Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Well in this country we do believe in innocent until proven guilty.  Ignoring that fundamental part of this democracy  is just as much a threat to that democracy than any efforts to standardize  elections.  And that is exactly what most of the GOP efforts involve.

  I asked earlier what part of the Georgia rule change would be a threat to democracy.  The best anyone could come up with was water bottles.  So a basic requirement to prevent soliciting, which is very common under most election rules, in other states has suddenly become a threat to democracy.   The law even allows a set up of free water stations.   I guess it’s inhuman to make people grab their own water bottle. 

Right. Read this and get back to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cheney voted with Trump's agenda more often than did Matt Gaetz or Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) who McCarthy and others pushed to assume conference chair responsibilities claiming she wasn't as good for th

Hey, @The Joker, you admit you aren't interested in the "Heather" thread.  Just wondering if you are willing to read this and respond to any of it?  This is her post of last night.   In this mome

Trump and his dipshit fuckwads are solely responsible for the riot. The damage caused by the riot and the response to the riot can be debated. Trump and everyone of his little minions should be in jai

Posted Images

Drastically reducing the number of drop boxes in many states will have an effect, especially if people can’t drop off other’s sealed votes for them. Travel is expensive for many.

Going from 20 boxes in a heavily populated county to one per county in Texas will make a difference, especially when you don’t own a car.

Dropping voters into an “inactive” category if they don’t participate in a national election will quickly eliminate vast swaths of society without their consent. Forcing them to jump through legal hoops to regain their voting “rights”. Funny how the right to own a gun is assumed inherent at all times, but not the right to vote.

Restricting mail in voting, an option which has expanded the number of people voting and their safety in doing so, to a fraction of the population will make a difference.

Eliminating Sunday voting to stop “Souls to the Polls”, specifically reducing the number of black voters makes a difference unless you are white and refuse to see the problem.

In each of these circumstances, changes are made to reduce the number of voters and to make it difficult.

Now all you have to do is insist on voter ID, close some DMVs in minority areas, put their polling stations in the same building where the clan meets, or there is no parking, or is an open air drug market and you can strangle minority voting.

All with the steadfast determination of @the_joker and his ilk to see no evil.

All they have to do is say and do nothing, and evil wins. They are proving the aphorism daily.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Funny how the right to own a gun is assumed inherent at all times, but not the right to vote.

It's a riot.
 

Quote

 

...

As we argued in an amicus brief, we hope New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ends prosecutions like Jose’s. In District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court recognized a constitutional right to possess a firearm in self-defense. Despite those decisions, that right has been a myth for our clients. New York law says that if someone does not first obtain a government license, then they have no Second Amendment right anywhere, both outside and in their own home. That licensing requirement is the key to New York’s ban on firearm possession: It is a pretext whose true purpose is to make firearm possession unlawful. For our clients, it makes the Second Amendment a legal fiction.

In New York State Rifle, however, the court could finally enforce the Second Amendment by invalidating New York’s pretextual licensing regime. The constitutional problems are clear. In New York City, where we practice, the licensing structure allocates total and unilateral discretion to the NYPD to decide whose firearm possession is lawful and whose is a “violent felony.” It charges hefty fees, disproportionately burdening indigent people. And it results in a wildly disparate allocation of licenses, unsurprisingly favoring people who are associated with the police. No part of this gatekeeping structure is consonant with a fundamental constitutional right.

But the problems don’t end there: New York also aggressively and specifically targets Black and Latinx people for firearm possession under the pretext that their possession is unlicensed. As former Mayor Michael Bloomberg explained, the city believes that racially disparate approach is justified. As a result, virtually all — about 96% — of the people arrested by the NYPD for simple firearm possession are Black or Latinx. Thus, while white people throughout the nation amass firearm arsenals even as hobbies, Black and Latinx New Yorkers are arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for simply possessing a single pistol for self-defense. 

In firearm-possession cases, New York’s penal law sweeps broadly. If a firearm is not literally loaded, but ammunition is “possessed … at the same time,” the penal law defines the firearm as “loaded,” anyway. If a firearm is located anywhere in a car other than “upon [a] person,” the penal law presumes that “all persons” in the car possess it. And if a person possesses a firearm without a license, the penal law presumes they possessed it with the “intent to use [it] unlawfully against another.” These broad laws make every simple possession case a “violent felony,” even reaching people who did not actually intend to possess a loaded firearm at all.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Joker said:

It doesn’t say that either, but you are closer.  That you continue to focus on such a minor issue indicates that the whole outrage over the GA voter laws is hype instead of real concern.  If this is all you are worried about then I think the democracy is safe 

That you avoid explaining the need for such a law indicates you don't really see a need, but do not want to go on record opposing something done by your team.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, @The Joker, you admit you aren't interested in the "Heather" thread.  Just wondering if you are willing to read this and respond to any of it?  This is her post of last night.  

