Patterico's Pontifications

7/12/2022

White House Logs: Ten Republican Lawmakers Attended Meeting Focused On Pressuring Pence To Help Overturn 2020 Election

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:08 pm



[guest post by Dana]

An interesting little tidbit from the Jan. 6 Committee:

Ten Republican members of Congress attended a Dec. 21 White House meeting focused on efforts to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to help overturn the 2020 election, according to the Jan. 6 committee.

The revelation underscores how deep the involvement of some lawmakers were in former President Trump’s schemes to overturn the election even after the electoral college met to affirm President Biden’s victory.

So which Republicans were at the meeting? Exactly who you would expect:

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) said at a hearing on Tuesday that White House visitor logs reveal 10 members were physically in attendance::

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
Now-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)

Additionally, behind a closed-door meeting:

[Cassidy] Hutchinson noted that “they dialed in a few Members over the course of that meeting.”

She mentioned two members – Reps. Mo Brooks (R-Ga.) and Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) – who were not in the visitor logs cited by Murphy.

Of the aforementioned group, Mo Brooks, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, Scott Perry and Marjorie Taylor Green are reported to have sought pardons, either directly or through another member from then-President Trump. (Biggs and Perry deny this.)

If you recall, Jim Jordan was tapped by House Leader Kevin McCarthy as one of five Republicans to sit on the Jan. 6 Committee. Two of his nominees to the committee, Jordan and Jim Banks, had voted against certifying Arizona’s and Pennsylvania’s electoral votes for Biden in 2020. Of course Nancy Pelosi had to reject their selection. As a result, McCarthy pulled the rest of his Republican nominees from the committee.

Another interesting tidbit from today: Rep. Cheney announced at the end of today’s hearing that Donald Trump had attempted to contact one of the committee’s witnesses:

“After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump’s call.”

Cheney went on to say that the witness “did not answer or respond to President Trump’s call, and instead alerted their lawyer to the call.” The person’s lawyer then notified the committee. Cheney followed up, saying that the committee had informed the Department of Justice about the attempt to contact the witness.

Taylor Budowich, the director of communications for former President Donald Trump, attempted to push back on Cheney’s claim, but he didn’t directly deny it:

–Dana

161 Responses to “White House Logs: Ten Republican Lawmakers Attended Meeting Focused On Pressuring Pence To Help Overturn 2020 Election”

  1. The walls are closing in.

    Colonel Haiku (cd2af6)

  2. Of course Nancy Pelosi had to reject their selection.

    I’ve never understood that part. The Watergate Committees has some true-blue Nixon supporters, who defended him, and challenged witnesses, right up to the smoking-gun tape. Just because Pelosi doesn’t like backtalk does not mean that a committee that excludes die-hard Trump supporters is a good idea.

    She knew that rejecting the minority’s choices would necessarily cause them to withdraw, lest they be her creatures from then on. There was no way that McCarthy could continue, and Pelosi knew it. Luckily for her there would be enough people buying her tale.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  3. Doomsday Trump Indictment Clock update:

    still 100 seconds to midnight

    JF (b33cab)

  4. It wasn’t backtalking that was the deal-breaker. It was their votes against certifying the electoral votes for Biden in two states.

    Dana (1225fc)

  5. The GOP Congress next year will be interesting. I wonder what they’ve decided they want to be. It’s going to be all Kabuki anyway as Biden will veto anything they pass, and the Senate filibuster will keep those things to a minimum. I keep hoping that someone will decide to compromise, but the hyperpartisans on both sides will see that as treason, so I’m sure that my hope is misplaced.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  6. It wasn’t backtalking that was the deal-breaker. It was their votes against certifying the electoral votes for Biden in two states.

    She imposed a litmus test on what people in the minority party thought. I really don’t care if they thought the Earth was flat. NO minority caucus can accept a “bipartisan” committee chosen by the majority. Not here, not in Thailand, not in Russia, not on Betelgeuse V. It’s a political nonstarter.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  7. A number of Democrats refused to certify the votes in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Never once were they punished by their party for doing that. Pelosi did not want advocates of Trump’s position on the committee. I watched the Watergate hearings and there was some SERIOUS denial going on then. Or, if you prefer, pointed cross-examination. Something notably missing from this current committee.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  8. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111123258/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    Three rings of interwoven attack were now operating towards January 6th. On the inside ring, Trump continued trying to work to overturn the election by getting Mike Pence to abandon his oath of office as vice president and assert the unilateral power to reject electoral votes. This would have been a fundamental and unprecedented breach of the Constitution that would promise Trump multiple ways of staying in office.

    Meanwhile, in the middle ring, members of domestic violent extremist groups created an alliance both online and in-person to coordinate a massive effort to storm, invade, and occupy the Capitol. By placing a target on the joint session of Congress, Trump had mobilized these groups around a common goal, emboldening them, strengthening their working relationships, and helping build their numbers.

    Finally, in the outer ring, on January 6th there assembled a large and angry crowd, the political force that Trump considered both the touchstone and the measure of his political power. Here were thousands of enraged Trump followers thoroughly convinced by the big lie, who traveled from across the country to join Trump’s wild rally to stop the steal.

    How is the biggest ring missing? The thing that got everyone’s attention – the attempt to get at least one Senator to object to the vote (which succeeded) is missing. Suddenly it’s only about Mike Pence.

    The idea of Mike Pence rejecting the votes came later, although it was first thought of in late November.

    Sammy Finkelman (0ac4d7)

  9. Kevin @7 The whole idea members of Congress trying not to certify the vote has been put into the memory hole in today’s hearing. They only mention the Mike Pence option. This cannot be an accident.

    Sammy Finkelman (0ac4d7)

  10. Votes about certifying the electoral votes for Biden in two state are missing from today’s hearing. You wouldn’t know that the process would have been delayed anyway, by Parliamentary means, till well into the next day. It spoils the picture that Trump wanted the storming of the Capitol.

    Somehow the networks (at least not CBS and probably also NBC) did not pick up on this. The Dec 21 meeting probably mainly dealt with Plan A not Plan B (Mike Pence)

    The committee almost went back into the idea that Trump never wanted to come to the Capitol (that he only wanted others to break the law) Forgot completely and never mentioned Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony that he wanted to go there, and tried to make him out to be a liar to the crowd at the Ellipse about that.

    Sammy Finkelman (0ac4d7)

  11. A number of Democrats refused to certify the votes in 2000, 2004 and 2016.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 7/12/2022 @ 6:30 pm

    Good reminder. There also have been leading Democrats who engaged in election-denying rhetoric in contests prior to 2020, and I don’t just mean Stacy Abrams. They did it regarding national elections. Hillary was one. Did Al Gore do it, or just the people around him? I can’t remember.

    Trump just did it in a much bigger way, and he’s still doing it.

    A pox on all of them, and shame on the American people who countenance such buffoonery.

    norcal (da5491)

  12. Just because Pelosi doesn’t like backtalk does not mean that a committee that excludes die-hard Trump supporters is a good idea.

    I don’t believe the issue was “backtalk”, rather the concept that potential witnesses in the investigation shouldn’t be serving on the committee. That kind of conflict was a rightful reason to bounce ’em.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  13. The world needs more scolds.

    Colonel Haiku (cd2af6)

  14. “After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings.”

    let’s see … so this is a witness unknown to us but Trump somehow knew this person was to be a witness

    otherwise, it’s a joke to call it witness tampering

    so, the committee is feeding Trump information unknown to everyone else? this is comical

    for all anyone knows, it was a butt dial

    “We will take any effort to impact witness testimony very seriously“

    what a sack of sh_t

    are any of you liz cultists embarrassed yet?

    JF (715830)

  15. “let’s see … so this is a witness unknown to us but Trump somehow knew this person was to be a witness”

    Trump knows who he communicated with.

    Davethulhu (0b1e86)

  16. Trump knows who he communicated with.
    Davethulhu (0b1e86) — 7/12/2022 @ 8:10 pm

    the my pillow guy?

    JF (715830)

  17. @16 Trump heard about those slippers and wanted a few pair

    frosty (c09971)

  18. Cheney Voted with Trump More Than His Closest Allies
    November 16, 2021

    The Casper Star Tribune‘s report on Wyoming Republicans refusing to recognize Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) as a member of their party also notes that Cheney voted with Donald Trump on policy 93% of the time.

    “That’s a higher percentage than Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep. Elise Stefanik, Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Matt Gaetz and a number of other lawmakers who are seen as staunch Trump allies.” – https://politicalwire.com/2021/11/16/cheney-voted-with-trump-more-than-his-closest-allies/

    So Daughter Darth was for “Hitler” …before she was against him.

    The last thing Populist America needs are lectures from a bottom-of-the-deck-neocon on her way out the door; a Cheney family princess who profited from poor policy decisions and endless wars the current party base soundly rejects.

