Patterico's Pontifications

2/9/2022

Lines in the Sand: McConnell Slams RNC For Censure, Trump Slams McConnell In Power Struggle

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:34 am



[guest post by Dana]

In one fell swoop, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed the RNC for censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and strongly rebuked Donald Trump:

Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, pushed back hard on Tuesday on the Republican Party’s censure of Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and its characterization of Jan. 6 as “legitimate political discourse,” saying the riot was a “violent insurrection.”

The remarks from Mr. McConnell, the normally taciturn Kentucky Republican, added to a small but forceful chorus of G.O.P. lawmakers who have decried the action that the Republican National Committee took on Friday, when it officially rebuked Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger for participating in the House investigation of the Jan. 6 attack, accusing them of “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

Mr. McConnell repudiated that description, saying, “We saw it happen. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next. That’s what it was.”

“Traditionally, the view of the national party committees is that we support all members of our party, regardless of their positions on some issues…The issue is whether or not the R.N.C. should be sort of singling out members of our party who may have different views of the majority. That’s not the job of the R.N.C.”

Beating the same dead horse, Donald Trump threw more than a warning shot across McConnell’s bow, further exposing the intra-party divide. With the midterms happening later this year, drawing a line in the sand at this point is clearly a risky move. Here is Trump’s statement:

Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party, and does not represent the views of the vast majority of its voters. He did nothing to fight for his constituents and stop the most fraudulent election in American history. And he does nothing to stop the lawless Biden Administration, the invasion of our Borders, rising Inflation, Unconstitutional mandates, the persecution of political opponents, fact finding on the incompentent Afghanistan withdrawal, the giving away our energy independence, etc., which is all because of the fraudulent election. Instead, he bails out the Radical Left and the RINOs.

If Mitch would have fought for the election, like the Democrats would have if in the same position, we would not be discussing any of the above today, and our Country would be STRONG and PROUD instead of weak and embarrassed.

How this throwdown will play out is anybody’s guess. But McConnell is a clever and experienced politician, and I think this is certainly true:

The clarity of McConnell’s language, which is rare in a party afraid to contradict Trump, deserves credit. It reflects his mastery of the conference and confidence he faces no internal threats, despite the ex-President’s multiple attempts to incite a revolt against him in the Senate.

The minority leader’s words were also characteristic of McConnell’s tendency to give his senators political cover — one reason his leadership position is so secure. Senators questioned about January 6 can now refer directly to their leader’s remarks without getting drawn into politically damaging quotes that might alienate them from supporters back home.

P.S. From what I can find, Trump still leads the 2024 Republican field…

–Dana

115 Responses to “Lines in the Sand: McConnell Slams RNC For Censure, Trump Slams McConnell In Power Struggle”

  1. It will be so interesting to see how this plays out.

    Dana (5395f9)

  2. McConnell is a much better leader than the current GOP deserves. One day I would like to hear what went on in the back room before the vote on Trump’s second impeachment. I wonder just how hard people worked to get the numbers for a conviction.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  3. Will we see any other notable Republican publicly join McConnell (or than Romney)? Right now the RNC is a syndicate…dedicated to protecting Trump. You can have it.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  4. The Senate will not participate in an attempt to reverse the 2024 election and the Electoral Count Act will be amended to require more Senators than McConnell thinks will object.

    McConnell wants to kill a repeat of that in its cradle.

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  5. suddenly mcconnell is a hero at cnn

    just like liz and romney, etc.

    and just like them he’s too drunk on the adulation to realize that as soon as trump is gone, his newfound friends will turn their gunsights back on him

    JF (e1156d)

  6. JF,

    I think McConnell knows precisely what the end game will be as far as if the Democrats take back everything. Or, if the rational Republicans wrest control back from Trump.

    Given that McConnell, Cheney, Romney, etc are in the definite minority, it’s absurd to think that they are drunk on adulation. This is leading to a do-or-die moment for the Republican Party. A house divided cannot, and will not stand.

    Dana (5395f9)

  7. McConnell is the one in control. Leading from the front lines. Stopping the Democrats at every opportunity.

    Trump is the Fifth Column. Sowing dissension in the ranks. Sniveling like a pitiful little cry baby that nobody made him President. He’s become boring, honestly.

    nk (1d9030)

  8. @6 Given that McConnell, Cheney, Romney, etc are in the definite minority, it’s absurd to think that they are drunk on adulation

    it’s truly absurd to think they are in the minority

    minority of what?

    my god, what a ridiculous claim

    they are being feted by every media outlet that a year or two ago was roasting them on an open spit, meaning just about every media outlet

    and they’ll be right back on the spit when you’re done throwing every other republican on the fire

    JF (e1156d)

  9. It is good that we have an American patriot leading the Senate Republicans, and a smart one, at that. And it is sad to see him attacked by both anti-American leftists and those Trumpistas who care nothing for this great nation.

    What McConnell said was true, but, to borrow a line from a movie, some people can’t handle the truth.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  10. Moscow Mitch has historically seemed to care mostly about gaining and wielding political power. Not entirely. But i don’t think he’d say this just because he believes it. Interesting that he did though.

    Hopefully seeing another life long republican with no motive to criticize Trump plainly acknowledge the truth will help pull back some of the brighter and more honest conservatives back from the edge on this.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  11. North carolina board of election may disqualify rep. cawthorn from public office for jan.6 insurrection. 14th amendment.

    asset (7832ab)

  12. and just like them he’s too drunk on the adulation to realize that as soon as trump is gone, his newfound friends will turn their gunsights back on him

    This is incredible coming from the Trump side of things. TRUMP turned his “gunsights” on anyone who ever crossed him, even slightly.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  13. @11, they can do that?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  14. @12 it’s a dumb explanation for his behavior but when you’re defending violent assaults on the police in an effort to steal an election you legitimately lost the options are limited.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  15. North carolina board of election may disqualify rep. cawthorn from public office for jan.6 insurrection. 14th amendment.