In this moment of struggle over voting rights in America, it is important to distinguish between voter fraud, which is vanishingly rare and has not affected the outcome of elections, and election fraud, which is coming to characterize a number of our important elections. 

Voter fraud is about an individual breaking the law and is almost always caught. It is not a threat to democracy.

Election fraud means that people in power have rigged the system so that the will of the voters is overturned. When it happens, it threatens to destroy our nation. 

Now, as the contours of what happened on January 6, 2021, are becoming clearer, they appear to show a number of different schemes to overturn the election through fraud. At least one of those schemes appears to have been a coordinated attempt by members of the Trump administration and sympathizers around the country to overturn our government by committing election fraud. 

As early as November 6, 2020, three days after the presidential election but before it had been decided, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who handled communication with the president, texted with a member of Congress about appointing alternate electors in certain states. Meadows told the lawmaker: “I love it.”

Biden was declared the winner of the election on November 7, 2020. That day, Meadows received an email suggesting “the appointment of alternate slates of electors as part of a ‘direct and collateral attack’ after the election.” 

On December 1, 2020, then–Attorney General William Barr undercut Trump’s claims of voter fraud by telling the Associated Press: “[W]e have not seen fraud on a scale that could have [caused] a different outcome in the election.”

The true electors met in the states on Monday, December 14, 2020, and cast their ballots for Biden’s victory. Their states certified those ballots. 

On the same day, on Fox & Friends, Trump advisor Stephen Miller announced that the campaign would overturn the election results and certify Trump as the winner. “As we speak today,” he said, “an alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote, and we’re going to send those results up to Congress.” Ultimately, fake electors in seven states—New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin—sent fake ballots to Washington. Election law experts dismissed the possibility that these fake electors could accomplish anything; the certified ballots were the true ones. 

That same day, December 14, 2020, Trump announced that Attorney General William Barr was resigning. His last day at work was December 23, 2020. 

Barr’s deputy, Jeffrey A. Rosen, stepped up to become the acting attorney general. Meanwhile, at the Department of Justice, the freshly appointed acting head of the civil division, Jeffrey Clark, circulated a draft letter written to officials in Georgia, dated December 28, 2020, claiming falsely that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the State of Georgia.” The letter attempted to make that charge seem real by calling for an investigation (a technique Republican candidates have used since 1994 to allege voter fraud when they lost elections). The letter claimed that two sets of electors had met “in Georgia and several other States… and that both sets of those ballots have been transmitted to Washington, D.C., to be opened by Vice President Pence.” The letter asked the Republican-dominated Georgia legislature to choose which set of electors was the right one after taking the alleged voter fraud into account.

Clark circulated the draft letter to Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, asking them to agree to it. “I think we should get it out as soon as possible…. Personally, I see no valid downsides to sending out the letter,” he wrote. “I put it together quickly and would want to do a formal cite check before sending but I don't think we should let unnecessary moss grow on this.” Clark told them he wanted to send similar letters to “each relevant state.” 

Several days later, Donoghue responded: “There is no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this.” He rejected Clark’s allegations: “[T]he investigations that I am aware of relate to suspicions of misconduct that are of such a small scale that they simply would not impact the outcome of the Presidential Election.” Later, Rosen wrote “I confirmed again today that I am not prepared to sign such a letter.”

In early January, Clark talked to Trump, who decided to fire Rosen and put Clark into Rosen’s place as acting attorney general. The remaining leaders in the Justice Department promised to resign all together if he did any such thing, and Trump backed down.

If the states themselves could not be used to invalidate the legitimate Biden electors, though, Vice President Mike Pence could. As vice president, Pence would be responsible for counting the states’ certified ballots. Lawyer John Eastman of the conservative Claremont Institute (and former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) wrote a memo suggesting that Pence, “or Senate Pro Tempore [Chuck] Grassley, if Pence recuses himself,” could claim that “because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States.” Rejecting them would mean there were only 454 legitimate votes, and 228 would make up a majority. 

In that scenario, “[t]here are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden,” Eastman wrote. “Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.” 

Eastman’s memo continued: “Howls… from the Democrats…. So Pence says, fine…. [Since]... no candidate has achieved the necessary majority,” the matter goes to the House of Representatives, where each state gets a single vote. “Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations…. Trump is reelected there as well.” 

Eastman concluded: “The main thing… is that Pence should do this without asking for permission…. Let the other side challenge his actions in court,” where he expected the lawsuits would get thrown out because courts refuse to decide political questions. 

The fly in this ointment turned out to be Pence, who, after conferring with advisors, steadfastly refused to act the part he had been assigned, a part that would have made him the leader of an insurrection and the obvious fall guy if things didn’t go as the conspirators had planned. 

