committee’ contributor. Both options come with a photo opportunity and a personalized copy of Trump’s coffee table book featuring photographs from his administration, ”Our Journey Together.”
Three of Trump’s former rivals for the GOP nomination — South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — are all slated to appear as “special guests.”
Associated Press writer Brian Slodysko in Washington contributed to this report.
by ti-amieRep. Mike Gallagher to resign in April, narrowing House GOP vote margin to 1
By Patrick Svitek and Marianna Sotomayor
Updated March 22, 2024 at 6:05 p.m. EDT|Published March 22, 2024 at 2:39 p.m. EDT
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) announced Friday he will resign effective April 19, leaving the slim House GOP majority with a one-vote margin that will make it even harder to pass legislation.
Under Wisconsin law, Gallagher’s seat is likely to remain vacant until January, with the November general election to determine who wins his seat.
When Gallagher leaves, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will be able to suffer only one defection from his side on party-line votes. The realities of the thin majority were on full display earlier Friday, as the House passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill by a narrow margin.
Gallagher had already announced last month that he would not seek reelection. He said Friday that he made the decision to resign in April after conversations with his family. Gallagher, who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, said in an interview with The Washington Post that he considers himself to be going out on a “high note” because of that assignment.
“I’ve worked closely with House Republican leadership on this timeline and look forward to seeing Speaker Johnson appoint a new chair to carry out the important mission of” the committee, Gallagher said in a statement.
Gallagher informed House GOP leaders of his desire to leave early weeks ago, and they worked with him on his resignation timeline, according to a source familiar with Gallagher’s plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Members of the GOP leadership acknowledged that his decision would affect their already small majority. But they signaled they have learned how to govern within those parameters, the source said, because most legislation is now passed with a two-thirds rather than a simple majority.
Republicans currently have a five-seat majority after Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) resigned Friday, leaving the House earlier than he initially anticipated because he found his majority to be unproductive. Like Gallagher, Buck had also announced he would not seek reelection and then decided to call it quits early.
Currently, only two Republicans can defect to pass any conservative legislation through the chamber on a party-line vote. Once Gallagher leaves in mid-April, that margin goes down to one.
The majority will narrow even further once a Democrat is elected to replace former congressman Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), who also resigned earlier this year. Republicans will not get a reprieve until a Republican is sworn in following a May runoff election to assume the seat former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) held for more than a decade.
The difficulties of the slim majority came to light again with the House votes on the latest spending package. It received 286 votes — 101 from Republicans and the rest from Democrats. Even then, Johnson had to move the bill through suspension of the rules, which require a two-thirds majority to pass, to work around anticipated resistance.
Gallagher has represented Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District since 2017. The district in northeastern Wisconsin is solidly Republican.
Gallagher announced in February that he would not run for another term, saying in a statement that “electoral politics was never supposed to be a career and, trust me, Congress is no place to grow old.”
Earlier in February, Gallagher upset fellow Republicans by opposing the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, which narrowly failed on the first attempt.
Gallagher said in the Post interview that he made his decision to not seek reelection “long before” the Mayorkas vote.
“We have two young daughters and we want to have more kids, and this lifestyle sucks for a young family,” Gallagher said. “That was the main thing.”
The source familiar with Gallagher’s plan said he felt comfortable leaving early after successfully shepherding a bill through the House that could ban TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media platform. He also received assurances from Johnson that the China committee will continue based on the foundations he set.
In picking April 19 as his resignation date, Gallagher appears to avoid triggering a special election to finish his term. Wisconsin law says that election-year congressional vacancies can be filled in a special election if they happen before the second Tuesday in April, which is April 9 this year.
by ti-amie Meanwhile MTG is trying to kick GQP Speaker Johnson out. #shenanigans
by ti-amie Only the best people.
Maddow Blog
@MaddowBlog
"One of Donald Trump’s county campaign chairs in New Hampshire lost his job as a police officer after threatening to kill his colleagues in a shooting spree, murder the department chief and rape the chief’s wife in retaliation for his suspension over his relationship with a high school girl, according to a newly released report from an internal affairs investigation." https://huffpost.com/entry/trump-fired- ... 9df35397ba
by ti-amie Now that women are subject to a law written before Arizona was admitted to the Union here's some info on the person who wrote the bill.
Dave Ryder ❄
@daveryder
Here's William Jones who authored the 1864 Arizona abortion bill.
Some fun facts:
He abandoned his first wife and their children in Missouri.
His second wife was a 12 year old Mexican girl. He abducted her and after a complaint submitted his resignation to President Buchanan before he was fired.
In 1864 (age 49) he married his 3rd wife, a 15 year old girl he abandoned in 1865 when he moved to Hawaii.
This is the guy who wrote the law that millions of Arizona women will be forced to obey.
His life is a series of grifts, and he was known for being a "pursuer of nubile females".
Dave Ryder ❄
@daveryder
Oh there's more: His 4th wife, a 15 year old Hawaiian native, died in Hawaii from smallpox.
He then married his 5th wife, who divorced him less than 2 years later on grounds of multiple instances of adultery by her husband.
by ti-amie Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Breaking: The Senate just voted to reject the first article of impeachment against DHS Secretary Mayorkas, declaring it unconstitutional.
The vote was 51-48. Lisa Murkowski voted present.
Waste of taxpayers money
by ti-amie philip lewis
@Phil_Lewis_
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate dismisses all impeachment charges against Mayorkas, ending GOP push to remove the Cabinet secretary from office.
by ti-amie Alex Isenstadt
@politicoalex
News: The trump campaign is asking downballot Republican candidates for 5% of the proceeds for every fundraising appeal they send out that uses Trump’s name, image and likeness
Molly Jong-Fast
@MollyJongFast
Beginning tomorrow, we ask that all candidates and committees who choose to use President Trump’s name, image, and likeness split a minimum of 5% of all fundraising solicitations to Trump National Committee JFC. This includes but is not limited to sending to the house file, prospecting vendors, and advertising,” Trump co-campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita wrote in the letter, which is dated April 15.
@dannagal
BREAKING: Hours after an Arizona Court orders it to do so, Cochise County, AZ votes 2-0 to certify the election.
)
Just heard on MSNBC: 
❄
