Patterico's Pontifications

7/20/2023

Trump Reminds McCarthy: The Bill Is Due…Time To Pay Up

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:10 am



[guest post by Dana]

The desperation of Kevin McCarthy:

After House Speaker Kevin McCarthy suggested on national television last month that Donald Trump may not be the GOP’s best presidential nominee in 2024, the former president was furious — and wanted the California Republican to rectify the slight immediately.

“He needs to endorse me — today!” Trump fumed to his staff on his way to a campaign event in New Hampshire, according to people familiar with what happened. McCarthy, after all, had indicated to Trump’s team that he would do so eventually. Why not clean up the mess and announce his support now?

But the House GOP leader — who has felt compelled to stay neutral during the primary so as to not box in his own members — wasn’t ready to do that. To calm Trump, McCarthy made him a promise, according to a source close to Trump and familiar with the conversation: The House would vote to expunge the two impeachments against the former president. And — as McCarthy would communicate through aides later that same day — they would do so before August recess.

According to an aide, McCarthy disagrees that he said that, but says that he “merely indicated that he would discuss the matter with his members.”

While the claims made above come from unnamed sources, it’s not a stretch (at all) to imagine that this is precisely what happened. After all, when you look at the Trump-McCarthy relationship, especially during the House vote for Speaker, there is every chance that McCarthy would not be in the position he is currently in if not for Trump calling members and persuading them to vote for McCarthy. And we know that Trump doesn’t do anything out of the goodness of his heart. Whether now or later, you will have to pay him back. Now, with McCarthy declining to endorse Trump, the frustrated former president sees the bill as due:

We’re told that Trump brings up the matter in every call he has with McCarthy, prodding the speaker about when he will bring expungement to the floor. McCarthy, however, has already pushed back the timeline. Perhaps realizing how tough such a vote will be, he recently told Trump’s team that the House will vote by the end of September…Trump’s inner circle, frustrated with McCarthy, is boiling. The former president and his team think the speaker should have endorsed him months ago…McCarthy told the Trump team that he can’t back Trump, because he wants to look neutral while the House clears his name on impeachment.

At the very least this will be a contentious matter if it comes up for a vote. McCarthy, who is not seen as a unifying or formidable leader, may not have a choice other than to placate submit to Trump’s demands. How a vote would go, however, is up in the air: two members voted to impeach, so count them out. Moderates are trying to “look ahead” and the few remaining “Constitutional conservatives” are reportedly questioning whether the House has the authority to hold such a vote. No matter how you look at it, it remains clear that Trump continues to be a self-serving, narcissistic and divisive figure who still maintains a stranglehold on the Republican Party.

–Dana

58 Responses to “Trump Reminds McCarthy: The Bill Is Due…Time To Pay Up”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (560c99)

  2. “Don’t look at me! I’m not Spartacus!”

    And to think this milquetoast is second in line for the Presidency.

    nk (2a02d9)

  3. This is one time I don’t blame Trump for his attitude. McCarthy made a deal. He needs to deliver or explain (to Trump) why not. I would think the chance Trump would lose might turn the trick, but it also might cause Trump to find another Speaker who actually can deliver a vote.

    Ambition is a hard, cold mistress. And she’s never satisfied. Pity Kevin for being wedded to such a creature. (Or don’t)

    Appalled (03f53c)

  4. Trump will continue controlling the party until 1) he is convicted and jailed, or 2) Sufficient numbers of GOP officeholders break with him, causing a preference cascade. One may lead to the other.

    The man is a clear and present danger; when will Republicans realize this?

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  5. Disraeli called it “the greasy pole.” McCarthy is finding it coated with something else entirely.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  6. Off-topic (mostly):

    Excellent op-ed in the WaPo, with a outside-the-box solution that 1) reduces the distortion of the Electoral College without destroying its utility, and 2) eliminates the possibility of gerrymanders while increasing the representation of most of the public.

    Short version:

    Increase Congress to 1305 members (triple 435), which dilutes the power of the 2 “Senate” votes in the EC. Elect those representatives from the same 435 districts, using a single ranked-choice selection by each voter, the top 3 finishers being elected.

    Impossible to gerrymander and more voters will have a representative that shares their views.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  7. @4

    Republicans realize it, McCarthy knows it. There is nothing they can do about it as long as they remain political cowards in thrall of the cult that is the republican base.

    Purplehaze (05dea1)

  8. Zero sympathy for McCarthy.

    He should allow it for a floor vote. Doesn’t any expungement need Senate approval? If so… lol, good luck!

    whembly (ea5e48)

  9. OT: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/07/bidens-pressured-burisma-founder-into-paying-10-million-bribe-to-get-prosecutor-fired-fbi-source-claims/

    Senator Grassley released a document Thursday revealing that a reliable FBI source had informed the bureau of the bribery scheme.