He also, though, refused to step aside, although there were clearly plans to make him do so. On January 5, Senator Grassley (R-IA) told a reporter that “we don’t expect [Pence] to be there,” and that he, Grassley, would “be presiding over the Senate.” His staff immediately walked that announcement back, saying it was a “misunderstanding.”  

But Grassley’s statement reveals that the plan was widely known. Senior legal affairs reporter for Politico Kyle Cheney noted this weekend that Pence undercut those pushing him to deal with the fake electors by changing the language that explained what would be counted. The law says that the vice president must introduce all “purported” electoral votes. Pence added to the standard language that had been used for decades, saying that, according to the parliamentarian, the only votes that could be considered “regular in form and authentic” were those that had official state certification. Surely he would not have made such a change unless he felt the need to push back on those who would demand he acknowledge the fake ballots.

Frustrated by the vice president, Trump called on his followers who had planned a violent attack on the Capitol, possibly hoping to put enough pressure on Pence that he would change his mind; or to hold the lawmakers hostage until they agreed to his plan; or to slow down the process enough that the election would go to the House; or to slow it down enough that the Supreme Court, to which he had appointed three justices from whom he expected loyalty, would decide in his favor. At least four times on January 6, Trump tweeted about counting the forged ballots.

Miraculously, the plan failed, but Trump loyalists have been working ever since to make sure a repeat will not fail, passing new laws to suppress Democratic voters and take the counting of electoral votes out of the hands of nonpartisan officials and give it to Trump supporters. 

This weekend, Trump told Republicans in Pennsylvania why he is focusing on races for supervisor of elections in 2022. “We have to be a lot sharper the next time when it comes to counting the vote,” he said. “There’s a famous statement: ‘Sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate,’ and we can’t let that ever, ever happen again. They have to get tougher and smarter.”

Voter fraud in America is vanishingly rare and has not affected the outcome of elections, and it is almost always prosecuted. But Trump loyalists used cries of voter fraud as an excuse to commit election fraud. Whether they will be prosecuted for it is an open question. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

You don't seriously think the Joke can read all that in one go, do you? That's a good month of bathroom reading.

I do think he CAN read it.  I also think he WON'T read it.

He seems to want to remain unknowing of what Ms. Cox Richardson has to say.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

You don't seriously think the Joke can read all that in one go, do you? That's a good month of bathroom reading.

That was Heather 1/17 I posted this morning on the thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I do think he CAN read it.  I also think he WON'T read it.

He seems to want to remain unknowing of what Ms. Cox Richardson has to say.

Your late to the party I read it this morning when Nice linked it.   You will have to wait for my response earning money today :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Your late to the party I read it this morning when Nice linked it.   You will have to wait for my response earning money today :) 

Didn't you dismiss that thread in another post?  I could be wrong, but I thought you did.  Something about me having started it as a fan thread?

And, short of being clairvoyant, how would anyone know you read it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2022 at 10:17 PM, The Joker said:
On 1/3/2022 at 10:14 PM, Bus Driver said:

Heather Cox Richardson.  Check out the thread titled "Heather".  This, along with hundreds of other essays are there.  You could learn some things.

Oh yeah your personal hero worship  thread.  No thanks.  

It was you.  You begged off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

It was you.  You begged off.

 

6 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Didn't you dismiss that thread in another post?  I could be wrong, but I thought you did.  Something about me having started it as a fan thread?

And, short of being clairvoyant, how would anyone know you read it?

The thread yes. The link was in this thread. I clicked on it and read the essay.  I must be the only one that actually reads what others post prior to posting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 

The thread yes. The link was in this thread. I clicked on it and read the essay.  I must be the only one that actually reads what others post prior to posting. 

You indicated no interest in what Ms. Richardson has to offer.  The "Heather" thread is largely a repository of her daily writings, with very, very little commentary from the rest of us.  I don't believe you've offered any comment on her work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Another widely respected source using fascist rather than reicht. So if I've counted correctly, that's everyone in the world except our professional expert.

And said expert sez no other word will do. :P

Watch out for flying spittle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Hey, @The Joker, you admit you aren't interested in the "Heather" thread.  Just wondering if you are willing to read this and respond to any of it?  This is her post of last night.  

In this moment of struggle over voting rights in America, it is important to distinguish between voter fraud, which is vanishingly rare and has not affected the outcome of elections, and election fraud, which is coming to characterize a number of our important elections. 

Voter fraud is about an individual breaking the law and is almost always caught. It is not a threat to democracy.

Election fraud means that people in power have rigged the system so that the will of the voters is overturned. When it happens, it threatens to destroy our nation. 

Now, as the contours of what happened on January 6, 2021, are becoming clearer, they appear to show a number of different schemes to overturn the election through fraud. At least one of those schemes appears to have been a coordinated attempt by members of the Trump administration and sympathizers around the country to overturn our government by committing election fraud. 

