The whole thing seems to be predicated on bullshit from the first sentence (“7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.”)
The whole thing seems to be predicated on bullshit from the first sentence (“7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.”)
Republicans did convene alternate electors in several states. Of course anyone can call themselves an elector but that's not the same as a state "transmitt[ing] dual slates of electors", but that's not the point. The point is to make the claim and force the opposition to disprove it on a battlefield that's heavily tilted against them.
The one thing that seems certain is that the failure of this plan comes down to Mike Pence doing his job and that seems like the kind of "mistake" Republicans will seek to prevent in any of their future vice presidents.
How many people like Pence are there in the Republican Party these days?
The one thing that seems certain is that the failure of this plan comes down to Mike Pence doing his job and that seems like the kind of "mistake" Republicans will seek to prevent in any of their future vice presidents.
How many people like Pence are there in the Republican Party these days?
Cowardly lickspittles willing to go along with Trump's entire agenda so long as they don't have to get their own hands dirty in the public view? Quite a few, I'd think. Pence's actions on January 6 were mostly about not willing to be the one acting in a brazenly illegal way and daring anyone to say anything. Pence is kind of analogous to the member of a kidnapping gang who gets cold feet when he finds out he's the one who's going to have to kill the unransomed hostage. Sure, it's better that he not do it, but that doesn't exactly make him laudable.
My point was that the next Republican nominated for vice president will likely be a rabid true believer willing to do anything rather than a weak-willed pushover who might get nerves at the last minute after a phone conversation with Dan Quayle.
I'd say tha Pence is marginally a less dispicable amoral shit than most of them because when it really came down to it he could not bring himself to cross the line into clear immoral, illegality on his own, without 'cover'. He was willing to go along with trump when he (Pence) wasn't the responsible person - but when he was he (finally) did the right thing.
Yes it's pretty faint praise for an enabler of an evil (or amoral, uncaring, self-serving) piece of shit.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the vice presidency ], and lose his own soul?
For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?
(Thomas More, in A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt.)
Reports are that the Republican-funded Arizona recount found 99 move votes for Biden; meanwhile, Trump lost 261 more votes. The reason for the difference, I think, is many of the Trump votes were found to be corrupted (pun intended).
Reports are that the Republican-funded Arizona recount found 99 move votes for Biden; meanwhile, Trump lost 261 more votes. The reason for the difference, I think, is many of the Trump votes were found to be corrupted (pun intended).
The reaction of Trump and his followers is straight out of the prophecy failure playbook: pretend the report says Trump won Arizona. Kind of like those who prophecized that the world was going to end claiming that the world did end, just in a spiritual way that's undetectable to the unenlightened.
So a few weeks ago the January 6 Select Committee subpœnaed four of Trump's close advisors: former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Dan Scavino, former Defense Department official Kashyap "Kash" Patel, and former Trump campaign manager/general nuisance Steve Bannon. Trump naturally reacted in his signature calm and statesmanlike manner, telling his former aides to defy Congress' subpœna and claiming any documents were protected by executive privilege. (They aren't.)
Meadows and Patel seem to be cooperating with the panel at the moment. There was a bit of confusion when Scavino couldn't be found to be served his subpœna but Congress finally tracked him down a few days ago. That leaves Bannon, who has publicly stated that he will not cooperate with the committee. The deadline for turning over documents or making themselves available for interview is tomorrow (14 October 2021), so we'll see if he sticks to his defiance and, if so, what Congress does in response. The Committee has said it will pursue criminal contempt charges against non-compliant recipients of subpœnas so we'll see. If they don't I'll be very disappointed. A subpœna is supposed to have authority, not just be some kind of strongly-worded invitation.
A few words about Trump's claims of privilege in this case. He's asserted both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. The latter, of course, makes no sense because of the four only Patel is a lawyer and he's not Trump's lawyer. So that's pretty much par for the course when it comes to Trump making sense.
The claim of executive privilege has two major problems. The first is that executive privilege belongs to the office of the president, not to whoever held it at the time, and Trump is not currently president. Biden has already agreed to release one batch of Trump administration* documents to the committee. The second problem is that Steve Bannon, the only person not cooperating with the committee (to the best of our knowledge) was not an employee of the executive branch on January 6, 2021. He had a position in the White House which he left in August 2017 and hasn't had a government job since.
I guess we'll see what happens if Friday rolls around and Bannon still hasn't cooperated.
Bannon, accused of wire fraud and money laundering, was pardoned by you-know-who. He belongs in jail. If contempt of Congress is the vehicle that will land him there, then full speed ahead!
Mr. Bannon has declined to cooperate with the Select Committee and is instead hiding behind the former President’s insufficient, blanket, and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke. We reject his position entirely. The Select Committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas, so we must move forward with proceedings to refer Mr. Bannon for criminal contempt. I’ve notified the Select Committee that we will convene for a business meeting Tuesday evening to vote on adopting a contempt report.