    According to an unidentified informant businessman, the founder of Burisma recounted being pressured by then-Vice President Joe Biden to put Biden’s son Hunter on the Ukrainian energy company’s board, and for $10 million in bribes — $5 million each to Joe and Hunter Biden — in order to use Biden’s political influence to force the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

    The bribery information was provided to the FBI in a series of meetings with the informant beginning in 2017. Those meetings were summarized in re-interview of the informant on June 30, 2020, and outlined in a Form 1023, the standard FBI form used to record information from an interview with a confidential human source (CHS). As National Review previously reported, this 1023 report has been the subject of an extensive dispute between the House Oversight Committee, which subpoenaed the document, and the FBI, which fought its release and then made a redacted version of the document available to the committee with significant restrictions.

    The 1023 report was released Thursday afternoon with minimal redactions by Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who explains that he obtained the document via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers. Indeed, the senator has previously explained that it was through whistleblower agents that he learned of the existence of the document.

    whembly (ea5e48)

  10. Kevin M (2d6744) — 7/20/2023 @ 11:24 am

    I am against bigger government. Just imagine each new rep plus all the supporting staff that they may desire. $$$ at the taxpayer expense. More piggies at the trough.

    felipe (5879c1)

  11. whembly (ea5e48) — 7/20/2023 @ 1:07 pm

    Not even close to being evidence of anything.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  12. Hi Whembly,

    BuDuh, Paul and I have been banging this around in the open thread. The evidence is an informant relating a conversation where there is a good chance the head of Burisma was exaggerating, lying, or just spinning a yarn.

    Appalled (5713d2)

  13. @10 and @11.

    You both may be right.

    But… shouldn’t we know what, if any, the FBI do with that information?

    Should the public know that the FBI “chased it down” to make a determination.

    Doesn’t this make it worthy of good faith investigation?

    We just had an open hearing whereby career IRS agents were prevented from even looking into the Bidens.

    Frankly, I would ask you this – it seems that you’re both reflectively defending Biden here, not really because you don’t believe he could do this, but you don’t want him weakened in a manner that strengthens Trump’s position (because that was entirely the basis of that “phone call” to Ukraine).

    I mean, if the “Big Guy” was former President Donald Trump and Hunter was Don Jr, would your immediate reaction be “jeez, this confirms my prior, so the Trump’s most certainly is guilty and is worthy of investigation”???

    whembly (5f7596)

  14. Oh.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/fbi-admits-they-knew-hunter-biden-laptop-was-real

    To translate: Once the FBI knew a damning laptop that could doom the likely Democratic presidential nominee was circulating, the agency seized it and pursued zero criminal leads into it for nearly a year. After spending that year telegraphing to Twitter and the likes that Russia would likely dump an October surprise that would be pure disinformation, it went silent when Twitter wanted to double-check that the New York Post story was actually bogus.

    The conspiratorial possibility here is that the FBI wasn’t trying to protect the Bidens and was actually just incompetent.

    whembly (5f7596)

  15. I am not sure what Appalled and Paul are banging on the open thread, Whembly. But it certainly isn’t what I have been talking about.

    BuDuh (b3eb83)

  16. @14

    I am not sure what Appalled and Paul are banging on the open thread, Whembly. But it certainly isn’t what I have been talking about.

    BuDuh (b3eb83) — 7/20/2023 @ 2:42 pm

    They’re desperate to hang onto the narrative that any Trump connection to Biden is suspect because… it’s Trump.

    But for years, the press (and anti-Trumpers) claimed that Biden bragging about getting Shokin fired wasn’t nefarious. There was no connection because “Shokin really was corrupt!”

    Now we have quotes from Burisma’s founder confirming they bribed the Bidens to get Shokin fired.

    My point, is that there’s waaaaaay more evidence to open up a full-blown investigation, even a special counsel, than any evidence that was used to open up against Trump (ie, Crossfire Hurricane).

    It’s the unequal application here, is the story imo.

    whembly (5f7596)

  17. it seems that you’re both reflectively defending Biden here, not really because you don’t believe he could do this, but you don’t want him weakened in a manner that strengthens Trump’s position (because that was entirely the basis of that “phone call” to Ukraine).