As early as November 6, 2020, three days after the presidential election but before it had been decided, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who handled communication with the president, texted with a member of Congress about appointing alternate electors in certain states. Meadows told the lawmaker: “I love it.”

Biden was declared the winner of the election on November 7, 2020. That day, Meadows received an email suggesting “the appointment of alternate slates of electors as part of a ‘direct and collateral attack’ after the election.” 

On December 1, 2020, then–Attorney General William Barr undercut Trump’s claims of voter fraud by telling the Associated Press: “[W]e have not seen fraud on a scale that could have [caused] a different outcome in the election.”

The true electors met in the states on Monday, December 14, 2020, and cast their ballots for Biden’s victory. Their states certified those ballots. 

On the same day, on Fox & Friends, Trump advisor Stephen Miller announced that the campaign would overturn the election results and certify Trump as the winner. “As we speak today,” he said, “an alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote, and we’re going to send those results up to Congress.” Ultimately, fake electors in seven states—New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin—sent fake ballots to Washington. Election law experts dismissed the possibility that these fake electors could accomplish anything; the certified ballots were the true ones. 

That same day, December 14, 2020, Trump announced that Attorney General William Barr was resigning. His last day at work was December 23, 2020. 

Barr’s deputy, Jeffrey A. Rosen, stepped up to become the acting attorney general. Meanwhile, at the Department of Justice, the freshly appointed acting head of the civil division, Jeffrey Clark, circulated a draft letter written to officials in Georgia, dated December 28, 2020, claiming falsely that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the State of Georgia.” The letter attempted to make that charge seem real by calling for an investigation (a technique Republican candidates have used since 1994 to allege voter fraud when they lost elections). The letter claimed that two sets of electors had met “in Georgia and several other States… and that both sets of those ballots have been transmitted to Washington, D.C., to be opened by Vice President Pence.” The letter asked the Republican-dominated Georgia legislature to choose which set of electors was the right one after taking the alleged voter fraud into account.

Clark circulated the draft letter to Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, asking them to agree to it. “I think we should get it out as soon as possible…. Personally, I see no valid downsides to sending out the letter,” he wrote. “I put it together quickly and would want to do a formal cite check before sending but I don't think we should let unnecessary moss grow on this.” Clark told them he wanted to send similar letters to “each relevant state.” 

Several days later, Donoghue responded: “There is no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this.” He rejected Clark’s allegations: “[T]he investigations that I am aware of relate to suspicions of misconduct that are of such a small scale that they simply would not impact the outcome of the Presidential Election.” Later, Rosen wrote “I confirmed again today that I am not prepared to sign such a letter.”

In early January, Clark talked to Trump, who decided to fire Rosen and put Clark into Rosen’s place as acting attorney general. The remaining leaders in the Justice Department promised to resign all together if he did any such thing, and Trump backed down.

If the states themselves could not be used to invalidate the legitimate Biden electors, though, Vice President Mike Pence could. As vice president, Pence would be responsible for counting the states’ certified ballots. Lawyer John Eastman of the conservative Claremont Institute (and former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) wrote a memo suggesting that Pence, “or Senate Pro Tempore [Chuck] Grassley, if Pence recuses himself,” could claim that “because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States.” Rejecting them would mean there were only 454 legitimate votes, and 228 would make up a majority. 

In that scenario, “[t]here are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden,” Eastman wrote. “Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.” 

Eastman’s memo continued: “Howls… from the Democrats…. So Pence says, fine…. [Since]... no candidate has achieved the necessary majority,” the matter goes to the House of Representatives, where each state gets a single vote. “Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations…. Trump is reelected there as well.” 

Eastman concluded: “The main thing… is that Pence should do this without asking for permission…. Let the other side challenge his actions in court,” where he expected the lawsuits would get thrown out because courts refuse to decide political questions. 

The fly in this ointment turned out to be Pence, who, after conferring with advisors, steadfastly refused to act the part he had been assigned, a part that would have made him the leader of an insurrection and the obvious fall guy if things didn’t go as the conspirators had planned. 

He also, though, refused to step aside, although there were clearly plans to make him do so. On January 5, Senator Grassley (R-IA) told a reporter that “we don’t expect [Pence] to be there,” and that he, Grassley, would “be presiding over the Senate.” His staff immediately walked that announcement back, saying it was a “misunderstanding.”  

But Grassley’s statement reveals that the plan was widely known. Senior legal affairs reporter for Politico Kyle Cheney noted this weekend that Pence undercut those pushing him to deal with the fake electors by changing the language that explained what would be counted. The law says that the vice president must introduce all “purported” electoral votes. Pence added to the standard language that had been used for decades, saying that, according to the parliamentarian, the only votes that could be considered “regular in form and authentic” were those that had official state certification. Surely he would not have made such a change unless he felt the need to push back on those who would demand he acknowledge the fake ballots.