    I think they’d better convict him of something first. And just yesterday we were talking about the limits of “legitimate political discourse” and whatever his faults, Cawthone’s attendance at that rally did not cross the line.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  16. @15, yeah I’m with you here…not sure it seems justified. But I have idea what the state rules are.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  17. Oops, I meant i have no idea what the state rules are.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  18. About that “election fraud:”

    I think that most not-stupid Republicans acknowledge that the votes were counted correctly and that no ballot boxes were stuffed illegally. But all the special Covid rules that were in effect changed the dynamics of the election markedly (such as 20 million more votes cast than 2016).

    Comparing the Covid rules to the recent and unlamented Voting Rights bill that all said was a partisan vote grab, and one sees quite a few similarities. Most blue states are now trying to cement in the absentee and mail voting rules that were judge-spawned in 2020, while vilifying red state legislatures for moving towards increased security rather than increased participation.

    Both these trends are partisan, of course. The Democrats see easy-access ballots as a free GotV effort that favors their candidates, and the GOP sees the same thing in reverse.

    I can see a partisan Republican being upset in 2020, before and after the election, at the state-run Get-out-the-Democrat-Vote efforts, and considering the rules put into place as being a partisan fraud.

    But they need to get over it.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  19. Oops, I meant i have no idea what the state rules are.

    Well, neither do I, but I think they should include due process. Also, there is U.S. Term Limits v Thornton making me not much care what the state rules are.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  20. From one of Rip’s links:

    The challenge, filed before the North Carolina State Board of Elections, alleges that Cawthorn is constitutionally disqualified from public office under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on reasonable suspicion that he helped facilitate the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

    “reasonable suspicion”

    You have been denounced, comrade.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  21. @11, they can do that (disqualify Madison Cawthorn)?

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 2/9/2022 @ 1:20 pm

    The consensus only the House judges the qualifications of its members, and it would require 2/3 of the members to do so. Highly unlikely.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  22. @18 being upset that too many legitimate voters cast legal ballots isn’t a very compelling grievance.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  23. @6 Given that McConnell, Cheney, Romney, etc are in the definite minority, it’s absurd to think that they are drunk on adulation

    it’s truly absurd to think they are in the minority

    minority of what?

    my god, what a ridiculous claim

    they are being feted by every media outlet that a year or two ago was roasting them on an open spit, meaning just about every media outlet

    and they’ll be right back on the spit when you’re done throwing every other republican on the fire

    Obviously, they are a minority in the Republican Party and leadership. That’s fairly clear. The problem with the GOP isn’t the media. It’s members eating their own. If one stands on long-held principles and values, and the ideals of the Republican Party, they are censured and shunned. That has nothing to do with the media. It has everything to do with the corruption of Trump and his stranglehold on the party. Some good people are afraid to stand up to him for fear of their political futures, however, it would appear that a large majority have forsaken those principles and ideals and instead pledged their fealty to a cheap conman. Until you can understand and admit that the threat is coming from within, then your vision of what is ridiculous is going to be unclear.

    Dana (5395f9)

  24. special Covid rules

    There was a movement already in place to give people more chances and ways to vote. The Covid rules only added to them. But in some states it added a lot – absentee voting used to be much more of a rarity in New York State – Governor Cuomo decreed that fear of getting Covid constituted a temporary illness) and the state mailed applications and politicians, like Congressman Jerrold Nadler, mailed partially filled out applications – and I got one by phone because of some confusion on my part – I didn;t use it.

    In New York State getting an absentee ballot did not remove you from the poll site list, and any ballot cast in person took priority over absentee ballots – that’s why it took so long to count the votes and get the result. I prefer things that way, by the way (in person voting takes priority)

    Prior to 2020, none of these easier voting measures had any substantial impact on turnout.

    Turnout was also higher because of more attention given to the election.

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  25. Clever and experienced is what it takes to never address a balanced budget and continually be re-elected as a republican.
    I pray the old wing tip republicans lose every election.

    mg (8cbc69)

  26. A majority of the House can strip a member of committee assignments (happened to MTG) and a majority of a party can expel someone from its caucus. (so far hasn’t happened to Liz Cheney)

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  27. @22 This is to disqualify hawthorn from ballot in NC not wither he is seated in congress so congress has no say in the matter. states rights.

    asset (7832ab)

  28. @24 If one stands on long-held principles and values, and the ideals of the Republican Party, they are censured and shunned.

    one of those long-held principles is that republicans decide that their ideals are, not ex-republicans

    or, like support for voter identification, did that long-held principle get jettisoned out of convenience according to ex-republicans?

    i hope we can get a list of long-held republican principles and ideals by people who aren’t republicans

    JF (e1156d)

  29. @22 This is to disqualify hawthorn from ballot in NC not wither he is seated in congress so congress has no say in the matter. states rights.

    Only if it is successful and survives a court challenge. States are limited to the “time, place, and manner” of elections (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution), not ballot qualifications.

    ……As the Constitution provides, “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members . . . .” There are instances where Congress’s judgment of qualifications–was a candidate an “inhabitant” of the state or a mere “transient,” how should Congress handle an underage candidate who will come of age after the congressional term starts, etc.–may differ from how a state or a court might determine them. And it is the right of the people to choose their representatives unimpeded by ex ante state determinations–even the right to choose someone the people know or suspect is not qualified for office. …… A state’s determination that a candidate is not qualified thwarts that role.

    While states have the power over the “manner” of congressional elections, that power does not extend to adding qualifications for office, or the related power of adjudicating qualifications. …… A state can develop rules over the mechanics of appearing on the ballot, including threshold levels of support, but cannot extend to substantive evaluation of candidates.
    …….
    …….(The North Carolina State Board of Elections) jurisdiction extends to evaluating the qualifications of a “candidate,” which means “A person having filed a notice of candidacy under the appropriate statute for any elective office in this State.” It’s plausible to read this statute to exclude federal offices. A related provision explains, “Grounds for filing a challenge are that the candidate does not meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications for the office, including residency.” “Residency” is not a qualification for federal office (it’s inhabitancy for Congress), and it’s been used for, among other things, county sheriff candidates in North Carolina. Again, an emphasis that the scope was intended for state candidates, not federal.