The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. IOW, the citation isn't issued until the House votes. I believe there are several fat ladies in the House.
Federal prosecutors in New York are expected to rest their campaign finance case against Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas this week.
Over three days of testimony last week, prosecutors conveyed to jurors a pay-to-play scheme by Parnas and his co-conspirators to exchange campaign donations for political capital they'd hoped to cash in for cannabis industry licenses.
A "Russian tycoon" wired $1 million to Parnas to "infiltrate American elections," prosecutor Aline Flodr said during opening statements.
And despite having little money of his own, Parnas attempted to garner influence and status in circles of prominent GOP figures taking "credit for large political donations when in reality it was never his money to give."
For those who don't remember Parnas, here is a post from when he first came to public notice in October 2019.
FBI agents on Tuesday swarmed the home of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in Washington, D.C., an agency spokesperson confirmed to NBC News.
The reason for their presence wasn’t immediately clear. The spokesperson said the agency is conducting “law enforcement activity at the home” but wouldn’t elaborate.
The investigation is being led by federal investigators in New York City, according to two officials briefed on the matter.
A spokeswoman for Deripaska, a billionaire oil tycoon who was placed under U.S. sanctions three years ago, said the FBI also searched a home in New York City. She said both properties belong to Deripaska's relatives.
Something people on this side of the pond have been pointing out recently was back in 1954 Puerto Rican nationalists committed an armed attack against the US House of Representatives and ended up receiving life sentences for the attack--President Carter later commuted those sentences to time served. Yet in the most recent attack on the capital, the insurgents that have been found guilty are usually receiving short sentences. Seems like the major difference between the two groups is the color of their skin.
Or the fact that Congressmen were actually shot and wounded in the 1954 attack, whereas the January 6 trespassers were limited to yelling stuff, throwing papers around, and taking selfies in an otherwise empty Senate chamber.
Or the fact that Congressmen were actually shot and wounded in the 1954 attack, whereas the January 6 trespassers were limited to yelling stuff, throwing papers around, and taking selfies in an otherwise empty Senate chamber.
And killing one Capitol Police office and wounding more than a hundred others, though I guess those don't count since they're just 'The Help'. Seriously though, I'm guessing that Trump apologists' outrage at 'Defund the Police' ends at the police who stand up to insurrectionists.
In other news, the January 6 Committee has voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt. From here it requires a vote of the full House of Representatives to refer the matter to the Department of Justice and for the DoJ to take action. We'll see what happens.
Or the fact that Congressmen were actually shot and wounded in the 1954 attack, whereas the January 6 trespassers were limited to yelling stuff, throwing papers around, and taking selfies in an otherwise empty Senate chamber.
Ah, the Sideshow Bob defence. They only tried to assault members of congress so it's not really a crime. It occurs to me that for someone who insists they're not a Trump supporter you devote a significant proportion of your posts to defending him and his supporters.
In other news, the January 6 Committee has voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt. From here it requires a vote of the full House of Representatives to refer the matter to the Department of Justice and for the DoJ to take action. We'll see what happens.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet. I'd be willing to bet either that the full House does not vote to refer, or that they do but the Justice Department decides not to act. It's a bet I would be very, very glad to lose.
In other news, the January 6 Committee has voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt. From here it requires a vote of the full House of Representatives to refer the matter to the Department of Justice and for the DoJ to take action. We'll see what happens.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet. I'd be willing to bet either that the full House does not vote to refer, or that they do but the Justice Department decides not to act. It's a bet I would be very, very glad to lose.
I don't know. There's not a lot of love for Steve Bannon in the House Democratic caucus and, unlike the Senate where they have to wrestle with the filibuster, the referral can be made on a straight party-line vote. Nancy Pelosi is pretty serious about the January 6 Committee. She could simply have walked away when Republican obstructionism spiked the idea of a bipartisan joint committee but chose to go forward. My guess is that this eventually comes to a vote in the House and, if it does*, it'll probably pass. As for what the DoJ will do I'm less certain. Merrick Garland is an institutionalist, so he may not be eager to wade into an intra-branch dispute. On the other hand, allowing people to flout subpœnas on flimsy pretexts is something most institutionalists object to, at least in theory.
*Pelosi is very good at whip counts, so if it comes to a vote that's a pretty good indication that the votes are there to pass it.
And the House has voted Bannon is in contempt of Congress by a vote of 229-202. All Democrats plus nine Republicans voted in favor of holding Bannon in contempt. Attorney General Garland has said the DoJ will review any referral, but hasn't gone any further than that publicly.
In the ongoing saga of Donald Trump trying to conceal documents from the January 6 Select Committee the former guy has been handed yet another loss.