    DCSCA (bcbf88)

  19. DCSCA (bcbf88) — 7/12/2022 @ 8:37 pm

    I know it wasn’t your intention, but you’re making the case for Liz. She voted with Trump on policy, but not on his malfeasance.

    norcal (da5491)

  20. Paul, others,

    You guys keep bringing up why they didn’t want them on the committee. To me, it doesn’t matter. Just reasons du jour. The problem is much more basic. In a multi-party system, you cannot have one party dictating to the other. About anything. And the party getting dictated to has to walk.

    McCarthy did not put those two up because he thought it would be a good idea, he did it because his caucus insisted that they, or someone like them, be on the committee. If bipartisanship is going to be claimed then, by gum, you have to accept the other side’s partisans. If it pisses you off, put Maxine or Ilhan on the panel and see if they blink.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  21. “That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump’s call.”

    It less likely that the sun rises tomorrow than Michael Pillow failing to answer Trump’s call.

    Davethulhu (0b1e86)

  22. @19. Nonsense norcal- it exposes her utter hypocrisy and desperation at being shuffled to the bottom of the deck, out of the game, by an angry populist party base totally fed up with the neocon betrayals and bull sh-t championed by her, her daddy and the infestation of ideological fleas brushed out of the tail which no longer wags the dog.

    DCSCA (bcbf88)

  23. In a multi-party system, you cannot have one party dictating to the other. About anything. And the party getting dictated to has to walk.

    I disagree, Kevin. A line has to be drawn somewhere and, like it or not, the Speaker has the power to choose any House member for a special committee. Her extending the choice to McCarthy was a courtesy, one that the sniveling Trump a$$-kisser abused by him picking two potential investigation witnesses.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  24. Just because Pelosi doesn’t like backtalk does not mean that a committee that excludes die-hard Trump supporters is a good idea.

    This old broad’s as out of it as Biden– maybe worse.

    She’s 82 years old and announced she will run for re-election in November. Remember her angry rant pointing at POTUS:

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/story-behind-photo-pelosi-trump-angry-white-house-235127511.html

    And ripping up the SOTU text – [government property BTW]- on live television. And blindly backing Biden with the frightening rationalization: “I trust his judgement.”

    There’s an age limit for airline pilots for a reason; competence; judgement; reflexes and the risk of life and property in play demands it; a competency test for political office holders over 65 is a must as well, given similiar risks to life, property and questionable judgement.

    But this old broad has earned the boot.

    DCSCA (bcbf88)

  25. norcal sounds like a mad as hell nun

    mg (8cbc69)

  26. Leftist group in Congress targets conservative Republicans. I’m shocked.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  27. #2 Ordinarily, Kevin, suspects in a crime do not serve on grand juries investigating that crime. There were, and are, Republican members of Congress who did not actively support Trump’s riot, who could have served on that committee.

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  28. Kevin, not sure how you can defend McCarthy. His strategy was transparent. Put forward two members that…by their record of comments and actions….were enmeshed in the scheme to delay certification (not just a performative act, but part of an orchestrated scheme). Jim Jordan is claimed to have sought a Presidential pardon which would make the committee’s investigation into that awkward. This isn’t just like putting a staunch Nixon suppoter on the Watergate committee — it’s like putting someone involved in Nixon’s coverup on the committee.

    McCarthy suggested Jordan and Banks….I think at Trump’s insistence….because he knew they would be denied and then he could have his tantrum….withdraw other acceptable members from the committee….and build the narrative that the committee was just a witch hunt. It’s an obvious stunt. Why validate it?

    Cross-examination is a hallmark of a jury trial, but is it required to be fair at a grand jury? We are seeing the synopsis of the committee’s investigation. Although DoJ may use the material to build an indictment, the committee purpose is to render a public accounting. Nothing is preventing Trump loyalists like Bannon or Giuliani or Flynn from coming forward and clarifying any part of the record. Their silence….or in Flynn’s case pleading the 5th….speaks volumes to their contribution to the search for truth. The GOP isn’t looking for truth, they’re looking to change the subject….

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  29. @7

    A number of Democrats refused to certify the votes in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Never once were they punished by their party for doing that. Pelosi did not want advocates of Trump’s position on the committee. I watched the Watergate hearings and there was some SERIOUS denial going on then. Or, if you prefer, pointed cross-examination. Something notably missing from this current committee.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 7/12/2022 @ 6:30 pm

    It prolly doesn’t matter with political junkies like us, but it would’ve been extremely useful to those who DON’T want Trump back for the non-political junkies to see those who could’ve defend Trump in that J6 committee.

    That would’ve exposed those folks with clarity when they’re up for election again.

    whembly (b770f8)

  30. AJ_Liberty (c82e21) — 7/13/2022 @ 5:50 am

    so, is this a grand jury? seems like a simple question

    or, is it a grand jury when you want it to be, and not when you don’t want it to be?

    are members of a grand jury chosen from a pool of prosecutors?

    JF (cea649)

  31. “Trump was not attempting a coup. He was flailing about, knowing that Joe Biden didn’t get 81 million votes, but somehow the numbers said he had. He was pissed and he had a very engaged and enraged following. It was a day of high emotions. Remember- going into that election, the Democratic/Progressive groups were literally threatening all out chaos in our streets and cities if Trump had won reelection. And you can bet your bottom dollar that those groups would have been sponsored by some very high profile Democrats. Based on their dress rehearsal in the summer of 2020, I think most of us took that threat seriously. There was going to be trouble no matter who won.

    Trump was not used to having to accept a defeat with no recourse. As President, his only recourse at that time was to stand down. Not something he is used to and not something he wanted to do without being sure. And the reality is that even now – today – a majority of Americans still think there was skullduggery that took place in November of 2020.”

    —- Temujin

    Colonel Haiku (cd2af6)

  32. Here’s an interesting audio of Bannon predicting exactly what Trump did.

    https://twitter.com/motherjones/status/1546930628284731394?s=21&t=h_FPvZZe-fSvryL1LqH4Fw

    Time123 (48c7ef)

  33. @31, Can’t speak to what a majority believe. But there is no evidence the election was determined by fraud.

    If liars have managed to convince a lot of people otherwise shame on them and the morons who believe them.

    Time123 (48c7ef)

  34. @29, I think those folks have already been exposed. But the MAGA faithful don’t care. Trying to steal the presidency is fine a lot of ppl on the right.

    Time124 (48c7ef)

  35. Biden voters calling others morons is rich. 😂

    Colonel Haiku (cd2af6)

  36. #31 Since I know a little history, I would not choose “Temujin” as a screen name — assuming I was a supporter of democracy. And opposed to mass murder.

    (By the way, it is polite to give the source for quotes, unless they are quotes everyone knows.)

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  37. No, it’s not a grand jury…but it’s closer to a grand jury in purpose than it is to a jury trial

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  38. @28 This argument goes both ways though. If you’re going to put highly partisan D hacks on the committee complaining about highly partisan R hacks will fall on deaf ears. Going one step further and denying that there is anything at all sketchy about the D hacks and that they are “searching for truth” moves it into the realm of propaganda.

    I also keep hearing about how this committee is like a grand jury. But this isn’t a grand jury process. It’s also not meant to be a public accounting since that implies an objective view of the situation. All of this is confusing different analogies. It can’t be a public accounting and a pseudo-grand jury.

    This is purely a political process that is designed to promote a narrative.

    and build the narrative that the committee was just a witch hunt. It’s an obvious stunt. Why validate it?

    It is a witch hunt. It makes sense to deny it and I know the claim is that this is to prevent another Jan/6 type of attack but have you seen much about that? For example, Pelosi’s office is off limits so there’s no ability to review any security failures of the House sergeant-at-arms at all. Why exactly is Pelosi’s office off limits in a “search for truth”?

    Their silence….or in Flynn’s case pleading the 5th….speaks volumes

    And this really tells the story of people who love this committee. This type of imputation of guilt is disgusting. This is how political witch trials work.

    It seems like you’re issue might be that you’re in favor of the witch hunt, but want to call it searching for truth, and not in favor of anyone working against that.

    frosty (4a4466)

  39. It’s clear Trump tried to steal the presidency based on lies about fraud.
    It’s clear hundreds of his supporters violently assaulted the police and seized the capital to prevent the certification of an election he lost.
    It’s clear many scumbags ‘conservatives’ don’t care.

    Time124 (48c7ef)

  40. But there is no evidence the election was determined by fraud.

    Time123 (48c7ef) — 7/13/2022 @ 6:42 am

    And there’s also no evidence that it wasn’t. The US election system works largely on faith in the system and common agreement. I know this is a challenge for people who have both worked to undermine that faith and rely on it depending on which is to their advantage.

    That this can’t even be discussed without triggering people into an extreme emotional reaction should tell you how much of this is a fanatic defense of priors instead of a rational process.

    frosty (4a4466)

  41. It is a witch hunt.

    Heh. Triggering people into an extreme emotional reaction, indeed.