    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  30. JF – You re coming awfully close to saying you are unhappy with Mitch McConnell because he told the truth. (And the truth is inconvenient for a man living in Mar-a-Swampo, and his worshipers.)

    Is that what you mean to say?

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  31. one of those long-held principles is that republicans decide that their ideals are, not ex-republicans

    Or ex-something, like Trump.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  32. @31 Jim Miller, you’re making sh!t up as usual

    rubio is telling the truth:

    “That commission is a scam. I think it’s a complete partisan scam. And I think anyone who committed a crime on January 6 should be prosecuted and if convicted, put in jail,” Rubio said in an interview with “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “I do not believe that we need a congressional committee to harass Americans that weren’t even in Washington on January 6, that were not in favor of what happened on that day, have condemned what happened on that day, but they want to smear them anyway.”

    JF (e1156d)

  33. Turtles are, indeed, slow: McConnell’s party is the past; Trump’s party the future.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  34. “……I do not believe that we need a congressional committee to harass Americans that weren’t even in Washington on January 6, that were not in favor of what happened on that day, have condemned what happened on that day, but they want to smear them anyway.”

    Who fits that description? As far as I can tell, everyone that has been subpoenaed is in some manner connected to the insurrection itself, its planning, and/or participated in the attempts to reverse the electoral results through fraud or other means.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  35. #33 So, you agree with me that Mitch McConnell is telling the truth. Good. We are making progress.

    (Others will want to note that Dana said nothing in her post about the bipartisan January 6th committee, and that I said nothing in my comment #31 about it.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  36. @36 no we agree that you’re trolling, Jim Miller

    the resolution against liz and adam is about the the jan6 committee, and the committee is not bipartisan, so we also agree that you’re lying

    JF (e1156d)

  37. Dear Mr. Senate Minority Leader:

    Please inform the members of your party and the citizens of the United States, who pay your salary, what the cost is per day- to the United States Treasury- to deploy and maintain American troops from Ft. Bragg to saber rattle in Eastern Europe.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  38. In one fell swoop, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed the RNC for censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and strongly rebuked Donald Trump

    Actually, McConnell’s Minority Leader now– at least until the midterms. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  39. The “innocent Americans” Rubio refers to are people who signed on as false electors. So they were at some level participants in the Trumps attempt to steal the election.

    Time123 (ec6536)

  40. Like they say, if they’re not innocent when it comes to 1/6, they must be innocent of something else.

    nk (1d9030)

  41. McConnell’s pretty good at reading the room. He must be pretty sure that either the Republican tides are turning against Trump, or that they are ready to turn with a little push.

    Nic (896fdf)

  42. Oh nuts. Fixed it, DCSCA. Thanks.

    Dana (5395f9)

  43. “Who fits that description?”

    Good luck getting an answer.

    Davethulhu (b008b2)

  44. …….Also, there is U.S. Term Limits v Thornton making me not much care what the state rules are.

    The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections—including federal elections – are fair and honest and orderly. But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process, and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates. Term limits, viewed as serving the dual purposes of disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause, crossed this line, as did ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them. [T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.

    Footnotes omitted.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  45. Source for post 45 quote.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  46. Trump will keep trying to to overturn the 2020 election ‘until we get the correct result,’ spokeswoman says
    ……..
    Liz Harrington made the comment during an episode of Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast released Tuesday, after Trump’s former chief strategist asked about ongoing efforts to decertify the election.

    “This is not going away and it is never going to go away until we get the correct result and fix our elections, it’s just that simple,” Harrington said.

    “We still are getting more information about how fraudulent these elections were.”
    ……..
    In a separate podcast episode released last month, Bannon said that Trump’s rally in Arizona on January 15 was the springboard for a national decertification attempt.

    “It’s the kickoff of 2022. A huge speech in front of a massive crowd by Donald J. Trump and, of course, they’re all melting down about who’s on stage with him. They’re all people that are going to get to the decertification of the 2020 Biden electors,” he said.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  47. @36 no we agree that you’re trolling, Jim Miller

    the resolution against liz and adam is about the the jan6 committee, and the committee is not bipartisan, so we also agree that you’re lying

    JF (e1156d) — 2/9/2022 @ 3:43 pm

    There are both Republicans and Democrats on the committee…

    Also, it’s good to bear in mind how the committee was formed, and how the Republicans responded:

    On June 30, 2021, the resolution to form the committee passed by a vote of 222 to 190, with all Democratic members and two Republican members, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, voting in favor. Sixteen Republican members did not vote.[16] The resolution empowered Pelosi to appoint eight members to the committee, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy could appoint five members “in consultation” with Pelosi.[17] Pelosi indicated that she would name a Republican as one of her eight appointees.[18]

    On July 1, Pelosi appointed eight members, seven Democrats and one Republican, Liz Cheney (R-WY); Bennie Thompson (D-MS) would serve as committee chair.[19] On July 19, McCarthy announced the five members he would recommend as the minority on the select committee. He recommended that Jim Banks (R-IN) serve as Ranking Member, and minority members be Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), and Troy Nehls (R-TX).[20] Banks, Jordan, and Nehls voted to overturn the Electoral College results in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Banks and Jordan had also signed onto the Supreme Court case Texas v. Pennsylvania to invalidate the ballots of voters in four states.[21]

    On July 21, Thompson stated in an interview that he would investigate Trump as part of the inquiry into Capitol attack.[22] Hours later, Pelosi said in a statement that she had informed McCarthy that she would reject the recommendations of Jordan and Banks, citing concerns for the investigation’s integrity and relevant actions and statements made by the two members. She approved the recommendations of the other three.[23] McCarthy then pulled all of his picks for the committee and stated that he would not appoint anyone on the committee unless all five of his choices were approved.[24][25]

    After McCarthy rescinded his recommendations, Pelosi announced on July 25 that she had appointed Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) to the committee.[26][27] Kinzinger was one of the ten House Republicans who voted for Trump’s second impeachment.[28] Pelosi also hired a Republican, former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA), as an outside committee staffer or advisor.[9] Cheney voiced her support and pushed for both of their involvement.[28]

    McCarthy wanted Trumpers on the committee to protect their little god. He was not interested in an honest investigation, only a partisan one that favored and protected Trump.