Frustrated by the vice president, Trump called on his followers who had planned a violent attack on the Capitol, possibly hoping to put enough pressure on Pence that he would change his mind; or to hold the lawmakers hostage until they agreed to his plan; or to slow down the process enough that the election would go to the House; or to slow it down enough that the Supreme Court, to which he had appointed three justices from whom he expected loyalty, would decide in his favor. At least four times on January 6, Trump tweeted about counting the forged ballots.

Miraculously, the plan failed, but Trump loyalists have been working ever since to make sure a repeat will not fail, passing new laws to suppress Democratic voters and take the counting of electoral votes out of the hands of nonpartisan officials and give it to Trump supporters. 

This weekend, Trump told Republicans in Pennsylvania why he is focusing on races for supervisor of elections in 2022. “We have to be a lot sharper the next time when it comes to counting the vote,” he said. “There’s a famous statement: ‘Sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate,’ and we can’t let that ever, ever happen again. They have to get tougher and smarter.”

Voter fraud in America is vanishingly rare and has not affected the outcome of elections, and it is almost always prosecuted. But Trump loyalists used cries of voter fraud as an excuse to commit election fraud. Whether they will be prosecuted for it is an open question. 

The one quibble I have with that is casting Grassley as being in on the scam, as in, willing to abet it. At the time I recall the Trump team floating the idea that Pence would refuse to show up at all, perhaps because they believed that if Pence wouldn't cooperate they could at least talk him into not showing up.  At that time I recall Grassley saying that wouldn't be a problem, the procedure would go on without Pence, and he would preside. 

  By the way the Trumps reacted, they seem to have believed Grassley would do the same as Pence, so that was a no-go. The rumors they had been floating about Pence not showing up disappeared.

 So far, there has been no mention from the 1/6 committee or the DOJ of Grassley being part of the plot. He was very probably aware of it, but most likely ol' Chuck was of the same opinion as Pence on the matter.  His statement that he would preside doesn't appear to have been viewed as good news by the Trumps.     

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mark K said:

The one quibble I have with that is casting Grassley as being in on the scam, as in, willing to abet it. At the time I recall the Trump team floating the idea that Pence would refuse to show up at all, perhaps because they believed that if Pence wouldn't cooperate they could at least talk him into not showing up.  At that time I recall Grassley saying that wouldn't be a problem, the procedure would go on without Pence, and he would preside. 

  By the way the Trumps reacted, they seem to have believed Grassley would do the same as Pence, so that was a no-go. The rumors they had been floating about Pence not showing up disappeared.

 So far, there has been no mention from the 1/6 committee or the DOJ of Grassley being part of the plot. He was very probably aware of it, but most likely ol' Chuck was of the same opinion as Pence on the matter.  His statement that he would preside doesn't appear to have been viewed as good news by the Trumps.     

  

There is a new Seth Abramson article that explores the Grassley question. It's paywalled, so I'll just put up a couple of the items.

Quote

(1) Grassley’s January 5 statement that Pence would not be overseeing the certification of the 2020 election was definitive and unambiguous.

Grassley’s statement, The Hill reported at the time, “sent shock waves” through D.C., and did so on the eve of what would turn out to be the worst attack on Washington since the American Civil War. Grassley’s claim caused “chaos” in the nation’s capital, wrote The Hill, forcing reporters to suddenly “grapple with [the question of] whether Pence had pulled out of the joint session”—and in effect giving Pence an opportunity to choose that option if he hadn’t been inclined to do so previously, it having been laid so neatly on the table for him by an esteemed senior member of the Republican Party.

Remember that Grassley made his statement on Insurrection Eve—January 5, 2021—a day on which the GOP congressional caucus was meeting in groups large and small to discuss one man in particular: Mike Pence. Pence’s intentions for January 6 were such a topic of conversation in GOP circles and nationally that Trump repeatedly spoke of them in speeches and on Twitter in December 2020 and early January 2021, as did so many of the Trump acolytes interviewed on television, radio, and podcast during the two weeks before the insurrection. So when Grassley chose to speak to national media about Pence on January 5, he did so knowing he was speaking on the hottest political topic in the United States. Indeed, he couldn’t have chosen—and it was, as we’ll see, very much a choice—a more sensitive topic to speak on, so the notion that he would have done so casually or carelessly is generally and rightly now deemed preposterous.

With all this in mind, here’s what well-respected domestic-politics media outlet Roll Call reported immediately after speaking with Grassley on January 5, 2021 (keeping in mind that the outlet’s beat—its special focus—isn’t just Washington politics generally but statements made by top members of Congress specifically): “Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the Senate president pro tempore, says he and not Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the certification of Electoral College votes [on January 6].”

Roll Call expressed no confusion at all about what it’d been told by Senator Grassley.