    Dana (1225fc)

  42. @39, there’s plenty of evidence that it wasn’t. Multiple states ran investigations looking for fraud. Many lead by Republicans and Trump supporters.

    All concluded that the elections weren’t determined by fraud.

    Time123 (48c7ef)

  43. ETA, even the Cyber Ninja clowns were forced to validate the original count.

    Time123 (48c7ef)

  44. @40 and @41 Again, this is a belief claim. It’s similar to how being found not guilty isn’t the same as innocent. Not finding evidence of a thing isn’t evidence of the opposite.

    If it’s important to your belief system that 2020 was decided a certain way you’re going to see whatever “evidence” is available in the light most favorable to that view.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  45. #38

    I think I’ll have you arrested for jaywalking, because there is no evidence you haven’t been jaywalking.

    That’s your logic.

    Living in Georgia and with Stacy Abrams, I get your argument about the toxicity of claims that votes aren’t being counted when they are. The Republic is probably not better off in receiving its second does of poison from the Right, after getting a dose from the Left.

    Appalled (fa627b)

  46. a person affected by intellectual disability calling people morons is funny

    mg (8cbc69)

  47. Heh. Triggering people into an extreme emotional reaction, indeed.

    Dana (1225fc) — 7/13/2022 @ 7:40 am

    Only if you think taking the time to make a comment is an extreme emotional reaction. But I’m not sure those words mean what you think they mean. If that’s the criteria we’d be in an interesting cycle since by that rule you’ve been triggered by me calling it a witch hunt. And then it’s just extreme emotional reactions from there.

    Are you on board with AJ_Liberty’s contention that this is a “search for truth” and “silence … speaks volumes”? Maybe we should just tie rocks to various people in Trump’s admin and through them in the nearest river.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  48. I think I’ll have you arrested for jaywalking, because there is no evidence you haven’t been jaywalking.

    That’s your logic.

    Living in Georgia and with Stacy Abrams, I get your argument about the toxicity of claims that votes aren’t being counted when they are. The Republic is probably not better off in receiving its second does of poison from the Right, after getting a dose from the Left.
    Appalled (fa627b) — 7/13/2022 @ 7:59 am

    That’s not actually my logic. Sadly, it’s not even close. I understand that this is the poor state of reasoning that many have to resort to for their faith.

    If you we’re going to paraphrase my logic it’d be:

    I’d like to have you arrested for jaywalking, but I can’t prove whether you did or didn’t jaywalk

    I’m not saying that there was fraud. I’m saying that you can’t prove a claim about either one in the way that people like Time want to. I’m also saying that people like Time, and now I’d include you, aren’t even capable of discussing that issue without deflecting.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  49. 9.1% inflation. Thanks, Biden voters!!!

    Colonel Haiku (cd2af6)

  50. It’s similar to how being found not guilty isn’t the same as innocent. Not finding evidence of a thing isn’t evidence of the opposite.

    This is burden shifting. All 3,143 counties in the Union certified that their elections were fair and accurate. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  51. This is burden shifting. All 3,143 counties in the Union certified that their elections were fair and accurate. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/13/2022 @ 8:16 am

    It’s not “on me” since I’m not making this claim. A person would only need to prove otherwise if they wanted to overturn the conclusion. I’m ok with you believing everything was certified fair and accurate and I’m not trying to convert you.

    I get why you’ve got to redefine the argument though. Do you think this “you’ve got to prove otherwise” argument is making a lot of headway?

    frosty (ee42e1)

  52. frosty: “This is how political witch trials work”

    The vast majority of witnesses have been Republicans who supported Trump’s re-election. There are increasing numbers of GOP lawyers expressing concern over claims now made and confirmed by multiple witnesses. Most objective observers see a growing legal problem for Trump. Some of this evidence is certainly circumstantial….like the connections between extremist groups and Bannon/Stone/Flynn and then communications between Bannon/Flynn and Trump. They can at best call out the interesting timing between Trump’s Dec 18 call-to-action tweet and the late-night Dec 17th meeting with Flynn et al. This committee does not have the power to compel Bannon to reveal the substance of conversations that he had for 11 minutes with Trump. Did Trump know ahead of time that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would initiate the siege of the Capitol? I would hope most Americans would want to know that….and would insist on getting the sworn testimony needed to confirm or refute it. I get that many here will do everything in their power to muddy that question. I think the country deserves an answer as to why Trump waited hours to call off the mob when his closest advisors and family members were urging him to do it. This is basic accountability….men of character would have addressed the nation the night of Jan 6th or the morning of the 7th and explained themselves. Instead we get more clown show….

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  53. frosty,

    I’d like to know what your faith is, electorally speaking. You say you have no faith in the results. Then what do you believe? Do you flail about (as the Donald in commment #31, knowing that Joe Biden didn’t get 81 million votes). Or are you just asking questions?

    How did you lose your faith? How did you sustain your loss of faith, given that NOT ONE case has gone Trump’s way?

    (Dana — if frosty answers this, he might run afoul of your stolen election death sentence. Please give him a break on that just this once)

    Appalled (fa627b)

  54. @49

    This is burden shifting. All 3,143 counties in the Union certified that their elections were fair and accurate. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/13/2022 @ 8:16 am

    Except that’s impossible.

    Once the vote is casted, anonymously, there’s no way to retrospectively assert it was casted fraudulently. (outside of maybe pointing out issues like # of votes casted vs. # of eligible voters in district)

    The ONLY way to assert that an election was conducted ‘fair and accurate’ is if the INTAKE process gives the public assurances that the PROCESS is robust. (ie, voterIDs, prohibition on ballot harvesting, etc…).

    It’s asinine to immediately hand-wave over concerns about the many changes to the voting PROCESS due to covid fears that lead to perceptions that the election wasn’t on par to past elections.

    This isn’t a take to claim that Biden was illegitimately elected. Far from that, as he’s the legitimate President. There’s no way to “undo” that.

    However, going forward, we can look back at the 2020 election and make efforts to avoid the same situation in 2020 for the next round of elections.

    Can we at least do that?

    whembly (b770f8)

  55. Did Trump know ahead of time that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would initiate the siege of the Capitol?

    You use the word “siege”. In this case I do not think it means what you think it means. Once more another distortion of words by the Never Trumpers

    Horatio (50c107)

  56. I get why you’ve got to redefine the argument though. Do you think this “you’ve got to prove otherwise” argument is making a lot of headway?

    Redefine what? It’s always been the case that if you’re to make an assertion–in this case, that there was “massive fraud”–it’s on you to back it up.
    It’s not as if history began in 2020. Actual incidences of fraud have been rare, on the order of 0.005% over the last few decades. Whether that argument makes “headway” sort of depends on the person hearing it.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  57. @46

    Frosty, this is a combination of extreme skepticism and motivated reasoning. It’s usually paired with an assertion that the speaker isn’t taking a position and is “just asking questions” or “playing devil’s advocate”.

    At this level of skepticism nothing can ever be known. But you don’t have that problem because you apply this burden of proof very selectively. Not that it’s appropriate to try and draw any conclusions about your POV from how it’s applied. You’re just asking questions and pointing out when people seem to be motivated by base passion instead of pure reason.

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  58. “That’s your logic”

    I guess we’re all just too stupid or dishonest to understand what he wrote.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  59. whembly (b770f8) — 7/13/2022 @ 8:38 am

    whembly, we don’t really disagree, but I’ll say again that history didn’t start in 2020. Every county has its own internal controls for ensuring voting integrity. I’m never opposed to strengthening them, and it’s why I’m generally agreeable with the new laws in TX and GA.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  60. Once the vote is casted, anonymously, there’s no way to retrospectively assert it was casted fraudulently. (outside of maybe pointing out issues like # of votes casted vs. # of eligible voters in district)

    there have been examples of ballot fraud in the past. They usually involve vote buying, vote harvesting, but are sometimes just ballot box stuffing. In previous cases (I’ve provided links in the past but don’t have time to look them back up) they’re detected by abnormal voting patters.
    -Unusually high turnout in a given area
    -Large swings for a specific candidate.
    -Lagrange discrepancies from the votes of other similar demographics (such us 95% of a rural voters in county 1 voting Trump when only 65% in all other counties did)

    They form the basis for further investigations that have (in the cases I’ve found) resulted in find the people that paid for/harvested/stuffed the ballot box.

    It’s hard to do this for numbers of votes large enough to swing even a state wide election. In once case from 2016 a clerk deleted 200 votes in a MI county and that was detected and prosecuted.

    So it’s not impossible to find examples of voter fraud, but it’s rare, because it’s hard to do without getting caught.

    It’s asinine to immediately hand-wave over concerns about the many changes to the voting PROCESS due to covid fears that lead to perceptions that the election wasn’t on par to past elections.

    I believe you are sincere. But I think most people making this claim are engaging in a Mote and Bailey argument that starts with “Stop the Steal” and ends with “well we just generally need better security.

    However, going forward, we can look back at the 2020 election and make efforts to avoid the same situation in 2020 for the next round of elections.