    Dana (5395f9)

  48. This is not going away and it is never going to go away until we get the correct result…

    I believe her. They are just that deluded. This reminds me of Cheney’s replacement (Elise Stefanik) saying:

    “[Cheney] is looking backward. Republicans are looking forward. We are unified. And we are talking about conservative principles. President Trump is an important voice in the Republican Party. We are working as one team.

    So, who’s looking backward??? It sure seems like Trumpers are looking backward, day in and day out. And I doubt that will change in the immediate future – at least not until they get the results they want and Trump demands.

    Dana (5395f9)

  49. being upset that too many legitimate voters cast legal ballots isn’t a very compelling grievance.

    That the state’s efforts to help favored one side, often intentionally as in California with its placement of ballot deposit boxes, is a problem. Every dictatorship in the world knows that if you have to miscount the votes, you aren’t doing it right.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  50. @22 This is to disqualify hawthorn from ballot in NC not wither he is seated in congress so congress has no say in the matter. states rights.

    Not so. States have no authority to settle federal questions, nor can they add to the requirements for federal office. For example, they cannot require a congressional candidate to disclose tax returns.

    Now, if they really think that the insurrection clause was violated (never mind that it was aimed at Confederates), they need to bring a case in federal court.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  51. Trump will keep trying to to overturn the 2020 election ‘until we get the correct result,’ spokeswoman says

    Even if Biden and Harris and the DNC admitted on live television that they had conspired to steal the election and that Harris had even hijacked a truckload of ballots and burned them, Trump would not return to office as the “real president.”

    The election ended when the electoral votes were accepted by Congress.

    However, I think it is now more likely that a GOP-majority House will impeach Biden and Harris on charges of “stealing the election.” I have decided to err on the side of stupid.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  52. Ted Cruz breaks with Mitch McConnell and says it’s a ‘mistake’ for Republicans to call January 6 an ‘insurrection
    Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday criticized his Republican colleagues who have called the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot an “insurrection,” a day after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell described the attack as a “violent insurrection.”
    ……..
    The senator also pushed back on the phrase “armed insurrection” being used by Republican leadership to describe the attack, CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane said.

    In the aftermath of the Capitol riot, Cruz condemned the violence as a “terrorist attack” and repeatedly used that language to describe the day’s events.

    But last month, when Cruz again called the Capitol riot a “terrorist attack,” he walked back that language after widespread backlash from conservative figures, including the Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Cruz appeared on Carlson’s nightly show to apologize for his characterization of the events, saying: “I agree it was a mistake to use the word yesterday because the Democrats and the corporate media have so politicized it.”
    ……….
    Ted has as many positions as Darling Nikki.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  53. Now, if they really think that the insurrection clause was violated (never mind that it was aimed at Confederates), they need to bring a case in federal court.

    The courts would probably not get involved, as this is a “political question.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  54. @53. Every circus needs a few clowns. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  55. http://www.stuffin.space/

    This is mindblowing; makes Earth look like a Covid virus: just look at all the ‘stuff’ zipping around over you -since 1957; just click on one of the ‘dots’ for an ID.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  56. Reporters: US military blocking access to troops in Europe

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Reporters covering the Pentagon and U.S. military are protesting what they say is a refusal to allow access to the approximately 3,000 U.S. troops being deployed in Europe in response to rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

    Pentagon reporters say they have been denied opportunities to interview or embed with the newly arriving troops, who are being sent to Poland, Romania and Germany as a gesture of reassurance to NATO allies in the face of a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is not a NATO ally. The journalists say such blanket restrictions are rare during peacetime and unusual even in active warzones.

    https://www.wric.com/news/politics/reporters-us-military-blocking-access-to-troops-in-europe/

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  57. Kevin M — I think it is now guaranteed that any time, for the rest of our lifetimes, that Congress is controlled by a party other than the president’s, the president will be impeached. It’s too late to avoid that fate, this is now part of the unspoken rules of American politics.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  58. > Most blue states are now trying to cement in the absentee and mail voting rules that were judge-spawned in 2020, while vilifying red state legislatures for moving towards increased security rather than increased participation.

    In California, on the other hand, the state had been moving in the direction of universal vote by mail for some time, had active pilot programs underway, and would eventually have gotten here. The pandemic just sped up the process.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  59. > In New York State getting an absentee ballot did not remove you from the poll site list, and any ballot cast in person took priority over absentee ballots – that’s why it took so long to count the votes and get the result. I prefer things that way, by the way (in person voting takes priority)

    In California prior to universal vote by mail, if you were sent an absentee *or you voted early* you remained on the books and had a mark next to your name. If you showed up at the polling place on election day, and you could *surrender your absentee ballot*, the absentee ballot was voided and you were allowed to vote in precinct. Otherwise (say, for example, you claimed you never got it in the mail) you were allowed to vote provisionally. Your vote was set aside and it would be counted, or not, after they checked to see if your absentee had been counted.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  60. RIP Murdock, at 30:

    The argument is that the state is enforcing this provision of the fourteenth amendment, which by virtue of being an amendment supercedes that which is being amended:

    > No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Other than saying that Congress may remove the disability, the fourteenth amendment does not establish how one goes about determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or given aid or comfort to enemies. It’s not an absurd claim to hold that a state commission responsible for the state’s election law may seek to enforce this provision.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  61. > [T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.