    Extraordinary accusations demand extraordinary proof. If the whistleblowers testimony is so damning, why hasn’t the House leadership started impeachment proceedings a la the Watergate hearings? It’s because most of the “evidence” is hearsay from (named and unnamed) whistleblowers, or from unnamed UKR informants (who may or may not be dead), or felons on the lam. A whistleblower’s claim that he was blocked from anything is hearsay and not proof.

    I understand why the Republicans are eager to pursue these claims as revenge for the treatment of Donald Trump.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  18. I want to know why the FBI did not investigate whistleblower Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s claim that the Rothschild’s weather control space lasers started the California wildfires. Did they even fill out an FD-1023?

    nk (2a02d9)

  19. This is all just fodder for the Trump cattle.

    nk (2a02d9)

  20. @16

    Extraordinary accusations demand extraordinary proof. If the whistleblowers testimony is so damning, why hasn’t the House leadership started impeachment proceedings a la the Watergate hearings? It’s because most of the “evidence” is hearsay from (named and unnamed) whistleblowers, or from unnamed UKR informants (who may or may not be dead), or felons on the lam. A whistleblower’s claim that he was blocked from anything is hearsay and not proof.

    I understand why the Republicans are eager to pursue these claims as revenge for the treatment of Donald Trump.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/20/2023 @ 3:18 pm

    I honestly think, that there’s not enough Republican who’d vote to initiate impeachment proceedings. There’s this sense, rightly so I think, that they don’t want to contribution further “weaponization” of impeachment hearings.

    But, for you and me, you keep asking for evidence?

    Why did the FBI work so hard to keep that document non-public? That document Grassely released to the public really doesn’t warrant the initial refusal.

    So. Why? If it was such a notherburger?

    Why did it take a threat of contempt?

    Furthermore, you have 2 IRS whistleblower, who faced retaliation mind you, literally documenting that high officials obstructed their investigations.

    Why, or why, do you demand “extraordinary proof” of Biden malfeasance and at the same time render numerous credible allegations? It seems that you’re demanding an impossible standard.

    whembly (5f7596)

  21. @18

    This is all just fodder for the Trump cattle.

    nk (2a02d9) — 7/20/2023 @ 3:48 pm

    You can never recognize possible government malfeasance, can you?

    whembly (5f7596)

  22. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump made a threat to McCarthy along these lines.
    He’s got the Speaker’s job, but he’s still beholden to Trump if he wants to keep it, just like subservient Ronna.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  23. Regarding the FD-1023, I do expect the FBI to chase the allegation down, and maybe Garland should appoint a Special Counsel, given that a sitting president could be involved.

    Also, what’s going on with Special Counsel Hur? He cleared Pence pretty quickly, so what’s the hold-up with Biden?

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  24. @22

    Regarding the FD-1023, I do expect the FBI to chase the allegation down, and maybe Garland should appoint a Special Counsel, given that a sitting president could be involved.

    If we’re honest, there’s zero chance in hell Garland would appoint a Special Counsel.

    We’re back to congressional impeachment to force his hand, and again, I seriously doubt impeachment is on the table.

    Also, what’s going on with Special Counsel Hur? He cleared Pence pretty quickly, so what’s the hold-up with Biden?

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7) — 7/20/2023 @ 4:22 pm

    The cynic in me is that he’s stretching it as long as he can until AFTER Trump’s classified document case to quietly deep-six it.

    whembly (5f7596)

  25. Back to topic on hand…

    Is there a mechanizm to expunge impeachment? Has that ever been done?

    Yes, yes there’s nothing in the rules saying the House can’t expunge an impeachment. The Constitution grants the House the “sole power of impeachment” and the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.”

    But, I’m dubious that there’s an “undo” button here.

    whembly (5f7596)

  26. In other news, the largest political scandal in the history of the country is flying under the radar. Joe Biden was bribed by a foreign power and the DOJ covered it up. But let’s focus on Trump’s bluster.

    edoc118 (72480e)

  27. Furthermore, you have 2 IRS whistleblowers……..literally documenting that high officials obstructed their investigations.

    Why, or why, do you demand “extraordinary proof” of Biden malfeasance and at the same time render numerous credible allegations? It seems that you’re demanding an impossible standard.

    whembly (5f7596) — 7/20/2023 @ 4:04 pm

    Hardly-I’ll settle for any direct evidence that would hold up in court or justify an impeachment, like recordings, documents, witnesses that actually saw something or were direct participants in the corruption, etc. Not just that they were denied access to something.

    What kind of documentation (such as emails ordering the IRS agents to stop their investigations) did the whistleblowers provide? Are the documents available to the public?

    As you say, they are just “allegations.”