    Can we at least do that?

    We can only so far as the people asking for that are speaking in good faith. Seeing that so many have moved from outlandish claims of fraud to “we can’t know for sure it wasn’t stolen” I’m skeptical that any good faith effort to improve will be enough.

    Add this to the fact that many of the proposed improvements would, purely by accident I’m sure, reduce voter turn out and it becomes more difficult.

    I want to reiterate that I don’t think you personally have any ill will / faith but have the misfortune of being on the same side as those that do.

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  61. Just saw frosty’s comment at 49. Looks like he was jumping to his “I make no assertions I’m just asking questions” routine while I was typing my other response.

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  62. Whembly, One thing to add, if you look at election fraud cases there’s a pretty even split between the parties for who tries to commit fraud.

    If there is some wide spread easily concealed method of stuffing the ballot box it’s reasonable to assume it would be perpetrated by all major political parties.

    Except the green party. They don’t have enough on the ball to steal a cup of coffee. Let alone an election.

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  63. “You use the word “siege””

    I did struggle with which word to use. My initial shot was “break in”. Siege by definition is isolate and compel surrender, whereas here the purpose was to invade, take control, and confront.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  64. Did Trump know ahead of time that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would initiate the siege of the Capitol?

    You use the word “siege”. In this case I do not think it means what you think it means. Once more another distortion of words by the Never Trumpers

    Horatio (50c107) — 7/13/2022 @ 8:51 am

    Agree completely. Don’t use words like “siege”. It’s too evocative and debatable.

    Say instead “Did Trump know ahead of time that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would violently assault the police to seize physical control of the capital in order to stop the certification of the election.”

    Which is what they did.

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  65. OT:

    A Columbus man has been charged with impregnating a 10-year-old Ohio girl, whose travel to Indiana to seek an abortion led to international attention following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade and activation of Ohio’s abortion law.

    Gershon Fuentes, 27, whose last known address was an apartment on Columbus’ Northwest Side, was arrested Tuesday after police say he confessed to raping the child on at least two occasions. He’s since been charged with rape, a felony of the first degree in Ohio.

    https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/

    Davethulhu (0b1e86)

  66. Just saw frosty’s comment at 49. Looks like he was jumping to his “I make no assertions I’m just asking questions” routine while I was typing my other response.

    Time123 (3b8cde) — 7/13/2022 @ 9:26 am

    I didn’t start this rabbit hole with a question. I made a very clear and simple assertion.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  67. @63, alas JF will still claim it was a lie…because something something Biden

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  68. Inflation hit 9.1% in June, highest rate in more than 40 years

    Inflation hit a fresh 40-year record in June, with consumer prices increasing 9.1% over the last 12 months, the Labor Department said Wednesday. It’s the fastest increase in prices since November 1981, and above what economists had expected.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation-june-cpi-report-hit-new-high-40-years-9-1-percent/

    November, 1981… attaboy, Joey: Reaganomics! 😉

    DCSCA (fb2981)

  69. Appalled (fa627b) — 7/13/2022 @ 8:38 am

    I’d like to know what your faith is, electorally speaking.

    I’m not sure faith means what you think it means here. JB was certified and sworn in.

    You say you have no faith in the results. Then what do you believe?

    I didn’t say that I didn’t have faith in the results. I think you’re trying to ask a different question in a way that you think is clever. JB is POTUS.

    Do you flail about (as the Donald in commment #31, knowing that Joe Biden didn’t get 81 million votes). Or are you just asking questions?

    I’ve neither flailed or “just asked questions”. I made what should be a simple and easy to understand statement. One that at least three different people seem to want to avoid.

    How did you lose your faith? How did you sustain your loss of faith, given that NOT ONE case has gone Trump’s way?

    As I said, it’s not about faith. The system is designed to avoid verification and authentication. There are some very good reasons for this. But if it helps I’ll follow your example. My comment DOESN”T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THINGS WENT TRUMPS WAY because the comment ISN’T ABOUT TRUMP.

    (Dana — if frosty answers this, he might run afoul of your stolen election death sentence. Please give him a break on that just this once)

    This is fascinating. I made a simple comment that you decided meant something totally different from what I actually said. The only way you get here is mind reading. Tell me, what did I have for lunch?

    frosty (ee42e1)

  70. 63, 65…one wing of the party was trying to keep the other wing from letting out the rapist’s identity.

    urbanleftbehind (55a1ce)

  71. Davethulhu (0b1e86) — 7/13/2022 @ 9:38 am

    Do you have a link to that story? Because the one you included doesn’t.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  72. 63, 65…one wing of the party was trying to keep the other wing from letting out the rapist’s identity.

    urbanleftbehind (55a1ce) — 7/13/2022 @ 10:00 am

    Given that he was arrested yesterday didn’t give anyone much time to hide his identity……

    Gershon Fuentes, 27, whose last known address was an apartment on Columbus’ Northwest Side, was arrested Tuesday……..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  73. “Do you have a link to that story? Because the one you included doesn’t.”

    I don’t know why my link doesn’t work for you. Try Rip’s in the post above.

    Davethulhu (0b1e86)

  74. Davethulhu (0b1e86) — 7/13/2022 @ 10:10 am

    Found it. Thanks. Once again google works for everyone.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  75. frosty,

    Tell me, what did I have for lunch?

    Gas.

    But there is no evidence the election was determined by fraud.

    Time123 (48c7ef) — 7/13/2022 @ 6:42 am

    And there’s also no evidence that it wasn’t. The US election system works largely on faith in the system and common agreement. I know this is a challenge for people who have both worked to undermine that faith and rely on it depending on which is to their advantage.

    The idea you need to challenge the idea that the election was not determined by fraud suggests something about your point of view. You say it isn’t Trump (which is why we are having this conversation, so that’s odd). What is it, then? The joys of nihilism? The vague idea there is some other out there messing with the election results, that nobody can verify? You have some point other than messing with people. Well, maybe you don’t. Maybe you want to share.

    As I said, it’s not about faith. The system is designed to avoid verification and authentication.

    Actually, you cited faith in your comment which is why I referred back to it. I can tell you that Georiga’s results were recounted three times, with no substantial change. Cyber Ninjas made their best effort in Arizona and did not change the results.

    Appalled (fa627b)

  76. Biden lashes out at reporter asking about dismal approval among Dems: ‘Read the polls, Jack’

    ‘Read the Polls, Jack!’ Biden Insists Poll Showing Most Democrats Don’t Want Him to Run Again Actually Says the Opposite

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/read-the-polls-jack-biden-insists-poll-showing-most-democrats-dont-want-him-to-run-again-actually-says-the-opposite/

    My God; look at that dementia stare… poor reading comprehension at your age is a tell Joey; maybeyou should read the polls, Jack, ’cause you don’t know jack sh-t. You’re in the mideast anyway, so take a dip in ‘denial.’ Then have your press office explain to Americans why you traditionally and culturally truly don’t shake hands with Arabs. Hint- no TP on their shelves either.

    DCSCA (fb2981)

  77. I guess we’re all just too stupid or dishonest to understand what he wrote.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 7/13/2022 @ 8:55 am

    I would pick a 3rd option. But there aren’t many. My comment in @38 wasn’t that complicated and an example played out almost right away.

    Why do you think several people read into my comment a claim I didn’t make?

    frosty (ee42e1)

  78. Time: “But there is no evidence the election was determined by fraud.”

    frosty: “And there’s also no evidence that it wasn’t. The US election system works largely on faith in the system and common agreement.”

    But is there really “no evidence”? Both parties (and mass media) spend big money on predicting election results. If these models correlate with actual election results, that is at least some evidence that voter intent was properly reflected. Additional evidence is in the testimony of election workers following the procedures and that those procedures guarantee some high probability that voter intent was properly tallied. Now you might question whether that is sufficient evidence….or perfect evidence, but statistical and testimony evidence is still evidence.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  79. AJ, there were also investigations in both WI and MI regarding fraud in the 2020 election. Both concluded the outcomes weren’t determined by fraud and laid out their evidence.

    Time123 (48c7ef)

  80. This is burden shifting. All 3,143 counties in the Union certified that their elections were fair and accurate. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/13/2022 @ 8:16 am

    Wisconsin Supreme Court disagrees with you.

    NJRob (75dc92)

  81. Why do you think several people read into my comment a claim I didn’t make?

    frosty (ee42e1) — 7/13/2022 @ 10:22 am

    Maybe the answer is that your’e not very good at expressing your ideas in writing?

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  82. @79, that’s a lie. The ruling didn’t apply retroactively.

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  83. Rip:

    It was probably known by the so-called advocates based on what the girl and her family told them, but they probably were shamed into holding it back because it didn’t feature a banjo playing uncle from JD Vance land and might cast negative light on other segments of fellow travelers.

    urbanleftbehind (55a1ce)

  84. @81: Not quite true either Time.

    The court did rule that the ballot dropbox scheme in 2020 *was* illegal under state law.