    Absolutely. The substantive bar under discussion comes from the fourteenth amendment. The question is what the proper procedure is for determining that someone is in that category of people who are barred by the fourteenth amendment.

    North Carolina has case law on this *because it actually enforced this provision in the years after the civil war*, and it was accepted at the time that the state had the *procedural* power to enforce the substantive ban on the constitution. Just as the state can require a particular process for proving that you are over the age of 30 if you are running for senate, the state can require a particular process for proving that you have not engaged in insurrection or rebellion (having taken an oath of office as a member of federal or state government) and you are running for state or federal office.

    The fourteenth amendment doesn’t restrict this power to Congress.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  62. Kevin M, if a twenty nine year old runs for President, claiming that he is fifty, is the state entitled to demand he provide a birth certificate and reject his candidacy if his birth certificate says he is twenty nine or if he can’t produce it? Or does the state have to sue to keep him off the ballot?

    What’s the difference?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  63. Ted has as many positions as Darling Nikki.

    It must have been DCSCA who told this whopper.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  64. Kevin M, if a twenty nine year old runs for President, claiming that he is fifty, is the state entitled to demand he provide a birth certificate and reject his candidacy if his birth certificate says he is twenty nine or if he can’t produce it? Or does the state have to sue to keep him off the ballot?

    What’s the difference?

    The age of a candidate is determined easily. Whether someone committed a treasonous felony is another matter. It requires things like proof and a finding of guilt and due process. Now, I suppose that any kangaroo court would be process enough for Judge Bork, but is that really your standard?

    Kevin M (38e250)

  65. shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

    But they are claiming “reasonable suspicion” is enough. You know, like Barack Obama’s chumminess with the Capitol bomber.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  66. Reporters covering the Pentagon and U.S. military are protesting what they say is a refusal to allow access to the approximately 3,000 U.S. troops being deployed in Europe in response to rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

    I would GD hope so. I note that the Trumpies are all in for Putin on this one.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  67. Kevin M — I think it is now guaranteed that any time, for the rest of our lifetimes, that Congress is controlled by a party other than the president’s, the president will be impeached. It’s too late to avoid that fate, this is now part of the unspoken rules of American politics.

    Maybe. Trump deserved the second one, at the very least. I was unconvinced on the first one as the crimes alleged did not rise to the “people give a F about” level.

    I can see Biden being impeached for senility down the road (the 25th amendment does not preclude that), or for another screw-up like the Afghanistan withdrawal (JFK was convinced that he would be impeached if he did not deal with the missiles in Cuba). What I do not want to see is a president impeached because Trump needs to act out. That would be gross.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  68. http://www.stuffin.space/

    “Objects are not to scale”

    Kevin M (38e250)

  69. Hard to believe no republicans give a schiff about a budget. Republican In Name Only

    mg (8cbc69)

  70. @70. ‘Dark program’ objects likely not there either but still, a helluva lot of stuff zipping around up there.

    @65. Nope.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  71. McCarthy wanted Trumpers on the committee to protect their little god. He was not interested in an honest investigation…

    Neither is Nancy.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  72. I feel sorry for the Republicans. They’re trying, they’re really trying, but they’ll never be as good as Democrats at talking and talking, for hours and hours, and saying nothing.

    nk (1d9030)

  73. Star-gazing, navel gazing, is the better view worth the extra cost?

    Still better than the fusion scam, where we don’t even get the view:

    JET hit a Q value of 0.33, meaning it produced about a third the energy put in. [Snicker mine] The highest Q value achieved so far is 0.7 by the US Department of Energy’s National Ignition Facility, but it only hit that figure for 4 billionths of a second. The goal with ITER is to reach a goal of Q factor of 10 or greater, while creating 500 MW of power for long 400 to 600 second pulses. ITER will not produce net energy in the form of electricity, but will pave the way for future machines that can.

    nk (1d9030)

  74. I was unconvinced on the first one as the crimes alleged did not rise to the “people give a F about” level.

    I remember when Republicans thought Bill Clinton’s dissembling about his relations with Monica Lewinsky proved that he was unfit to hold the presidency and was a menace to the constitutional order. I myself defended the position that it was not rank partisanship to hold him accountable for “lying under oath,” even if the lie was “only about sex.” (Maybe because I was more of a rank partisan then.)

    Now, most of the Republicans who defended the impeachment of Clinton have taken the view that it’s perfectly fine for a president to sabotage an official policy, and compromise an ally’s security, in an effort to extract a personal political favor.

    The greater number of them are also defending his various efforts to stay in power despite losing an election.

    As for his regular practice of ripping up documents he was legally required to save, and putting some in burn bags to be destroyed, and spiriting public records away to Mar-a-Lago, and (it now emerges) flushing documents down the toilet in the White House — Trumpublicans can be counted upon to say “Who cares?” or “He had a good reason for it!” or “Stop being so mean to Trump! Why you do hate America?”

    Radegunda (04c976)

  75. aphrael (4c4719) — 2/9/2022 @ 8:05 pm-

    North Carolina has case law on this *because it actually enforced this provision in the years after the civil war*, and it was accepted at the time that the state had the *procedural* power to enforce the substantive ban on the constitution. Just as the state can require a particular process for proving that you are over the age of 30 if you are running for senate, the state can require a particular process for proving that you have not engaged in insurrection or rebellion (having taken an oath of office as a member of federal or state government) and you are running for state or federal office.

    Is the North Carolina “case law” based on state elective offices, or was it applied to federal elective offices (such as congressional elections). If you have a link to the Election Board’s response to Cawthorn’s lawsuit that would be helpful.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  76. Never mind. Here is the NCSBE response to Cawthorn.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  77. Congress cannot legally require the President to preserve his own records. To any extent that the Presidential Records Acts has any validity, it is in regard to third-party access to records he has chosen to preserve. We might criticize Trump for not properly disposing of classified documents and, more seriously, for violating the Clean Water Act.

    nk (1d9030)

  78. asset (7832ab) — 2/9/2022 @ 2:10 pm

    This is to disqualify hawthorn from ballot in NC not wither he is seated in congress so congress has no say in the matter. states rights.