(2) Grassley didn’t just say that he would be overseeing the certification of Biden’s victory instead of Pence, he explained why he’d be doing so.

Given that Grassley ultimately did an about-face regarding his statement on Pence, post-January 6 discourse about what he initially said has, not surprisingly, focused on whether it could’ve been misinterpreted by a respected national media outlet whose professional focus is accurately reporting things said by members of Congress (and was, on January 5, issuing a report on the most important topic—political or otherwise—in America on that day).

The fact that Grassley not only said he’d be taking Pence’s place but also explained why and did so with precision underscores that he wasn’t shooting from the hip in his first statement—not that he would’ve been, anyway, on a matter of such importance, and for that matter one he’d been discussing with the rest of his congressional caucus for the 24 hours preceding his statement.

Roll Call quotes Grassley as saying, of Pence’s presence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6—the most important day of Pence’s political life to that point—“We [the Republican caucus in Congress] don’t expect [Pence] to be there [at the Capitol on January 6].”

Grassley’s investment in this question—and in getting its answer correct—wasn’t just academic. Indeed, it would’ve been greater than almost any other Republican senator in Congress, because if Pence didn’t appear at the Capitol on January 6, Grassley would be obligated to perform certain historic functions that he hadn’t up to that point anticipated having to perform. There is no plausible scenario under which Grassley would’ve spoken on this issue without getting the best possible intelligence on it first.

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/new-the-coming-collapse-of-donald-e81

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we have this interesting quote. Are the 1/6 committee members starting to feel a little trepidatious? I hope not. The Republicans are going to fuck them over as much as they can regardless of what the 1/6 folks do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

There is a new Seth Abramson article that explores the Grassley question. It's paywalled, so I'll just put up a couple of the items.

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/new-the-coming-collapse-of-donald-e81

It would be more accurate to assert there is no possible scenario under which Grassley would've mentioned this without somebody telling him Pence wouldn't be there.  

Abramson is a sensationalist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark K said:

It would be more accurate to assert there is no possible scenario under which Grassley would've mentioned this without somebody telling him Pence wouldn't be there.  

Abramson is a sensationalist. 

He may be, but a lot of the things he writes about have proven true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mark K said:
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

There is a new Seth Abramson article that explores the Grassley question. It's paywalled, so I'll just put up a couple of the items.

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/new-the-coming-collapse-of-donald-e81

It would be more accurate to assert there is no possible scenario under which Grassley would've mentioned this without somebody telling him Pence wouldn't be there.  

Abramson is a sensationalist. 

There was a report a while back that Pence had had his access codes cancelled, and that he and his security detail were locked out of gov't facilities a few days before Jan 6th.

It's interesting that Grassely said he would preside, indicating that he had some prior knowledge about Pence's absence, and that it's interpreted that he also would not be going along with the coup. I had gotten the impression from news that he was planning to try to install Trump if he presided.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

There was a report a while back that Pence had had his access codes cancelled, and that he and his security detail were locked out of gov't facilities a few days before Jan 6th.

It's interesting that Grassely said he would preside, indicating that he had some prior knowledge about Pence's absence, and that it's interpreted that he also would not be going along with the coup. I had gotten the impression from news that he was planning to try to install Trump if he presided.

- DSK

That's the impression I'm pushing back on. Grassley's actions do not speak to whether he planned to abet the crime or planned to do what Pence was in being put in the doghouse for, but some journalists think they do. However, that the administration stopped the rumor mongering that Pence would not show up does not indicate faith in Grassley, it indicates the opposite.    

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2022 at 2:14 PM, βhyde said:

We have an actual recording of shitstain strong arming the Georgia SoS to change the election results. That's illegal and everyone knows it. Why hasn't he been arrested? What fucking more does the prosecutor need? Arrest the mf'er, put him in front of a jury and play the damn recording. Call the Georgia SoS to the stand and have him point at the guy who did it. That would be shitstain. This is complete bullshit. An arrest warrant should have been ready on 1/21/21.

I am depressed.

Because if the jury are Trumpaloos they will not find him guilty...and then he and they will feel empowered again. Better to let him fester in a pool of stupid so that his enablers/voters gradually sour to his form of politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Perhaps no provision in the Georgia law has received more attention than this one, which effectively bars third-party groups or anyone else who is not an election worker from providing food and water to voters waiting in line. Republicans defended the provision, saying it is enforceable only within a 150-foot radius of polling places. Civil rights groups note that it also prevents assistance “within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.”

Long lines for voting in Georgia are an unfortunate reality, and are often found in the poorer, densely populated communities that tend to vote Democratic. During the primary election last June, when temperatures hovered above 80 degrees with high humidity, multiple voting locations across the state had lines in which voters waited more than two hours.

