Counting from midnight tonight, there are 27 more days for Trump to bring on the crazy, plus a half-day on January 20th until Biden is sworn in at noon.
Let's hope he doesn't launch a nuclear weapon somewhere, simply out of spite. I wish I could say I was kidding. Presumably the highest commanders of the military have made special arrangements so that if Trump were to push a nuclear button, the command will be immediately halted and reviewed by a host of responsible personnel and then cancelled. It's amazingly sad that we even have to think the POTUS is so deranged this is a conceivable possibility.
Trump is going crazy at the realization he is a loser and this time there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. The capstone of his career and he leaves an impeached one-term loser with the economy and country in the toilet.
He'll leave after pardoning more war criminals who kill innocent children, and giving pardons or clemency to all his friends who were in jail or deserved it, and his grifter family, and probably even himself (which Biden can supposedly undo with an Executive Order, since Trump's self-pardon will be unconstitutional.) What remains is pure disgust for all the Republicans who have gone along with, and will continue to go with, Trump's vacuous and lunatic claims of fraud in an historical, fascist effort to overturn one of the cleanest elections in US history. To put it directly, they are aiding Trump in the seditious coup attempt. Trump could, and perhaps should, be brought up on articles of impeachment right now. The FBI and Department of Justice should be investigating his traitorous acts.
Trump actually entertained the idea of martial law in the White House last Friday night, brought in by the admitted criminal Michael Flynn, who twice admitted lying to the FBI and who put this idea into Trump's head. Trump denied it on Twitter, but we all know what Trump's word is worth: 0 or a pile of shit, whichever is lower.
Crazy Sidney Powell was also at this wild, five-hour meeting, reported to be advocating for the seizure of the voting machines used in swing states and who knows what else. Trump was said to be considering her as special counsel to lead an investigation, which even Uncle Rudy was starkly against. How crazy was the conversation if Rudy Giuliani was trying to play the voice of reason?
Trump has now resorted to rabidly attacking any Republicans who have dared to admit the election was fair, such as Mitch McConnell and John Thune, claiming that McConnell wouldn't have won reelection without Trump's intervention. Which is ludicrous because McConnell always wins reelection by a country mile, and Kentucky is land with a great deal of both open and mountainous country.
New York's attorney general called Trump's consideration of martial law an "act of sedition."
Trump and his corral of fellow seditionists now appear to be focusing on January 6th, which is when Congress counts the electoral votes. Remember, all the electoral votes have been certified -- each state's legislature matched electoral college voters with the results of the votes of their populace's vote on election day -- with no "faithless electors" -- electors who stray from the party the majority of their voters voted for for president.
What a dumb way to elect a president.
The 118th session of Congress begins January 3rd, 2021, which is when new senators and representatives are sworn in. This gives Trump several new ignorant crazies to do his diaper work, such as Tommy Tuberville of Georgia, who besides having a little boy's name doesn't know what the three branches of government are, and bigot and Qanon supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene, whom Trump has called a "future Republican Star."
On January 6th, the newly seated Congress is to count the certified electoral votes. This is usually pro forma, with the occasional protest vote unrelated to the mechanics of the electoral process itself. But Trump is promising a "wild protest" on this day in the streets of D.C. Inside Congress, here's what can happen, which "constitutional scholars and even members of the president’s own party say the effort is all but certain to fail." From the NY Times:
The effort is being led by Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, a backbench conservative. Along with a group of allies in the House, he is eyeing challenges to the election results in five different states — Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin — where they claim varying degrees of fraud or illegal voting took place, despite certification by the voting authorities and no evidence of widespread impropriety.Mo Brooks has, of course, only the best considerations of the country in his heart:
“We have a superior role under the Constitution than the Supreme Court does, than any federal court judge does, than any state court judge does,” Mr. Brooks said in an interview. “What we say, goes. That’s the final verdict.”
Under rules laid out in the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, their challenges must be submitted in writing with a senator’s signature also affixed. No Republican senator has yet stepped forward to say he or she will back such an effort, though a handful of reliable allies of Mr. Trump, including Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky, have signaled they would be open to doing so.