    The House is the only judge of the qualifications of its members – besides a 2/3 vote can waive a disability based on rebellion or insurrection.

    There;s the matter of equal protection. Cawthorn could go to court and he did.

    This is another example of sttempts to twist the law.

    asset (7832ab) —

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  79. 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    (a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    (b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  80. Radegunda (04c976) — 2/10/2022 @ 8:59 am

    Now, most of the Republicans who defended the impeachment of Clinton have taken the view that it’s perfectly fine for a president to sabotage an official policy, and compromise an ally’s security, in an effort to extract a personal political favor.

    That;s notthe position they took. They took the position (or Jim Jordan did) that Trump only de;ayed military aid to Ukraine for 54 days or something and that he had legitimate comcerns. They denied that he attempted to extract a political favor – indeed the request for an investigation, which wasn’t outright a political favor – was conceived of by EU Ambasssador Gordon Sundland in an atempt to get Trump to free up the money, but Trump was having none of that. Trump’s mind had been poisoned against the government of Ukraine by, we can assume, Russian intelligence, through sources of Giuliani. When it became public Trump reversed himself.

    The greater number of them are also defending his various efforts to stay in power despite losing an election.

    As for his regular practice of ripping up documents he was legally required to save, and putting some in burn bags to be destroyed, and spiriting public records away to Mar-a-Lago, and (it now emerges) flushing documents down the toilet in the White House — Trumpublicans can be counted upon to say “Who cares?” or “He had a good reason for it!” or “Stop being so mean to Trump! Why you do hate America?”

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  81. Congress cannot legally require the President to preserve his own records.

    But Nancy Pelosi ripped up a copy of Dear Leader’s speech! That’s illegal!!

    Radegunda (04c976)

  82. The greater number of them are also defending his various efforts to stay in power despite losing an election.

    Not sure they are. They are wishy washy there.

    As for his regular practice of ripping up documents he was legally required to save, and putting some in burn bags to be destroyed, and spiriting public records away to Mar-a-Lago, and (it now emerges) flushing documents down the toilet in the White House — Trumpublicans can be counted upon to say “Who cares?” or “He had a good reason for it!” or “Stop being so mean to Trump! Why you do hate America?”

    The issue now is that some of the documents Trump sent to the National Archives in January may have contained classified information and he did not declassify them before leaving office.

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  83. RNC chief on censuring Cheney: Disagreement is welcome but you can’t side with Nancy Pelosi

    Ronna McDaniel isn’t a bad person but she’s willing to serve bad people to gain political clout, an ailment more common than COVID in America 2022.

    ………There’s so much that’s false or misleading in these 51 seconds I almost don’t know where to begin.
    …….
    Let’s begin with the fact that disagreement within the GOP not only isn’t welcome, it’s apt to earn you a primary challenge backed by the leader of the party if you happen to disagree on the wrong subject. Brian Kemp stands a real chance of being a one-term governor because he disagreed that Georgia law allowed him to throw out the votes of his constituents and declare Trump the winner of the state’s electoral votes in 2020.

    Tea partier turned anti-Trumper Joe Walsh knows firsthand how little disagreement is tolerated in the Trump-era GOP. Walsh mounted a longshot presidential campaign against Trump two years ago only to find that he wouldn’t be given the courtesy of appearing on a ballot in some states. “When you cancel 22 primaries & caucuses to protect your leader, you make clear that ‘disagreement’ in the GOP is not welcome,” Walsh commented…….
    ………
    McDaniel goes on to say that the RNC is irked at Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger not because they disagree with Trump about January 6 but because they’re willing to serve on a committee made illegitimate by the fact that Nancy Pelosi refused to accept Kevin McCarthy’s appointees to that committee. But Pelosi didn’t reject all of McCarthy’s appointees. She rejected two of the five, Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, both of whom are Trump cronies and therefore unsuited to a committee tasked with investigating Trump. McCarthy pulled the other three Republican members after she did that. If anything, Cheney and Kinzinger are doing the RNC a favor by serving on the committee because they’re signaling to swing voters that one can be a Republican and anti-insurrection.

    “Nancy Pelosi is anti-insurrection so we must be anti-anti” would be a fine summary of the mentality that drives Republican negative partisanship in this era. Is that McDaniel’s position?

    She goes on to clarify that the reference to “legitimate political discourse” in the censure resolution that annoyed so many Senate Republicans wasn’t a reference to the riot itself. How does she know that, though? According to WaPo, it’s unclear who inserted that phrase into the resolution and why……
    ………
    Go figure that no one at the RNC wants to take ownership of the phrase after the backlash this weekend. …….
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  84. Congress cannot legally require the President to preserve his own records.

    The Trump should sue the National Archives and retrieve his records. Since presidential records are not personal but public documents, that will a tough sell.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  85. Congress cannot legally require the President to preserve his own records.

    An assertion without evidence.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  86. @74. Reaganaurics. 😉

    @86/@87 Seem to recall a certain, cranky old bag known for purchasing $15 pints of ice cream who indignantly tore up the text of the POTUS’s SOTU speech on live television, destroying government property. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  87. @87

    Congress cannot legally require the President to preserve his own records.

    An assertion without evidence.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/10/2022 @ 10:02 am

    It’s primarily a separation of powers argument.

    whembly (3b98b6)

  88. @81. 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    (a)”Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

    So Speaker Pelosi tore up the SOTU speech on live television… ‘Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!’

    😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  89. But Nancy Pelosi ripped up a copy of Dear Leader’s speech! That’s illegal!!