The short version is that the Committee wanted to review some documents from the National Archives and the Biden administration said "okay". Trump strenuously objected, filing a request with Judge Tanya Chutkan to order the documents withheld and also requesting her to stay her ruling before it was even made. (Yes that's a bogus legal argument on both procedural and logical grounds and I'd feel like Trump is being cheated out of legal fees except that he's probably never going to pay his lawyers.)
At any rate Judge Chutkan did issue a ruling that essentially boiled down to laughing Trump's case out of court. It can be summarized with this zinger from page 18 of the ruling:
Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.
I don't know what's in those documents, but Trump sure is having a fit about the possibility that they'll be made public.
This is awful of me, but the little bursts of schadenfreude I get every day as T. discovers he can no longer bend reality to his will--they're doing a bit to soothe the wounds of the past four years.
This is awful of me, but the little bursts of schadenfreude I get every day as T. discovers he can no longer bend reality to his will--they're doing a bit to soothe the wounds of the past four years.
He still has the protection and the income of every other past President. He still speaks at rallies. He still commands the adoration of thousands of poor deluded souls. The way the Democrats are going, bickering amongst themselves rather than standing firmly behind the President (as the Republican party seems to be standing firmly behind you-know-who), I shudder to think what's going to happen in another three years.
Correction to my comment. The Trump Tax Returns are in the hands of the New York District Attorney, not the State Attorney. As I understand it, the attorney is looking at racketeering charges. It takes time to go through six to eight years of returns.
He still has the protection and the income of every other past President on top of his very substantial (and half-hidden) personal wealth. He still speaks at rallies. He still commands the adoration of millions of poor deluded souls. The way the Democrats are going, bickering amongst themselves rather than standing firmly behind the President (as the Republican party seems to be standing firmly behind you-know-who), I shudder to think what's going to happen in another three years.
Does he have substantial personal wealth? I thought there was some question as to whether his lavish lifestyle was a house of cards built on unsustainable and vast debt.
Does he have substantial personal wealth? I thought there was some question as to whether his lavish lifestyle was a house of cards built on unsustainable and vast debt.
You could well be right, but I've not seen that sort of comment.
I've frequently seen comments to the effect that Trump's personal wealth is based on the principle that if you owe the bank ten thousand and can't pay you have a problem, but if you owe the bank ten billion and can't pay the bank has a problem.
I've frequently seen comments to the effect that Trump's personal wealth is based on the principle that if you owe the bank ten thousand and can't pay you have a problem, but if you owe the bank ten billion and can't pay the bank has a problem.
I've also seen it suggested that it's not so much a question of the banks being in trouble (though they are, with regulators internationally) as the people who lent the banks the money they lent to Trump being likely to demand payment in kind.
There's also the house of cards/chain reaction of dominos thing. You can get away with a rotten foundation for your apparent wealth for quite a long time, if you keep moving. Steal from Peter to pay Paul, that sort of thing. Slow down and they'll catch up with you.
The Wikipedia entry you link to includes a quote from Trollope's autobiography that rings so true, so true:
If dishonesty can live in a gorgeous palace with pictures on all its walls, and gems in all its cupboards, with marble and ivory in all its corners, and can give Apician dinners, and get into Parliament, and deal in millions, then dishonesty is not disgraceful, and the man dishonest after such a fashion is not a low scoundrel.
I wonder if you-know-who's supplier of hydroxychloroquine and Clorox bleach also carries prussic acid.
Comments
Republicans did convene alternate electors in several states. Of course anyone can call themselves an elector but that's not the same as a state "transmitt[ing] dual slates of electors", but that's not the point. The point is to make the claim and force the opposition to disprove it on a battlefield that's heavily tilted against them.
How many people like Pence are there in the Republican Party these days?
Cowardly lickspittles willing to go along with Trump's entire agenda so long as they don't have to get their own hands dirty in the public view? Quite a few, I'd think. Pence's actions on January 6 were mostly about not willing to be the one acting in a brazenly illegal way and daring anyone to say anything. Pence is kind of analogous to the member of a kidnapping gang who gets cold feet when he finds out he's the one who's going to have to kill the unransomed hostage. Sure, it's better that he not do it, but that doesn't exactly make him laudable.
My point was that the next Republican nominated for vice president will likely be a rabid true believer willing to do anything rather than a weak-willed pushover who might get nerves at the last minute after a phone conversation with Dan Quayle.
Yes it's pretty faint praise for an enabler of an evil (or amoral, uncaring, self-serving) piece of shit.
1 Corinthians 3:15
If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Basically he sold (gave away!) everything but his soul--and when it came time to hand that over, he balked. IMHO.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the [ vice presidency ], and lose his own soul?
(Thomas More, in A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt.)