    Rip Murdock (3da92e)

  28. I honestly think, that there’s not enough Republican who’d vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.

    There have been 12 impeachment resolutions filed against President Biden over since the 117th Congress, with 3 filed in current (118th) Congress. It’s only Speaker McCarthy who’s holding them back.

    Rip Murdock (3da92e)

  29. #18

    Whembly — I can think of one good reason for the FBI to stonewall the release of this document —i it identifies to malignant interested parties who the confidential informer is.

    Not everything is about protecting Joe Biden.

    Appalled (1564bf)

  30. (Trump) is a clear and present danger; when will Republicans realize this?

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 7/20/2023 @ 10:29 am

    On January 21, 2025, the day after Trump’s “I am your retribution and salvation” inaugural address.

    Rip Murdock (3da92e)

  31. @28

    On January 21, 2025, the day after Trump’s “I am your retribution and salvation” inaugural address.

    Rip Murdock (3da92e) — 7/20/2023 @ 8:22 pm

    One of the may “exhibits” as to why I’d want DeSantis to win the nomination.

    For one, Trump ain’t going to do crap. And two, it’s all about him.

    whembly (5f7596)

  32. @25 Rip Murdock

    @27 Appalled

    We now actually have ‘names’ tied to the allegations. The one who’s making the allegation and the target.

    Way more credible allegation that ought to pressure Garland to creating a Special Counsel, as there’s an obvious conflict of interest here.

    Way more than the “evidence” used that spawned Crossfire Hurricane and the eventual Mueller Special Counsel.

    I don’t see how the both of you can keep a straight face, when in fact you supported the creation of Crossfire Hurricane and wanted Mueller to exhaust his investigations…and yet, remain deeply skeptical that the same standard ought to be applied with regards to the Biden corruption scandal.

    Normie Norms and Normie Jane will notice the disparate treatment here between the Bidens vs. Trumps.

    You both may be right that there’s nothing here, when a full faith investigation is conducted. But, you cannot ignore the stonewalling and absolute reticent by government officials when targeting the Bidens, yet when it’s Trump, there’s an overwhelming zeal to throw the books at him.

    I matters not one iota, if you believe Trump’s is well deserving of government prosecutions, when the opposition party are largely under a completely different standard.

    God forbid Trump’s wins the primary. But, if he does… THIS has play amongst the Normie Normes and Janes. Add the malaise surrounding Biden’s job performance and we may see a repeat of 2016.

    whembly (5f7596)

  33. We now actually have ‘names’ tied to the allegations. The one who’s making the allegation and the target. …….I don’t see how the both of you can keep a straight face, when in fact you supported the creation of Crossfire Hurricane and wanted Mueller to exhaust his investigations……..

    And not a modicum of actual evidence. If making an allegation is all that it takes to name a special counsel these days, then everyone in the legislative , the judiciary, and the executive branches should have their own special counsel.

    If the House investigation yields more information beyond the whistleblower statements, like direct statements or actions by Merrick Garland and/or President Biden, phone records between Biden and those who transferred (as alleged by Rep. Comer and others) millions to Biden, corroborating bank transactions , witnesses to meetings, etc. I will reconsider my position.

    The same applies to (alleged) pressure on US Attorney David Weiss. The whistleblowers must have some records showing how he was pressured to go easy on Hunter Biden (something Weiss has denied.). Otherwise the whistleblowers should have known that they would be hung to dry without proof of their claims. Where is it?

    I didn’t really remember “supporting the creation” of the CH investigation, (since it was done in secret, like most FBI investigations) but if you have links to comments I made at the time supporting its creation I will certainly revise my response.

    Again, I understand that in politics “turnabout is fair play.” Given the two impeachments of President Trump, these types of accusations would have been made no matter what Democrat had been President.

    Since Trump has promised to launch an investigation into these allegations, we’ll just have to wait until he’s re-elected. 😉

    Rip Murdock (3da92e)

  34. I am against bigger government. Just imagine each new rep plus all the supporting staff that they may desire. $$$ at the taxpayer expense. More piggies at the trough.

    A mere rounding error. The real problem is the lack of popular control — these mandarins choose their voters, not the other way around. Stop that and you can get real reform.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  35. I am against bigger government.

    It’s a bigger country.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  36. After typing on a new keyboard, I have an observation (and not for the first time): The CAPS LOCK key on most keyboards is much bigger than it needs to be, and in the wrong place. It should be over with “ScrLk”

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  37. Whembly (#14)

    Don’t be an internet mind reader. Lately, I have taken to visiting the links of our populists to see if their gloss on the stories really reflect the content. I focused on the Biden bribery document and thought “is this all you got?” That’s all.