    Politicians of all stripes thank Providence daily for people who believe such things. They are their bread and butter.

    nk (1d9030)

  90. Throw em both down the hole, I’m sure the asset wing of the party wouldn’t mind at all.

    urbanleftbehind (0ba5d0)

  91. The issue now is that some of the documents Trump sent to the National Archives in January may have contained classified information and he did not declassify them before leaving office.

    No, the issue is:
    1) He removed government documents from government position and took them to his private home. Investigators had to go there to retrieve them.
    2) He used multiple methods of destroying or mutilating documents he was legally required to maintain and turn over to the National Archives.

    Don’t you find it even a little bit troubling that a president was flushing documents down the toilet? Or can it be spun as a perfectly legitimate practice?

    What is the reason for the ongoing attempt to find the most innocent possible explanation for Trump’s manifestly bad behavior? Including a pattern of action that screams out He’s hiding things that the public, or at least the proper government officials, have a right to know.

    Radegunda (04c976)

  92. It’s primarily a separation of powers argument.

    whembly (3b98b6) — 2/10/2022 @ 10:15 am

    Which is interesting in that A) no former President has made that assertion; and B) Trump also never asserted the Presidential Records Act was unconstitutional. His claim was executive privilege, which he lost bigly.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  93. Also, Congress has told Presidents all the time what to do.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  94. @76: What is most annoying about the Clinton impeachment is how he continued to obstruct justice in his impeachment defense by intimidating witnesses and/or buying people off. The full tax audit of Paula Jones afterwards was icing on the cake.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  95. Never mind. Here is the NCSBE response to Cawthorn.

    Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? No standing, not ripe and we haven’t actually put him on the rack yet, so where’s the injury?

    Kevin M (38e250)

  96. This is to disqualify hawthorn from ballot in NC not wither he is seated in congress so congress has no say in the matter. states rights.

    IF (and I say IF) he is guilty of Insurrection (or some conspiracy to commit such an act) that is a federal crime, not a state one, and certainly not a North Carolina one since it didn’t happen in North Carolina.

    If the federal government wants to bring federal charges, that would be one thing, and if convicted he would indeed be barred under the 14th Amendment. But no state proceeding can find someone guilty of a federal crime. No jurisdiction.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  97. Also, Congress has told Presidents all the time what to do.

    And Presidents have patted them on the head, said “Nice Doggie” and proceeded as they intended.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  98. Politicians of all stripes thank Providence daily for people who believe such things. They are their bread and butter.

    “The salt of the Earth, You know ….”

    Kevin M (38e250)

  99. What is most annoying about the Clinton impeachment is how he continued to obstruct justice in his impeachment defense …

    Any number of people who found all that horrifying will bend over backwards to defend Trump’s obstruction and intimidation, his destruction of records, his practice of making calls on his personal phone so there wouldn’t be an official record, etc.

    Trumpers declared it a virtue that “he’s not afraid to challenge traditional norms” and decided that whatever he does must ipso facto be patriotic and that any attempt to hold him accountable is the unjust persecution of the Duly Elected President.

    Trumpers elevated amorality and lawlessness to a virtue if it’s done by their guy. And most of the GOP has gone along, which is why I’m not a Republican now.

    Radegunda (c9718a)

  100. Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? No standing, not ripe and we haven’t actually put him on the rack yet, so where’s the injury?

    Cawthorn’s lawsuit is for preliminary injunction, not on the merits, so the NCBSE points are correct. Cawthorn hasn’t suffered an injury (yet) so his arguments are putting the cart before the horse.

    Being required to attend a deposition and offer a defense before the panel to allegations regarding whether or not Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally disqualifying actions is not an injury, much less irreparable harm.

    Moreover, even if Plaintiff were found to be disqualified, he is not without recourse. He has available to him the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals, and potentially the Supreme Court of North Carolina and the Supreme Court of the United States.

    The ability to answer the allegations in an adversarial proceeding, to compel documents and testimony from the challengers, and appeal any adverse decision to appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, assuming he has a valid constitutional issue, does not amount to irreparable harm. For these reasons, Plaintiff cannot show that it is “likely” that he will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.


    Citations omitted.

    I don’t think that Free Speech for the People (the organization that brought the challenge) will be successful in the end, but it will be interesting to watch. And since the North Carolina redistricting map is up in the air and the primary has been postponed due to challenges to the redistricting map drawn by the legislature.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  101. 93. Radegunda (04c976) — 2/10/2022 @ 10:28 am

    No, the issue is:

    1) He removed government documents from government position and took them to his private home. Investigators had to go there to retrieve them.

    No, that’s been resolved. It’s attributed to haste, since (although Melania packed) he didn’t prepare to vacate the White House till the last two weeks. His aides either were helping him try to stay on;, trying to stop him from doing that, or avoiding him. No time to check the residential quaarters for government records. Melania quietly packed and shipped stuff to Mar-a-Lago but these would have been mostly her things.

    It included some things Trump might reasonably have thought were his private property. They had friendly conversations – he agreed they would be better preserved for history in their custody. Tehhey convinced him some of it could eventually be displayed in his library. I don’t know if anyone visited Nar-a-Lago.

    News reports are that some of the items were:

    1) The original of the note that Obama left for him on January 20, 2017

    2) The letters (or drafts of them? Originals?) to Kim Jong Un of North Korea (now how could he not consider that government record – anyway they had been in the residence.)

    3) The map on which he drew an addition with a Sharpie to show projected path of a hurricane. (he kept that? Maybe to defend himself)

    Trump would also sometimes cut out pictures from the President’s Daily Brief and take it to the residence presumably to study or ponder about. One time he made something public.

    2) He used multiple methods of destroying or mutilating documents he was legally required to maintain and turn over to the National Archives.

    This is trivial. And very little of what he handled would have been the only copy.

    Don’t you find it even a little bit troubling that a president was flushing documents down the toilet? Or can it be spun as a perfectly legitimate practice?

    This is the first I heard about flushing them away, It depends on what it was.