    The petitioner didn’t ask for any remedy over the 2020 outcome, so the court didn’t touch it.

    whembly (b770f8)

  85. Quick to accuse others of lying.

    And a scold.

    Colonel Haiku (9059dd)

  86. @urbanleftbehind and @Rip Murdock
    Regarding that horrible story.

    There’s a lot of questions swirling around that ordeal and we need to recognize that we don’t have the full story.

    But, we can point out that this 10yo would’ve still gotten an abortion in Ohio.

    whembly (b770f8)

  87. “Columbus police were made aware of the girl’s pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children Services that was made by her mother on June 22.”

    I didn’t see when POLICE were made aware of this crime.

    Colonel Haiku (9059dd)

  88. Did they find a crime report that had been misplaced? Hospitals in Ohio don’t routinely give out morning after pills to victims of rape?

    Colonel Haiku (9059dd)

  89. @87 We don’t know for sure, but in every hospital organization I’ve worked in, there’s always a standing protocol to issue morning after pills for rape victims.

    whembly (b770f8)

  90. Whembly, That’s a good points but I think this was litigated ahead of the 2020 election, so was legal at the time the election was held. Maybe I’m misremembering the cases from 2020.

    Time123 (3b8cde)

  91. @88, From what I understand about the timeline this was reported well after Plan-B is effective.

    Time123 (984181)

  92. @85, I thought OH didn’t have a rape exception after a heartbeat can be detected? Only an emergency exception for the life of the mother?

    Time123 (984181)

  93. It was probably known by the so-called advocates based on what the girl and her family told them, but they probably were shamed into holding it back because it didn’t feature a banjo playing uncle from JD Vance land and might cast negative light on other segments of fellow travelers.

    urbanleftbehind (55a1ce) — 7/13/2022 @ 10:42 am

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  94. An Abortion Story Too Good to Confirm

    Oops-Jumping the gun.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  95. Appalled (fa627b) — 7/13/2022 @ 10:19 am

    The idea you need to challenge the idea that the election was not determined by fraud suggests something about your point of view.

    So, mind reading it is.

    You say it isn’t Trump (which is why we are having this conversation, so that’s odd).

    Well, this is why you’re having this conversation. Everything isn’t about Trump. I know this might come as shock. I can have my own reasons for “challenging” something. I know, also a shock.

    What is it, then? The joys of nihilism?

    Making claims that undermine the election results aren’t new. It’s now happened multiple times in high profile elections. We can expect it to happen again.

    I believe that government is based on the consent of the governed and I agree with the idea of a social contract. I know it’s a quaint idea, these days it’s all about will to power, and I’m a relic. But I’m concerned that the losing side claiming fraud has already become the norm and will cause more chaos. I’d like to prevent that because I think it’s destructive.

    But people like Time, and you, and AJ, don’t want to do that. You want to short-circuit the conversation for whatever reason. Sure, you think Trump doing it is destructive but that’s more about Trump than the problem in general. Because there’s no reason to think that in 2024 or 2026 you won’t be telling a different story. I’ve noticed that some people took one side of this in 2016 and then flipped in 2020. Which I’m starting to think might be the point.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  96. But people like Time, and you, and AJ, don’t want to do that. You want to short-circuit the conversation for whatever reason.

    I’ve been discussing this with Whembly across many threads and I’m happy to continue doing so with him, or anyone engaging in good faith.

    Time123 (984181)

  97. Maybe the answer is that you’r’e not very good at expressing your ideas in writing?

    Time123 (3b8cde) — 7/13/2022 @ 10:37 am

    Ah, the personal insults phase. That didn’t take long.

    frosty (ee42e1)

  98. You keep claiming multiple ppl are misunderstanding you.
    Ppl who seem to be able to regularly understand what other commenters are saying.

    Sincerely said, I don’t think your writing is as clear as you think it is.

    Time123 (48c7ef)

  99. frosty,

    If I read you message correctly, you are concerned that losers will always claim fraud, and that’s destructive to democracy.

    Funny, that’s my position too. (See references to Stacey Abrams — the “rightful” governer of Georgia — above). You note that partisans have an increasing habit of claiming fraud when there isn’t any. That’s certainly true — it’s been going on since Bush v. Gore and conspiracy theories about Diebold voting machines dating from 2004.

    But your #39 sounds like another entry in this same game. Why bother with Time’s assertion unless you were suggesting the contrary?

    Appalled (fa627b)

  100. Wisconsin Supreme Court disagrees with you.

    They didn’t prove the existence of any ballot fraud, Rob. Their issue was the lack of 24/7 county supervision of ballot boxes, which I don’t have an issue with.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  101. Sincerely said, I don’t think your writing is as clear as you think it is.

    Time123 (48c7ef) — 7/13/2022 @ 11:38 am

    Possibly. It’s funny how it always seems to be read as the strawman you want to be fighting though.

    It’s also possible that multiple people share the same bias. There are a lot of people who have a limited set of filters for anything related to the 2020 election.

    frosty (c17c75)

  102. You’re probably right. Everyone else is the problem.

    Time123 (48c7ef)

  103. Trump calls for decertification of 2020 election after Wisconsin drop box decision
    …….
    In a number of posts to his social media site, Truth Social, Trump falsely claimed the decision renders votes cast via drop box in 2020 invalid. The former president called the decision a victory for Republicans and ordered Republican leaders in the state Legislature, specifically naming Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), to “do something, for once, about this atrocity!”

    For nearly two years, Trump has been pushing baseless allegations that the 2020 election in Wisconsin and several other swing states were fraudulent. Following Trump’s demands, Wisconsin Republicans have continued to search for signs of misconduct.

    Last summer, Vos appointed former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman as a special counsel to investigate the election. Gableman’s investigation has turned up zero evidence of fraud but spun out innuendo about drop boxes and voting in nursing homes, implying that the voting system is vulnerable to manipulation.

    Earlier this year, Gableman suggested that the Legislature should “decertify” the 2020 election results, a legal maneuver that has been endorsed by right-wing members of the Wisconsin Republican Party but legal experts say is unconstitutional and impossible. Thus far, the Legislature’s Republican leadership has said it won’t act to decertify the results.
    ……….
    “Highly respected former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who has headed a major investigation into Voter Fraud, has strongly suggested that State Legislatures seek to decertify the Election results,” Trump wrote. “The victory for Republicans was, without doubt, substantial, as opposed to the very close result that was reported, with Biden eking it out. Other States are finding likewise, and some want to correct the situation. With corrupt Elections and Open Borders, we don’t have a Country…”

    None of the allegations of fraud from Gableman, Trump or other Republicans have been proved. Numerous audits, recounts, lawsuits and investigations have affirmed that President Joe Biden won Wisconsin in 2020 by about 20,000 votes.
    ……..
    In his posts, Trump also quoted the majority opinion of Justice Rebecca Bradley, who compared the use of drop boxes in Wisconsin elections to elections run by dictators in Syria, North Korea, Iraq and Cuba.
    ………
    “An audit and recounts have proven that there is no doubt on the results of the 2020 election … nor do I think that our 2020 election was comparable to any authoritarian regimes that were referenced,” Milwaukee Election Commission Executive Director Claire Woodall-Vogg told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
    ###########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  104. @Time123 @Appalled:
    I don’t have any issues following frosty.

    I think there’s a lot of assumption being asserted.

    Mayhaps we try to seek clarification? Like, parse out a previous statement and seek clarification??

    whembly (b770f8)

  105. But your #39 sounds like another entry in this same game. Why bother with Time’s assertion unless you were suggesting the contrary?

    Appalled (fa627b) — 7/13/2022 @ 11:39 am

    There is more than one assertion baked into Time’s comment so it’s not as simple as suggesting the contrary on whether JB was elected via fraud.

    Underlying Time’s comment is the idea that there was no real problem with 2020. Instead, the only problem is one of perception and that can be fixed simply by saying loudly and often enough that there wasn’t a problem with 2020. This also seems to be the position you’re taking more directly. I have no idea whether Time intended that or not but you can’t restore people’s trust in elections by repeating that we have to trust the 2020 results.

    Time will talk about having good faith discussions but you can’t do that if you’re tiptoeing around all sorts of issues to avoid being called a traitor for wanting to overthrow 2020. At the end of the day Time will invariably have a limited view of what constitutes a good faith discussion.

    There are valid reasons to question whether some of those changes are good ways to run an election. We aren’t going to be able to get far with those if everything has to pass through the filter that 2020 was perfect and no questions with the process there is allowed.

    frosty (c17c75)

  106. alas JF will still claim it was a lie…because something something Biden
    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 7/13/2022 @ 9:51 am

    so, if next month we find out there were millions of bogus ballots, enough to turn the election, you’ll say Trump’s Big Lie wasn’t really a lie?

    what I wrote on the topic:

    a phrase we heard incessantly during the Trump years was “Trump asserted without evidence…”

    Biden and the media did that here, which makes it a four Pinocchios lie regardless if it ends up being substantiated in the end, but like Kessler there are those here who will run interference for the lie
    JF (123502) — 7/10/2022 @ 9:44 am

    JF (0f1031)

  107. @91

    @85, I thought OH didn’t have a rape exception after a heartbeat can be detected? Only an emergency exception for the life of the mother?