Numerous studies have shown that long lines deter people from voting. According to research by the Bipartisan Policy Center, an independent research group, over 560,000 voters did not cast ballots in 2016 “because of problems related to polling place management, including long lines.” In 2014, Stephen Pettigrew, then a Ph.D. candidate in Harvard’s department of government, conducted a study that found that more than 200,000 voters did not vote in the midterm elections that year because they had faced long lines during the 2012 election.

The new law does make it clear that it is legal for voters to drink from a water fountain, if one exists along the line to vote and provided they get the water themselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html

At my polling booth there are volunteers cooking and serving sausages on bread and selling drinks at the door. Clearly my voting rights have been impinged...but I don't know how.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ncik said:

At my polling booth there are volunteers cooking and serving sausages on bread and selling drinks at the door. Clearly my voting rights have been impinged...but I don't know how.

Where do you live? I’m moving

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jerseyguy said:
21 minutes ago, Ncik said:

At my polling booth there are volunteers cooking and serving sausages on bread and selling drinks at the door. Clearly my voting rights have been impinged...but I don't know how.

Where do you live? I’m moving

The little old ladies who run our polling place have been known to give cookies to people if you're nice to them and it's not too busy.

That's probably illegal but nobody is ever going to complain.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Where do you live? I’m moving

Somewhere that is slowly turning into USA. Arguably we had a modern populist politician well before TFG...but she went to jail for a while, just to set her straight, but the conviction was overturned and she's back in parliament with the same schtick, but different tune.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The little old ladies who run our polling place have been known to give cookies to people if you're nice to them and it's not too busy.

That's probably illegal but nobody is ever going to complain.

- DSK

in 2016 the little old lady (And yes, it's true, they generally are little old ladies) Who asked for my address, and name got whacked by the little old lady sitting next to her. "Damnnit Lucy! You know Lefty! You were his 3rd grade teacher, and he's lived 3 houses down from you for the last 16 years!"

Lucy flipped the ledger book open and made some check marks. "You can go on now Lefty..... Grace, you do that again, I'm gonna call the cop on you!"

Grace starred at her and said: "Go ahead, he's my grandson. Who do you thinks gonna go out of here in cuffs!?"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Archives can now release the records to the committee.

6FD85362-30CE-42E5-B514-E2AAB70B727D.png

That fucker Thomas dissented.  I guess the rest of the Elk were to embarrassed to go that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

That fucker Thomas dissented.  I guess the rest of the Elk were to embarrassed to go that far.

Did he have Ginni write it in for him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Another committee case. Don Jr.? Kim G?

 

Plaintiff further asserts that public disclosure of his/her name could lead to being “criticized relentlessly.” 

Let the relentless criticism begin....

Makes ya wonder who has been trying to fly under the radar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Looks like the committee has some reading to do...700 pages of TFG's White House logs ordered released by 8 communists on the SCOTUS.

Why oh why didn't Neil, Amy and beer-guy do their jobs? They were all nobodies before I made them judges. So unfair!

- probable Donald J Trump quote this evening

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Plaintiff further asserts that public disclosure of his/her name could lead to being “criticized relentlessly.” 

Let the relentless criticism begin....

Makes ya wonder who has been trying to fly under the radar.

I'll put $5 on MTG... no, Boebert. It's a tossup. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

Plaintiff further asserts that public disclosure of his/her name could lead to being “criticized relentlessly.” 

Let the relentless criticism begin....

Makes ya wonder who has been trying to fly under the radar.

When you're trying to save democracy, criticism could be your undoing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

3E6F35EE-72DD-425C-92BF-EE03BA84E9C8.jpeg

What are they going to find?

My hope is a smoking gun statement from TFG such as..."Are the militias onboard with getting into the Capitol?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best part is that so many of the other bullshit delay lawsuits were based on Trump’s bs privilege claims, which just went poof. So long coverup. 
 

Only the Justice whose wife contributed to the 1/6 fundraising voted to hear it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

...

Only the Justice whose wife contributed to the 1/6 fundraising voted to hear it. 

But that was entirely predictable. Thomas has been bought for a very long time. And he apparently doesn't give a crap about his legacy. (A few other SCJs fall into that category as well)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice for life, why would he care? How the hell was that ever a good idea to appoint political hacks to the highest court in the land? Especially when they only have to continue breathing to stay on the court. I think a few of them need to go hunting with Dick Cheney.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The best part is that so many of the other bullshit delay lawsuits were based on Trump’s bs privilege claims, which just went poof. So long coverup. 
 

Only the Justice whose wife contributed to the 1/6 fundraising voted to hear it. 

You make that sound nefarious. Tom will be along shortly to sternly point out that the Justice in question, who I might add is very strongly on the 2A, was simply trying to keep an open mind, a difficult thing in these partisan times. How was Thomas to know after the fact that his wife's beforehand support could have any effect on a case that he would see?