    What is the reason for the ongoing attempt to find the most innocent possible explanation for Trump’s manifestly bad behavior? Including a pattern of action that screams out He’s hiding things that the public, or at least the proper government officials, have a right to know.

    Approach most things with a innocent explanation.

    Yes he was hiding things, but that’s more in the nature of political motivations. What he was hiding waas not normally disclosed contemporaneously.

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  102. 97. Kevin M (38e250) — 2/10/2022 @ 10:46 am

    so where’s the injury?

    The problem is that;s the way courts often work.

    The injury is he has to budget money for a lawsuit, and time off from campaigning. But the court said they might not repeat themselves with the new districts, and without new district lines nobody can say he is a potential voter.

    It is an illustration of how courts sometimes just waste time and create extra work for lawyers.

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  103. The Presidential Records Act was passed after Nixon resigned. It’s not something anyone uninformed would assume to be the law. Although they do know he we save everything from a president.

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  104. Maggie Haberman’s book title: “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America” suggests to me that we should treat Trump like any other con man — with justified suspicion, rather than assuming his innocence.

    (Two striking details from the brief Axios article: First, among the correspondence that Trump has kept are letters from the man Trump said he loves, Kim Jong-un. Second, Trump has had many “marathon conversations with book authors at Mar-a-Lago”, since losing the election. Oddly he seems to think that giving all that time to journalists like Haberman will help him. Granted some of the interviews have gone to sycophants like Mollie Hemingway, but not all.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  105. @91. ‘Politicians of all stripes thank Providence daily for people who believe such things. They are their bread and butter.’

    ROFLMAOPIP “Let’s go to the videotape!” – Warner Wolf

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSgc7wuiN30

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  106. CNN: ‘Network of the Living Dead’

    https://www.mediaite.com/daily-ratings/cable-news-ratings-tuesday-february-8-jesse-watters-dominates-competition/

    The only thing that can save CNN from death is the same thing that gave it life 30 years ago: WAR.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  107. Q. Did Trump keep the text of the letters to and from Kim Jong Un out of government records? If you say so, how could he? Somebody had to deliver and translate them.

    Trump is interested in being remembered, and wants to raise his reputation so he talks to even hostile people – he also thinks people respond in kind to friendliness. (that accounts a little bit for his approach to Kim Jong UN0

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  108. 109. This is something that Sarah Palin did not do.

    Jim Lamon is now, although he wasn’t originally, leading in the GOP primary poll, and was one of the pseudo electors for Trump.

    https://news.yahoo.com/us-senate-candidate-jim-lamon-025436584.html

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  109. 2) He used multiple methods of destroying or mutilating documents he was legally required to maintain and turn over to the National Archives.

    This is trivial. And very little of what he handled would have been the only copy.

    How do you know? And if his tearing things up was “trivial,” why did aides try to prevail upon him not to do it? Why did some staff feel duty-bound to tape things up again? Why were documents subpoenaed by the 1/6 committee things that had been taped together?

    Don’t you find it even a little bit troubling that a president was flushing documents down the toilet? Or can it be spun as a perfectly legitimate practice?

    This is the first I heard about flushing them away, It depends on what it was.

    Well, we can’t really know “what it was” now. Which was obviously the point of flushing them down the toilet — a highly unusual way for a president to handle documents.

    By all accounts — or by the accounts of people who aren’t devoted Trump-fluffers – Trump’s handling of documents was improper at the very least, probably illegal, and undoubtedly an effort to conceal things from the public or from posterity.

    Just like his preference for using his private phone. There’s a long time-gap in his official phone records from 1/6, even though other evidence has documented that he was speaking with certain people on the phone during that time.

    Why did he not want those calls to be on the official call log?

    There are people who will keep trying to find an innocent explanation for deeply suspect behavior, instead of drawing the most obvious and most consistent inferences.

    Radegunda (c9718a)

  110. SF: This is trivial. And very little of what he handled would have been the only copy.

    Radegunda (c9718a) — 2/10/2022 @ 4:04 pm

    How do you know?

    Just think.

    What he was tearingup was stuff written by others. The government is a big organization. Documents were probably prepared on computer. This would not have been the only copy in existence, at least for some time. Only nots he write would have been original.

    And if his tearing things up was “trivial,” why did aides try to prevail upon him not to do it?

    Because it was illegal, as they understood it, not because it was important.

    Why did some staff feel duty-bound to tape things up again?

    They don;t even want to make small violations in law in the White House.

    Why were documents subpoenaed by the 1/6 committee things that had been taped together?

    I don;t know what documents you are talking about.

    Don’t you find it even a little bit troubling that a president was flushing documents down the toilet? Or can it be spun as a perfectly legitimate practice?

    It sounds improbable – what was he, someone evading a search warrant?? Now maybe he felt that was the way to get rid of secret classified material that he didn’t want to take back to the office. That would be about the only explanation I could think of. But he denies it and nobody asserts he did that,

    By all accounts — or by the accounts of people who aren’t devoted Trump-fluffers – Trump’s handling of documents was improper at the very least, probably illegal,

    Probably illegal, but the law is too tough and it should ask that documents handled by other officials be preserved more.

    and undoubtedly an effort to conceal things from the public or from posterity.

    They were goiing to stay in his custody anyway. It was just instinct with him.

    Just like his preference for using his private phone. There’s a long time-gap in his official phone records from 1/6, even though other evidence has documented that he was speaking with certain people on the phone during that time.

    That might be something. It was clearly political matters, but political matters around Jan 6 is something the Jan 6 committee has a valid interest in because of what happened.

    Why did he not want those calls to be on the official call log?

    It was political stuff! It would have even been illegal to use official government phones for that!!

    Sammy Finkelman (46ec7d)

  111. Cartoonist Michael Ramirez agrees with Dana.

    (He’s a smart man.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  112. Ronna does not know that history is written by the winners, that’s how dumb she is, Mr. Miller.

    nk (1d9030)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2781 secs.