    Time123 (984181) — 7/13/2022 @ 11:06 am

    Ohio does have exceptions in case of the life of the mother.

    And a pregnant 10yo definitely falls into a very risky category (a 10yo’s body isn’t mature enough to survive a full term among other things).

    And this is one of the reasons why I’m unwilling to throw out the death penalty. Jeez, what a horrible story.

    whembly (b770f8)

  108. frosty (c17c75) — 7/13/2022 @ 12:46 pm

    Instead, the only problem is one of perception and that can be fixed simply by saying loudly and often enough that there wasn’t a problem with 2020.

    They want people to accept things on authority, and they do that with all statements about the coronavirus also. Some members of the committee are more careful and say only that everybody who Trump should have relied on, who were also on his side, told him there was no fraud sufficient to change the election outcome, or that no one was in a better position than Donald Trump to know he had lost.

    Liz Cheney:

    https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111123258/jan-6-committee-hearing

    As our investigation has shown, Donald Trump had access to more detailed and specific information showing that the election was not actually stolen than almost any other American, and he was told this over and over again. No rational or sane man in his position could disregard that information and reach the opposite conclusion.

    Jamie Raskin:

    Let’s review that testimony. [Begin videotape]

    WILLIAM BARR: I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public, that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense.

    And it was being laid out there, and I told them that it was — that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that. And it was doing a grave disservice to the country. [End videotape]

    They missed the biggest proof Trump was intentionally lying — that at times he claimed everybody knew the election had been stolen.

    And then there are his claims that he won by a lot.

    you can’t restore people’s trust in elections by repeating that we have to trust the 2020 results.

    I think they are thinking of the future – when there might really be cheating on their side.

    In the end Trump was relying on statistical arguments. But there are surprising election results every election. They all have simple explanatios and simple proofs. (Trump did less well in Republican leaning suburban areas in 2020 than he did in 2016 – which is not where they were looking for evidence or trying to claim fraud — and in minority areas he did slightly better in 2020 than in 2016, while if there had been cheating or more cheating than in 2016, his margin should have been greater..

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  109. @105 JF, the Indy Star editor stood behind its reporting, which is certainly not dispositive, but provides a bit more confidence than the theories behind the Big Lie. The Indiana doctor could have been less cagey with her information, but she also did not recant when pressed. We now understand why. Certainly Biden was out front of this, but trusting a journalism outfit is more understandable than trusting Sidney Powell or the Pillow Guy. Trump frequently just makes things up….Biden typically just weirdly makes up personal anecdotes….and confuses facts…because he’s too dang old. Biden needs to retire….I’m just not going to pinocchio him when he’s using generally reliable source….

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  110. frosty,

    I don’t believe anyone would assert there were no problems with the 2020 election. The problems, however, weren’t material. They didn’t change the result.

    In my perfect world, there would be voter ID and no vote by mail. Like the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I don’t like voter boxes that aren’t under 24-7 supervision by elections personnel.

    We don’t live in my perfect world, or yours. We live with imperfect elections that seem to yield the results that folks really intended.

    Appalled (fa627b)

  111. Whembly, From what I’ve been reading there’s ambiguity around what constitutes a threat to the life of the mother. How certain does the doctor need to be that death or serious harm is going to happen? Does the mothers age and the likely outcome meet the standard or does the doctor need to see internal bleeding / serious strain on the heart or other organs? I expect that doctors, hospitals and their insurance companies are going to want to make sure the policy and behaviors don’t expose them to undue risk.

    But given the nature of the topic it’s hard to find clear explanations on what the facts on the grounds are in OH. IANAL but I know enough to know that applicable precedent is important and just reading the law doesn’t give you a full picture.

    It seems like in this case the relevant participants decided to go to another state to seek care.

    Time123 (984181)

  112. “In my perfect world, there would be voter ID and no vote by mail. Like the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I don’t like voter boxes that aren’t under 24-7 supervision by elections personnel.”

    I would second all of that. It even annoys me that some states vote for multiple weeks. I get that partisans kind of know that nothing will really sway them, but still, there could always be a last minute bombshell. The ID part of this is just bewildering.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  113. Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 7/13/2022 @ 1:29 pm

    They want people to accept things on authority, and they do that with all statements about the coronavirus also.

    There are two separate things going on. One is the tendency to push towards simple reliance on authority. This tendency should be resisted independent of the underlying issue and past experience. If the answer to every question is some version of “because I said so” we’re going to get some unpleasant results. The other is the truth or correctness of the underlying statements.

    told him there was no fraud sufficient to change the election outcome, or that no one was in a better position than Donald Trump to know he had lost

    I subscribe to the Trump wasn’t rational theory. It seems to require the fewest assumptions and inconsistencies.

    They missed the biggest proof Trump was intentionally lying — that at times he claimed everybody knew the election had been stolen.

    There are other options here and this doesn’t mean he was lying about what he thought. I think this fits the theory that he was irrational.

    I think they are thinking of the future – when there might really be cheating on their side.

    Yep

    In the end Trump was relying on statistical arguments.

    Maybe. Again, I’m still thinking he was irrational. I think he was relying on the “I couldn’t have lost to TFG!” argument.

    frosty (c17c75)

  114. Biden’s evidence was the initial reporting, which was questioned for a few days but was quickly shown to the substantiated.

    He wasn’t lucky, he was right. It’s bound to happen once in a while.

    I suppose we might find out that Dominion really did flip the votes or that any number of alleged and disproven conspiracy theories were true and that Trump was right all along. But it’s been investigated heavily and so far none of the evidence supports his claims.

    Time123 (984181)

  115. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111123258/jan-6-commipo

    STEPHANIE MURPHY: There were also concerns among members of Congress. We have a recently released recording of a conversation that took place among Republican members in the US Capitol on the eve of January 6th

    Yes, but at least the person they quoted was ot worried about anything happemomg when it did.

    She was not worried about anyone trying to storm the Capitol to stop the vote count.

    She was worried about what could happen later – after they failed

    This is Republican Congresswoman Debbie Lesko from Arizona, who led some of the unfounded objections to the election results. [Begin videotape]

    DEBBIE LESKO: I also asked leadership to come up with a safety plan for members. I’m actually very concerned about this, because we have who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people coming here. We have Antifa. We also have, quite honestly, Trump supporters who actually believe that we are going to overturn the election.

    And when that doesn’t happen, most likely will not happen, they are going to go nuts. [End videotape]

    How can this prove that Trump sent them with the intention of stopping the certification of Biden’s victory??

    He intended to stop or delay the certification with the help of Congressional Republicans like Senators Ted Cruz and Tommy Tuberville.

    And he knew that wouldn’t work, and so he tried to get Mike Pence to do that.

    And that wouldn’t have worked, although it would have changed the requirement to have both Houses of Congress agree to reject votes to needing both Houses of Congress to accept them – and overrule the chair — they might have gone into court except that he was going to lose both votes anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  116. Appalled,

    What a ridiculous statement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court didn’t make a ruling based on what they like. They aren’t leftists. They ruled according to the explicit letter of the law in Wisconsin which requires chain of custody.

    NJRob (fde31b)

  117. NJRob,

    I’m sure the Wisconsin ruling was based on applicable law and I didn’t say that it wasn’t. I’m more cynical about whether conservative political preferences come into play with state judicial decisions — especially since the supreme court of Wisconsin is elected.

    Appalled (fa627b)

  118. This New York Times headline (that no doubt somebody associated with the committee told the New York Times) is totally false:

    TRUMP INTENDED
    TO SEND HIS MOB
    TO DISARUPT COUNT
    __________________

    A LAST-DITCH EFFORT
    _____________________________

    Panel is Told He Stoked
    and Channeled Rage
    of His Supporters
    ———————-

    By LUKE BROADWATER
    and ALAN FEUER

    What a distortion of the facts!

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  119. The New York Times article then starts with further nonsense:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html

    WASHINGTON — President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.

    “POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol,” Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the “Save America” rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 text shown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump’s efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was “going to just call for it ‘unexpectedly.’”

    Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: “I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!”

    (The newspaper points out that tweet was never sent.

    First of all, they had initially been invited only to the Capitol and the rally at the Ellipse was added only about January 4.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20210104134147/https://wildprotest.com

    Later became:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20210106065650/https://wildprotest.com/

    The reason for the march from one venue to another not being mentioned on the website was that they had no permit for a march, so the organizers tried to make it look unplanned so they wouldn’t be held liable.

    The committee is trying to make it look like they were summoned principally to the Ellipse and little or nothing at all was expected at the Capitol.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  120. I think they were negotiating with Trump and at first Trump only agreed, or the Secret Service only agreed, that he could appear at the Ellipse, so an extra rally was added.