Even if a senator did agree, constitutional scholars say the process is intended to be an arduous one. Once an objection is heard from a member of each house of Congress, senators and representatives will retreat to their chambers on opposite sides of the Capitol for a two-hour debate and then a vote on whether to disqualify a state’s votes. Both the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate would have to agree to toss out a state’s electoral votes — something that has not happened since the 19th century.
Several Senate Republicans — including Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah — have forcefully rejected the idea of overturning the results, and their votes would be enough for Mr. Biden to prevail with the support of Democrats.
“The Jan. 6 meeting is going to confirm that regardless of how many objections get filed and who signs on, they are not going to affect the outcome of the process,” said Edward B. Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University who has written extensively on the electoral process. “We can say that with clear confidence.”
But he noted that the session could still carry consequences for the next few years. If even one Republican senator backed the effort, it could ensure that the partisan cloud hanging over the election would darken Mr. Biden’s presidency for years to come. If none did, it could send a definitive message to the country that despite Mr. Trump’s bluster, the party trusted the results of the electoral process and was finally ready to recognize Mr. Biden as the rightful winner.
Mr. Brooks is far from the first lawmaker to try to use the tallying process to challenge the results of a bitter election loss. House Democrats made attempts in 2001, 2005 and even 2017, but they were essentially acts of protest after their party’s nominee had already accepted defeat.
What is different now is Mr. Trump’s historic defiance of democratic norms and his party’s willing acquiescence. If Mr. Trump were to bless the effort to challenge the congressional tally, he could force Republicans into a difficult decision about whether to support an assault on the election results that is essentially doomed or risk his ire. Many Republicans are already fearful of being punished by voters for failing to keep up his fight.
The dilemma is particularly acute for Mr. Pence, who is eyeing his own presidential run in 2024. As president of the Senate, he has the constitutionally designated task of opening and tallying envelopes sent from all 50 states and announcing their electoral results.
But given Mr. Trump’s penchant for testing every law and norm in Washington, he could insist that Mr. Pence refuse to play that role. And either way, it will call for a final performance of the delicate dance Mr. Pence has performed for four years, trying to maintain Mr. Trump’s confidence while adhering to the law.
“My No. 1 goal is to fix a badly flawed American election system that too easily permits voter fraud and election theft,” Mr. Brooks said. “A possible bonus from achieving that goal is that Donald Trump would win the Electoral College officially, as I believe he in fact did if you only count lawful votes by eligible American citizens and exclude all illegal votes.”Brooks has no evidence of any voter fraud and election theft, not one iota, just like the rest of these villains, and won't be presenting any between now and January 6th. Are journalists even asking him anymore??
John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and majority whip, says any January 6th shenanigans "would go down like a shot dog," for which Trump flicked boogers at him and called him childish names on the playground.
It's a bald coup attempt that cannot and will not be allowed to succeed, and if it worked would set America on fire like nothing before it except perhaps the Civil War. It's absurd to think it will work and how the twisted gears of Trump's diseased, tragic, psychopathic, fascist mind think it could, or how he could possibly govern after it.
The most disturbing part of it all is how many elected officials are perfectly willing to help Trump overthrow US democracy. They should all be brought up on charges of sedition after the 6th, starting with Trump, and only with Trump if that's all Biden and Pelosi can muster, and even that is unlikely. They'll simply be passive in view of one of the greatest criminal attempts in American governmental history, in the interest of "moving on." Which never works in the long-term. Which means we will see even worse in the future, and probably in not many years at all, like, say, 2024. It's almost a certainty at this point.
19 comments:
The interesting part about Jan 6 is that it may force all republican congressmen to openly pick a side. Vote for Trump or vote for the constitution. Either way they are going to be in trouble with some of the party.
Here's a Twitter thread regarding Trump's pardon of the blackwater guards posted by a lawyer who represented five of the victims families
https://twitter.com/adamnlawyer/status/1341577554382249997?s=20
One of the victims was a nine year old boy shot whilst sitting in the back of his father's car. The boys name was Ali Kinani. A quote from the thread,
The US government provided Ali's family a small condolence payment. They donated ½ the payment to wounded US soldiers. Ali’s mother delivered the donation to the US embassy. General Ray Odierno sent this thank you letter to Ali’s family. Donald Trump just slapped her in the face.
Trump has no moral compass whatsoever.
JD, just horrific. And this isn't the first war criminal Trump has pardoned.