Link to post
Share on other sites

J Thomas needn't even think about any legacy. He came on 30 years ago in a creepy pubic hair on coke can mode that he termed a high tech lynching after a long career sucking on the public teat, and kept his mouth shut and lips locked on teat ever since. He's known for nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

J Thomas needn't even think about any legacy. He came on 30 years ago in a creepy pubic hair on coke can mode that he termed a high tech lynching after a long career sucking on the public teat, and kept his mouth shut and lips locked on teat ever since. He's known for nothing.

Oh, Tom is not going to take kindly to you disparaging Justice Thomas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Skip the "ask".  Issue the subpoena.

Yep. Save a couple of weeks. 

Tighter by the day. If, by chance, DOJ makes a real hit ... there's still the problem of getting the word out to the faithful without Fox's help.   Maybe those repetitive ads run around "primetime" shows will work but that's the secondary challenge and no small thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next up?

Jan. 6 Committee Asks Ivanka Trump to Cooperate in Inquiry

 

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol sent a letter on Thursday to Ivanka Trump, the daughter of former President Donald J. Trump, seeking her cooperation with its inquiry.

The letter to Ms. Trump, who served as one of the president’s senior advisers, comes after Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the Jan. 6 select committee, said the panel had gathered evidence that Ms. Trump had implored her father to call off the violence as a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol.

“We know his daughter — we have firsthand testimony — that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence,” Ms. Cheney said in an interview on ABC News this month.

The letter is the latest step that the committee has taken to obtain information from Mr. Trump’s family about the events that led up to the Capitol riot. The panel has also sought logs of phone calls and text messages between the former president’s son Eric Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle, the girlfriend of another son, Donald Trump Jr., according to CNN.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/us/politics/jan-6-committee-ivanka-trump.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Oh, Tom is not going to take kindly to you disparaging Justice Thomas.

:lol:  Mr. Regurgitation 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Another layer of the onion gets peeled off….  Will the smart one throw the dumb ones under the bus? 

She'll flip like a Russian gymnast.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Another layer of the onion gets peeled off….  Will the smart one throw the dumb ones under the bus? 

She has her eye on the prize...  This could go ether way depending on if she plays the sweet daughter just trying to control the maniac or the strong repub pick for the top spot...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Another layer of the onion gets peeled off….  Will the smart one throw the dumb ones under the bus? 

 

Please name me just one "smart one", on this ship of fools?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Her idea of being the first Female President may be just out of reach.  Maybe now

it will have to be Jared as the first female president.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/07/ivanka-trump-wants-to-be-the-first-female-us-president-perhaps-she-already-is-

Wolff writes that the couple have “made an earnest deal” that Ivanka will run for president before Jared. “The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton; it would be Ivanka Trump.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

At least Ivanka didn't run a pedophile ring from the basement of a pizza restaurant. And she's way too pretty to use email.

She’s the smart one.  Used whatsapp and encrypted messaging to try and hide her crimes.  Unfortunately for her she’s the major point of contact for Deutsche Bank and they definitely use email.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best part of Ivanka’s “invitation” is that it is clear that the committee already knows the truth about what happened (because they started low and worked their way up the chain instead of starting at the top). She will know that too. She gets to choose whether to tell the truth, say nothing by taking the fifth a few hundred times, or to roll the dice and do the Trump, hoping they don’t really know the truth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The best part is that so many of the other bullshit delay lawsuits were based on Trump’s bs privilege claims, which just went poof. So long coverup. 
 

Only the Justice whose wife contributed to the 1/6 fundraising voted to hear it. 

 In Justice Tom's defense, the Constitution stipulates domestic tranquility

Quote

 Domestic tranquility generally means peace at home.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/domestic-tranquility/

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The best part of Ivanka’s “invitation” is that it is clear that the committee already knows the truth about what happened (because they started low and worked their way up the chain instead of starting at the top). She will know that too. She gets to choose whether to tell the truth, say nothing by taking the fifth a few hundred times, or to roll the dice and do the Trump, hoping they don’t really know the truth. 

I’m going with “roll he dice”….

Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking CNN: Rudy Giuliani oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

Washington (CNN)Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw efforts in December 2020 to put forward illegitimate electors from seven states that Trump lost, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the scheme. 

The sources said members of former President Donald Trump's campaign team were far more involved than previously known in the plan, a core tenet of the broader plot to overturn President Joe Biden's victory when Congress counted the electoral votes on January 6. 
Giuliani and his allies coordinated the nuts-and-bolts of the process on a state-by-state level, the sources told CNN. One source said there were multiple planning calls between Trump campaign officials and GOP state operatives, and that Giuliani participated in at least one call. The source also said the Trump campaign lined up supporters to fill elector slots, secured meeting rooms in statehouses for the fake electors to meet on December 14, 2020, and circulated drafts of fake certificates that were ultimately sent to the National Archives. 


Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html