    But they didn’t want to divide the crowd. That’s why the time for the Capitol rally was moved up to 1 pm, although of course, people who had been planning to arrive earlier didn’t change their minds and the breach of the barricades began before 1 pm and the core of the attackers never went to the Ellipse and/or left early. (they did try to get ordinary people to join in)

    The committee still has not mentioned I think even one time that there was an independent invitation to the Capitol. (and as you see from the Debbie Lesko quote, and you can see that from other places also, including Trump’s speech at the Ellipse Trump was greatly exaggerating the numbers of people he would get and had gotten.)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  121. Ohio AG Dave Yost cast doubt on 10-year-old rape victim case, now ‘rejoices’ at arrest

    Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appeared on Fox News this week, casting doubt on the veracity of Dr. Caitlin Bernard’s account that a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim needed to travel to Indiana for an abortion.

    Yost, a Republican, doubled down on that in an interview with the USA TODAY Network Ohio bureau on Tuesday.

    “Every day that goes by the more likely that this is a fabrication. I know the cops and prosecutors in this state. There’s not one of them that wouldn’t be turning over every rock, looking for this guy and they would have charged him,” he said. “I’m not saying it could not have happened. What I’m saying to you is there is not a damn scintilla of evidence. And shame on the Indianapolis paper that ran this thing on a single source who has an obvious axe to grind.””

    After news broke Wednesday of an arrest in the case, Yost issued a single sentence statement: “We rejoice anytime a child rapist is taken off the streets.”
    ……….

    Turning on a dime, without a hint of self-awareness.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  122. Appalled (fa627b) — 7/13/2022 @ 1:45 pm

    We live with imperfect elections that seem to yield the results that folks really intended.

    Another statement with multiple assertions.

    In general, we can do better than “seem” when it comes to elections and we should.

    With regards to 2020, I don’t think seeming to yield intended results was even a goal. But that depends on what you mean by “folks” and “intended”. I’d also question whether everyday Americans got what they really intended (and that’s not a stolen election claim). I’m told a lot of folks voted “Not Trump” and those people got what they intended. But assuming a person made a rational choice for Biden/Harris do you think it was informed? Do you think those people intended to elect the POTUS/VPOTUS we’re seeing crash and burn everything they lay hands on?

    frosty (c17c75)

  123. Appalled (fa627b) — 7/13/2022 @ 2:19 pm

    I’m sure the Wisconsin ruling was based on applicable law and I didn’t say that it wasn’t. I’m more cynical about whether conservative political preferences come into play with state judicial decisions — especially since the supreme court of Wisconsin is elected.

    The objections to the drop bixes, although maybe supposedly based on a fear of ballot harvesting were almost certainly entirely political. The real reason was the drop boxes were thought to minimize the possibility of people losing their votes because they mailed them too late. . That’s why the legislature did not authorize them. They knew that Trump was counseling against voting by mail and knew that a disproportinate portion of absentee ballots would be for Biden.

    Under existing law, people could drop absentee ballots in the mail. But they could arrive too late. Anything placed in a drop box would be counted as being received by Election Day. The Republicans wanted as many absentee ballots as possible to be disqualified so they didn’t want drop boxes.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court said a drop box was legal so long as an election official was there because that could count as delivery to an election official. But more was not within the law.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  124. Re: Post 121:

    I accidently included my comments (in italics) in the blockquote.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  125. NJRob (fde31b) — 7/13/2022 @ 2:03 pm

    They ruled according to the explicit letter of the law in Wisconsin which requires chain of custody.

    USPS mail boxes counted.

    The refusal to authorize drop boxes in addition to U.S. Postal Service mail boxes. was because they wanted some absentee ballot voters (disproportionately for Biden) to lose their votes because they were delivered late.

    I mean there’s no reason for the drop boxes except to attempt to prevent that. There’s plenty of mail boxes o the street.

    But that was the law, regardless of the probable reason. Now at one point Trump was demanding that all votes put into the drop boxes be discarded. Impossible to do later and
    wrong, and now he has this idea of decertification as if he could change the outcome of the Election of 2020 in 2021 or 2022.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  126. Giuliani was brought into the Dec 18 meeting to argue with Sidney Powell And the main thing Mike Flynn wanted was that Trump should declare martial law (which included seizing voting machines).

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  127. On what planet should a union that can endorse a presidential candidate be allowed to collect and deliver the ballots for that election?

    Oh I know, Planet NeverTrump

    Horatio (50c107)

  128. “When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed.”

    Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand 1957

    Truer than ever

    Horatio (50c107)

  129. On what planet should a union that can endorse a presidential candidate be allowed to collect and deliver the ballots for that election?

    Oh I know, Planet NeverTrump

    Horatio (50c107) — 7/13/2022 @ 2:53 pm

    Do you see anybody here who is in favor of that? I’m not.

    norcal (da5491)

  130. On what planet should a union that can endorse a presidential candidate be allowed to collect and deliver the ballots for that election?

    Abolish the Postal Service!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  131. @131 😂

    norcal (da5491)

  132. Do you see anybody here who is in favor of that? I’m not.

    In this entire thread about the issue of election fraud not one NeverTrumper (that I’ve read) has raised this issue or suggested that mail-in ballots should be eliminated due to a conflict of interest with the postal carriers union.

    I will admit, I am making an assumption (!) that NeverTrumpers are ok with this.

    Horatio (50c107)

  133. Abolish the Postal Service!

    That works…I’d go one step further…abolish all government unions and the Civil Service

    Horatio (50c107)

  134. Biden makes Holocaust gaffe during Israel visit

    President Biden, visiting Israel on Wednesday, added yet another entry to his long list of gaffes, mistakenly saying we must keep alive the “honor of the Holocaust.”

    The president made the flub shortly after touching down in Israel, kicking off a two-day visit with Middle Eastern country’s leaders. foxnews.com

    DCSCA (fb2981)

  135. @31. He was reacting as you’d expect a pissed off business exec getting the short end of the stick in a deal would react. Not as a politician. “Fix it; save it; make it happen;” etc. Anybody who has worked at major corporation can recognize it’ the futile cries of ‘is there any way out of this’ by an exec on the ropes. Especially an exec who has battled in the canyons of NYC.

    DCSCA (75d97f)

  136. Abolish the Postal Service!

    That works…I’d go one step further…abolish all government unions and the Civil Service

    Horatio (50c107) — 7/13/2022 @ 3:22 pm

    I’d abolish all unions.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  137. Abolish the Postal Service!

    The United States Postal Service traces its roots from Benjamin Franklin. In the early 1770s, Benjamin Franklin was postmaster for Philadelphia and had a discussion with Benjamin Towne about setting up an American postal system. The first class of mail consisted only of letters; there were no newspapers or magazines sent at this time.

    https://www.history.com/news/us-post-office-benjamin-franklin

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (75d97f)

  138. Davethulhu (0b1e86) — 7/13/2022 @ 9:38 am

    “Franklin County Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Ebner said the case did not warrant Fuentes — who is
    believed to be undocumented — to be held without bond.”

    but it’s an abortion law issue

    JF (1276f3)

  139. I think the witness whom Trump tried to call was probably Steve Bannon.

    Sammy Finkelman (b7dc9b)

  140. Abolish the Postal Service!

    That works…I’d go one step further…abolish all government unions and the Civil Service

    Horatio (50c107) — 7/13/2022 @ 3:22 pm

    I’d abolish all unions.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/13/2022 @ 5:19 pm

    An illustration of the Scott Walker – John Kasich dichotomy. The Walker approach (exempting the first responder unions, trades and private sector unions) had a slightly better chance of surviving in a post-neocon MAGA influence landscape, even if its standard bearer fizzled out in his presidential run.

    urbanleftbehind (749802)

  141. #142 (Sammy)

    Wrong guess:

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/politics/trump-contact-white-house-support-staffer-january-6-committee/index.html

    The committee (and Trump) seems like it wants to lock down its allegations of Trump’s bad behavior. Given Trump, I can see why he might not want his “stable genius” brand damaged. But this doesn’t get to the “incitement” charge the 1-6 committee is trying to develop.

    Appalled (fa627b)

  142. Steve Bannon would not seem like the type who would be afraid to talk to Trump and would go running to the committee to tattle. As reported, it seems more like White House staff. A person who can confirm what Trump was doing while the riot raged.

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  143. “A person who can confirm what Trump was doing while the riot raged.”

    No fires… wasn’t it mostly peaceful?

    Colonel Haiku (cb037e)

  144. I think the witness whom Trump tried to call was probably Steve Bannon.

    I doubt it. It was already reported that the person he was calling was a WH staffer.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  145. BTW, here’s a one-stop shop that addresses the relevant fraud allegations, put together by eight conservatives. I haven’t read the 72-page yet but will. Here’s a bit of the Introduction.