Navy Seal pardoned of war crimes by Trump described by colleagues as 'freaking evil', The Guardian, 12/27/19.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq
By the way, Blackwater was founded by Eric Prince, who is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Brooks has no evidence of any voter fraud and election theft, not one iota, just like the rest of these villains, and won't be presenting any between now and January 6th. Are journalists even asking him anymore??
David, your political naivety is such a contrast with your scientific expertise. A huge amount of evidence of fraud has been publicly discussed. E.g., see a partial list at https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/election-fraud-allegations-infographic_3605589.html
There is indeed a question of whether the evidence is conclusive and whether the apparent fraud is big enough to have affected the election.
You ask if journalists are still asking about the fraud. They never started asking. Producing a list like the one at the link is the last thing mainstream media wish to do. To see evidence of fraud, you pretty much have to go to conservative sources.
Anyhow, Merry Christmas to you and all your readers.
Cheers
David
There is indeed a question of whether the evidence is conclusive...
Or even evidence. In most cases that question has been answered.
BTW, there have been several fraud charges laid this election. Can you guess how many of those were perpetrating fraud on behalf of Trump?
Here's a sample: https://thehill.com/homenews/531242-pennsylvania-trump-supporter-charged-with-voter-fraud
David, thanks, but I'm not register to look at the Epoch Times. They are not a legitimate news source. They have no credibility. They are another extreme right-wing propaganda site that is in the tank for Trump -- such are the only ones you ever cite post-election.
As I said, there is no evidence of substantial fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
David - what you said at 6:49 is NOT what you said in your post. Glad to see you changing to a more supportable comment.
I'm half way through "Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism" by Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson is a nonpartisan, five-time Emmy Award winning investigative reporter, recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting.
For thirty years, Attkisson was a correspondent and anchor at CBS News, PBS, CNN and in local news.
The book demonstrates the enormous bias of the major media. Much of the bias is reflected in ignoring stories that don't follow their chosen narrative.
The moral is that one should include some conservative sources in the news that one follows. Epoch Times is far below the New York Times in quality, but Epoch Times reports some things that the New York Times chooses not to cover. You need both to get full coverage.
Cheers
Atkisson USED to be a decent reporter, but she went full Benghazi in 2014.
I am not surprised that she anchors a show on Sinclair.
Hi David,
In all the fraud accusations since the election, I have simply not seen hard evidence of substantial fraud, nor have a great many people, like judges. Trump's lawyers haven't presented any in court, because they risk being disbarred if they present false evidence in court. What's going around is all just speculation, hearsay, affidavits that don't stand up on closer inspection, and the like.
The Washington Post, since the election, has written article after article, often by Philip Bump, debunking the fraud claim of the day, in great detail. Have you read those?
Yet it never seems to matter, because it's far easier to present half-cocked, half-bitten, maybe maybe could be claims than do the real work of digging into something and figuring out what really happened. Which the conservative sources you cite ARE NOT DOING. They are, instead, compiling speculations that are meant to string along Trump supporters who are desperate to hear of anything that maybe looks like fraud, could maybe smell like fraud, hey isn't that weird!
It's absurd to think that the MSM would ignore a stolen election, which would be one of the most important news stories in a hundred years or more. Simply absurd. These are competitive professionals -- far more professional than the Epoch Times or Daily Caller writers -- who want nothing more than a major scandal to dig into and win major prizes and go down in history. They don't see any evidence.
You have yet to present any good evidence of fraud, and have not, despite being asked innumerable times since election day.
Cheers.
It's absurd to think that the MSM would ignore a stolen election, which would be one of the most important news stories in a hundred years or more.
Sadly, it's not absurd. This the media who ignored a President getting blow jobs from an intern in the Oval Office. They had that story and sat on it until Drudge Report reported it.
The election fraud is a complex story. Bear in mind that the people who committed fraud obviously tried to make it hard to detect. Facts must be dug out. If some media organ wanted to cover the fraud, they'd have to assign some capable investigative reporters and give them time and resources to investigate. AFAIK no mainstream media organ has done this.
It's late on Christmas Day. If you're willing to face that possibility that the media don't report the way you think they do, please read Attkisson's book, "Slanted". To prove my point here on your blog would require typing her entire book into your comments. It's simpler for you to just read the book.