I believe that's what footballers call an own goal. Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
The reaction of Trump and his followers is straight out of the prophecy failure playbook: pretend the report says Trump won Arizona. Kind of like those who prophecized that the world was going to end claiming that the world did end, just in a spiritual way that's undetectable to the unenlightened.
Meadows and Patel seem to be cooperating with the panel at the moment. There was a bit of confusion when Scavino couldn't be found to be served his subpœna but Congress finally tracked him down a few days ago. That leaves Bannon, who has publicly stated that he will not cooperate with the committee. The deadline for turning over documents or making themselves available for interview is tomorrow (14 October 2021), so we'll see if he sticks to his defiance and, if so, what Congress does in response. The Committee has said it will pursue criminal contempt charges against non-compliant recipients of subpœnas so we'll see. If they don't I'll be very disappointed. A subpœna is supposed to have authority, not just be some kind of strongly-worded invitation.
A few words about Trump's claims of privilege in this case. He's asserted both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. The latter, of course, makes no sense because of the four only Patel is a lawyer and he's not Trump's lawyer. So that's pretty much par for the course when it comes to Trump making sense.
The claim of executive privilege has two major problems. The first is that executive privilege belongs to the office of the president, not to whoever held it at the time, and Trump is not currently president. Biden has already agreed to release one batch of Trump administration* documents to the committee. The second problem is that Steve Bannon, the only person not cooperating with the committee (to the best of our knowledge) was not an employee of the executive branch on January 6, 2021. He had a position in the White House which he left in August 2017 and hasn't had a government job since.
I guess we'll see what happens if Friday rolls around and Bannon still hasn't cooperated.
We'll see what happens on Tuesday.
Prosecutors expected to close case against Lev Parnas this week:
For those who don't remember Parnas, here is a post from when he first came to public notice in October 2019.
And secondly, FBI agents swarm Washington home of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska:
Possibly coincidence, but possibly not.
And killing one Capitol Police office and wounding more than a hundred others, though I guess those don't count since they're just 'The Help'. Seriously though, I'm guessing that Trump apologists' outrage at 'Defund the Police' ends at the police who stand up to insurrectionists.
Ah, the Sideshow Bob defence. They only tried to assault members of congress so it's not really a crime. It occurs to me that for someone who insists they're not a Trump supporter you devote a significant proportion of your posts to defending him and his supporters.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet. I'd be willing to bet either that the full House does not vote to refer, or that they do but the Justice Department decides not to act. It's a bet I would be very, very glad to lose.
I don't know. There's not a lot of love for Steve Bannon in the House Democratic caucus and, unlike the Senate where they have to wrestle with the filibuster, the referral can be made on a straight party-line vote. Nancy Pelosi is pretty serious about the January 6 Committee. She could simply have walked away when Republican obstructionism spiked the idea of a bipartisan joint committee but chose to go forward. My guess is that this eventually comes to a vote in the House and, if it does*, it'll probably pass. As for what the DoJ will do I'm less certain. Merrick Garland is an institutionalist, so he may not be eager to wade into an intra-branch dispute. On the other hand, allowing people to flout subpœnas on flimsy pretexts is something most institutionalists object to, at least in theory.
*Pelosi is very good at whip counts, so if it comes to a vote that's a pretty good indication that the votes are there to pass it.
The short version is that the Committee wanted to review some documents from the National Archives and the Biden administration said "okay". Trump strenuously objected, filing a request with Judge Tanya Chutkan to order the documents withheld and also requesting her to stay her ruling before it was even made. (Yes that's a bogus legal argument on both procedural and logical grounds and I'd feel like Trump is being cheated out of legal fees except that he's probably never going to pay his lawyers.)
At any rate Judge Chutkan did issue a ruling that essentially boiled down to laughing Trump's case out of court. It can be summarized with this zinger from page 18 of the ruling:
I don't know what's in those documents, but Trump sure is having a fit about the possibility that they'll be made public.
I believe they are in the possession of the New York State's Attorney's office.
That's the great thing about German. If you frankenword it together, it exists.
So what are they doing with them, I'd like to know? Whatever it is, they're taking their time about it.
He still has the protection and the income of every other past President. He still speaks at rallies. He still commands the adoration of thousands of poor deluded souls. The way the Democrats are going, bickering amongst themselves rather than standing firmly behind the President (as the Republican party seems to be standing firmly behind you-know-who), I shudder to think what's going to happen in another three years.
A couple of modifications to your post.
You could well be right, but I've not seen that sort of comment.
I've also seen it suggested that it's not so much a question of the banks being in trouble (though they are, with regulators internationally) as the people who lent the banks the money they lent to Trump being likely to demand payment in kind.
I wonder if you-know-who's supplier of hydroxychloroquine and Clorox bleach also carries prussic acid.