    Donald Trump and his supporters have failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. We do not claim that election administration is perfect. Election fraud is a real thing; there are prosecutions in almost every election year, and no doubt some election fraud goes undetected. Nor do we disparage attempts to reduce fraud. States should continue to do what they can do to eliminate opportunities for election fraud and to punish it when it occurs. But there is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole. In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct. It is wrong, and bad for our country, for people to propagate baseless claims that President Biden’s election was not legitimate.

    Emphasis mine.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  146. I think the witness whom Trump tried to call was probably Steve Bannon.

    I doubt it. It was already reported that the person he was calling was a WH staffer.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/14/2022 @ 8:07 am

    Former President Donald Trump tried to call a member of the White House support staff who was talking to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, two sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

    The support staffer was not someone who routinely communicated with the former President and was concerned about the contact, according to the sources, and informed their attorney.
    The call was made after former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified publicly to the committee. The White House staffer was in a position to corroborate part of what Hutchinson had said under oath, according to the sources.

    Source. Despite Trump’s “waiver” of executive privilege (which Trump can’t claim, and which apparently did not exist), Bannon is unlikely to testify.

    Prosecutors also disclosed they had recently interviewed Justin Clark, a lawyer for Mr. Trump. They said Mr. Clark told them the former president “never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials” and that Mr. Bannon’s lawyer “misrepresented to the committee what the former president’s counsel had told the defendant’s attorney.”

    A person familiar with Mr. Clark’s interview with the Justice Department said it pertained solely to the Bannon case.

    Source

    Bannon was a sucker. Monday’s trial should be short and sweet.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  147. 142. 144. 145.

    147. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/14/2022 @ 8:07 am

    It was already reported that the person he was calling was a WH staffer.

    Yes. I heard that the radio (WCBS-AM in New York) about an hour and some minutes after I had posted that.

    145 AJ_Liberty (c82e21) — 7/14/2022 @ 7:30 am .Steve Bannon would not seem like the type who would be afraid to talk to Trump and would go running to the committee to tattle. No, the thing was that Trump and Bannon had obviously been in contact, in order for him to make that statement he was waiving executive privilege (which he didn’t need to waive but Bannon had claimed the possibility of it and so maybe wanted a waiver to give himself a defense against an earlier refusal.)

    This had just happened on Monday.

    I thought that Bannon was maybe now trying to maintain he was going to be completely untainted so he was going to report any subsequent contact..

    But the news story said that this was someone Trump would not otherwise be in contact with .

    The support staffer was not someone who routinely communicated with the former President and was concerned about the contact, according to the sources, and informed their attorney.

    And concerned what Cassidy Hutchinson had said.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  148. 142. 144. 145.

    147. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/14/2022 @ 8:07 am

    It was already reported that the person he was calling was a WH staffer.

    Yes. I heard that the radio (WCBS-AM in New York) about an hour and some minutes after I had posted that.

    145 AJ_Liberty (c82e21) — 7/14/2022 @ 7:30 am .Steve Bannon would not seem like the type who would be afraid to talk to Trump and would go running to the committee to tattle. No, the thing was that Trump and Bannon had obviously been in contact, in order for him to make that statement he was waiving executive privilege (which he didn’t need to waive but Bannon had claimed the possibility of it and so maybe wanted a waiver to give himself a defense against an earlier refusal.)

    This had just happened on Monday.

    I thought that Bannon was maybe now trying to maintain he was going to be completely untainted so he was going to report any subsequent contact..

    But the news story said that this was someone Trump would not otherwise be in contact with .

    The support staffer was not someone who routinely communicated with the former President and was concerned about the contact, according to the sources, and informed their attorney.

    And concerned what Cassidy Hutchinson had said.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  149. Ahoy sailor! http://ace.mu.nu/archives/Screenshot%20(2519).png

    Colonel Haiku (caef97)

  150. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111123258/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    Liz Cheney:

    Next week, we will return to January 6th itself. As we have shown in prior hearings, Donald Trump and his legal team led by Rudy Giuliani were working on January 6th — delay or halt Congress’s counting of electoral votes.

    The mob attacking and invading the Capitol on that afternoon of January 6th was achieving that result….

    No, Republican members of Congress were doing that. The mob attack wasn’t to force a halt or delay in the count. That was baked in. You can speculate about things like occupying the Capitol or taking members hostage, but there is not the slightest indication of any planning for that.

    The plan was to object to six states, and each state would cause 2 hours of debate (simultaneosly in both houses) – which would actually last a bit longer.

    Now that I read that Congresswoman Debbie Lesko was worried that Trump supporters who actually believed that they were going to overturn the election would go nuts “when that doesn’t happen, most likely” so it could be part of the reason for the 6 states was that proceedings would conclude in the wee hours of Thursday morning, January 7, 2021, by which time the crowd would be much diminished.

    After they were interrupted, they reduced the number of objections to 2 and possibly finished a little bit earlier than they might have had there been no rioting, but still in the middle of the night. At 3:40 am. The least active portion of the night.

    I thought another reason for picking those six states was that if all the objections were sustained, – if, if – then the Electoral vote count would change from 306-232 in favor of Biden to 232 to 227 in favor of Trump.

    And it could be argued that that was a majority, or if 270 votes were still required, (Civil war and post Civil war precedents work either way) the election would go to the House, where, voting by states, the Republicans would have a majority.

    That would be, of course, if all Republican members of Congress voted with Trump which they were not about to do.

    The whole thing was designed to seem barely plausible to Trump or Giuliani or Eastman or somebody. And it ended at about the same time then senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell * and House Speaker Pelosi had planned to end it.
    ================
    * Remember that, although the Georgia runoff elections had been completed on January 5, the two new Senators from Georgia had not yet had their election certified and been sworn in. The Senate was 51-48 Republican on January 6. While David Perdue’s term had expired, Kelly Loeffler was still serving out some of Johnny Isakson’s final term.

    Now Trump had switched to demanding Mike Pence reject the votes and that had happened by the time the breaching of the police lines began.

    So maybe it was already revenge.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  151. “honor of the Holocaust.

    That should either be horror of the Holocaust or have something to do with “honor the memory”

    It’s “horror” Or maybe both.

    The White House issued a transcript of the speech that puts in brackets what he should have said:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/07/13/remarks-by-president-biden-at-arrival-ceremony

    Later today, I will once more return to the hallowed ground of Yad Sh- — Vashem to honor the 6 million Jewish lives that were stolen in a genocide and continue — which we must do every, every day — continue to bear witness, to keep alive the truth and honor [horror] of the Holocaust — horror of the Holocaust, honor those we lost so that we never, ever forget that lesson, you know, and to continue our shared, unending work to fight the poison of anti-Semitism wherever it raises its ugly head. Wherever we find it in the world, we make real on the promise of “never again” by taking it on.

    Thatwashis second mistake.

    The previous paragraph went:

    We’re going to celebrate the ending of [enduring] people-to-people connection and the enduring connection that binds our nations together, and commemorate the history that we must never allow to repeat itself.

    Is Biden’s eyesight also getting worse?

    Or did they put the teleprompter in the wrong location?

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  152. There is no screenshot at #152.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  153. From White House logs to Secret Service texts.

    The Secret Service deleted text messages from Jan. 5 and 6, 2021, after an internal watchdog requested them as part of a review of the department’s handling of last year’s Capitol riot, the watchdog said this week.

    A letter sent Wednesday by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to the heads of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees, which was obtained by ABC News, said the messages were deleted “as part of a device-replacement program” despite the inspector general requesting such communications.

    I suspect the deletions were more about covering Secret Service a$$es, not Trump’s, given all their past snafus.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  154. @156 They learned that trick from the FBI. Who learned it from HRC.

    frosty (2e4675)

  155. Interesting that Trump will get a temporary reprieve from his scheduled deposition today, due to the loss of his ex-wife, but the dead Ivana won’t stop him from speaking at tomorrow’s rally in AZ, or from using her death to fundraise.
    BTW, it looks like Trump will throw his hat in for 2024, and he is the clear GOP frontrunner.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  156. Ivana Trump was last seen alive at 4:30 pm on Wednesday, when her housekeeper and someone else left her apartment, and her body was discovered at the bottom of stairs early Thursday morning. They had to break in.

    But I don’t think this is a Columbo episode.

    The death was indeed a surprise, but was known several hours before the announcements. Ivanka Trump was in shock.

    Ivana Trump did have some problems, but she was scheduled to leave on a trip.

    It could be a balance problem, low blood pressure or they say a heart attack. The medical examiner will investigate,.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  157. Trump signed a letter saying he had previously invoked executive privilege with regard to Steve Bannon but his lawyer says he had not. Trump said now it was OK with him for Bannon if he reached an agreement with the committee.

    Sammy Finkelman (b7dc9b)

  158. CBS EVENING NEWS: Medical examiner says Ivana Trump dies from blunt force trauma after a fall.

    Sammy Finkelman (b7dc9b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2287 secs.