Cheers
This the media who ignored a President getting blow jobs from an intern in the Oval Office
Really? Then how did you learn about it?
Bill Clinton was impeached. Do you really think the reporting of the MSM played no role in bringing that about??? That's delusional.
David:
The Clinton-Lewinsky affair was reported by the Drudge Report on Jan 19, 1998, "which mentions rumors that Newsweek had decided to delay publishing a piece on Lewinsky and the alleged affair," thereby making Drudge's name, of course.
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
"Jan. 21, 1998: Several news organizations report the alleged sexual relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton."
So the MSM was all over this affair.
It is categorically untrue that the MSM ignored this major news event and it took the alternative press to bring it to light.
The election fraud is a complex story. Bear in mind that the people who committed fraud obviously tried to make it hard to detect. Facts must be dug out.
That doesn't seem to comport with what was presented to us by Trump allies or indeed the way the story developed.
Trump must have had evidence enough because on election night he said,
"This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country,"
"We'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court, we want all voting to stop,"
Surely Trump would have known that you can't leave millions of votes uncounted just on a hunch? Or his supporters who invaded a vote counting Centre shouting "stop the count". Would they have done that without being shown credible evidence? Evidence which according to you would not be immediately obvious to trained investigative reporters.
Then there's Kayleigh's folder stuffed with signed affadavits that we were assured had to be proof because observers wouldn't have signed them otherwise. Surely that would be a gold mine to a reporter or a lawyer? And yet they've lost every court case with witnesses deemed not credible.
Then there's Guiliani’s "star witness" who said,
“Everything that happened at that TCF Center was fraud.
Every single thing,”
It doesn't look like the people who committed the fraud made it particularly "hard to detect". She had no difficulty detecting it. She did suggest that she had some particular expertise but not according to Dominion who said,
“We write to you now because you have positioned yourself as a prominent leader of the ongoing misinformation campaign by pretending to have some sort of ‘insider’s knowledge’ regarding Dominion’s business activities, when in reality you were hired through a staffing agency for one day to clean glass on machines and complete other menial tasks,”
They've also written to those in contact with her, demanding preservation of records particularly with regard to any compensation she received for public statements she made about them. More here, https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/dominion-attorneys-send-brutal-letter-to-trump-campaigns-so-called-star-witness-mellissa-carone/
David - I said that the mainstream media didn't report the Lewinsky story until after Drudge reported it. Your dates are consistent with that assertion.
Your link says October 1997: Tripp meets with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Lucianne & Jonah Goldberg at Jonah's apartment in Washington, according to a Newsweek report. The Goldberg's listen to a tape of Tripp/Lewinsky conversations.
Newsweek had the story for 3 months, but didn't report it. Would they ever have reported it if Drudge hadn't broken the story?
Cheers
I'm not sure it was three months. This is from the Atlantic,
Meanwhile, Isikoff was close to breaking the story of the president’s affair, but after meetings on January 17, Newsweek editors decided to hold the story from that week’s edition. That night, the Drudge Report scooped Isikoff, running its revelations under the headline “Newsweek Kills Story on White House Intern.”
This is the reporter replying to the question in bold.
What was your editor’s rationale for deciding to hold the story?
They were queasy. They were nervous. It involved the President and an alleged sexual relationship, and that, in and of itself, makes editors very nervous. What if Monica Lewinsky was a flake? What if she was making the whole thing up and Newsweek went with a big story on this, and then she was exposed as some loony bird? I think that’s what their great fear was, and they were afraid of sticking their neck out and publishing what they knew would be a big, controversial story. It’s not my attitude, but it was the attitude of the editors at the time.
So when Drudge scooped them they had only just decided to put a hold on the story because they were nervous about breaking the story. That's from the reporter who was really annoyed at losing the scoop to Drudge so had no reason to make excuses for them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/clinton-impeachment/573940/
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/lewinsky-affair-bill-clinton-impeachment-blue-dress-linda-tripp
J.D. - David's CNN link said the story was given to Isikoff in October, 1997. Drudge published it on Jan 19, 1978. That's 3 months.
Cheers
They sat on the Steel dossier as well - until Buzzfeed scooped them.
Is it good or bad that real journalists have reservations about reporting on salacious stories? Should we add channels of false/fake/spin stories to our media diet to balance things out?
Post a Comment