    You have the reported conversation of a guy who is trying to persuade an unknown informant with unknown motives that he’s got his US expansion all set. By putting this out in the open, the GOP has likely blown the cover of the informant.

    There is likely no way to get this one beyond he said she said to some anonymous guy.

    I don’t have any opinion on the irs whistleblowers because I have not paid much attention to it.

    Appalled (2d46d8)

  38. My viewpoint is that all we will get from the dog vomit which are the Congressional Republicans these days is dog vomit. Canem vomitum, omnes vomitus.

    nk (2a02d9)

  39. RIP legendary singer Tony Bennett (95).

    Rip Murdock (3da92e)

  40. But… shouldn’t we know what, if any, the FBI do with that information?

    Should the public know that the FBI “chased it down” to make a determination.

    Doesn’t this make it worthy of good faith investigation?

    Yes, and I would expect the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees to do so, but so far their investigation haven’t been made in good faith and have bordered on farce.

    Rip Murdock (3da92e)

  41. Looks like there’s an open December slot for a Trump criminal trial. Jack and Fani could flip a coin.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  42. Breaking:

    Trump’s Espionage Act trial set for May 2024.

    Rip Murdock (3da92e)

  43. It is seeming like we won WW2 faster than we can bring Trump to trial, at least for J6.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  44. these mandarins choose their voters, not the other way around. Stop that and you can get real reform.
    Kevin M (2d6744) — 7/20/2023 @ 10:32 pm

    I completely agree, but I do not think the solution is to have more mandarins.

    felipe (5879c1)

  45. It is seeming like we won WW2 faster than we can bring Trump to trial, at least for J6.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 7/21/2023 @ 8:59 am

    The myriad attempts of witnesses litigating their grand jury subpoenas in court is what has drawn out the process (among other factors).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  46. @40

    Breaking:

    Trump’s Espionage Act trial set for May 2024.

    Rip Murdock (3da92e) — 7/21/2023 @ 7:05 am

    Yeah, it’s going to be pushed past the general election. This is a complicated case with tons of pre-trial motions that would inevitably push the trial date out past the election.

    The J6 trial in DC, however, seems like a case that could move quickly and be rendered prior to the General Election.

    whembly (5f7596)

  47. @35

    I don’t have any opinion on the irs whistleblowers because I have not paid much attention to it.

    Appalled (2d46d8) — 7/21/2023 @ 4:34 am

    You should, because that’s the real scandal.

    It’s a case of career officials were obstructed by political officials.

    whembly (5f7596)

  48. citizen to Representative: When did you start working for your district?

    Rep: When they threatened to replace me.

    felipe (5879c1)

  49. Yeah, it’s going to be pushed past the general election. This is a complicated case with tons of pre-trial motions that would inevitably push the trial date out past the election.

    The J6 trial in DC, however, seems like a case that could move quickly and be rendered prior to the General Election.

    whembly (5f7596) — 7/21/2023 @ 9:26 am

    We’ll see. I don’t know why you think an election interference indictment won’t face the same delaying tactics from Trump to push it beyond the general election.

    For political reasons, the December date looks pretty good right now for the Espionage Act trial, but Trump wanted it delayed, and he got it, just not as long as he wanted. Ten months should be plenty of time to litigate all motions. In the meantime, Trump will be spending a lot more time in other courts:

    In October 2023, Trump goes on trial in New York to defend against the New York attorney general’s civil lawsuit alleging he, his adult sons, and the Trump Organization were engaged in a $250 million fraud for inflating the values of his golf courses, hotels, and properties to obtain loans and insurance. ……

    Three months later, on January 15, 2024, Trump is a defendant again facing off against former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll who sued him for defamation for statements he made denying her allegation that he raped her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s.

    On March 25 (2024), Trump will face a jury for the first time in a criminal case to defend against a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records. ……The judge has warned Trump that he is required to attend every day of the trial, potentially keeping him off the campaign trail for a couple of weeks.

    And this doesn’t include the upcoming federal election interference and Georgia (potential) RICO indictments.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  50. I completely agree, but I do not think the solution is to have more mandarins.

    It’s the only way you bring them closer to the people. What was 1 per 30 thousand is now 1 per 800,000. They are no longer people, but walking party labels.

    Power (and staff) would move to committees, while the Congressmen could focus better on constituent service (which is what they are supposed to be doing).

    But the main point is that by electing 3 reps from each district, with each voter getting ONE [ranked choice] vote, gerrymanders would be impossible and sizable minorities could have a representative.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  51. Most people know my focus is the Rule of Law. Misconduct or crimes by Trump and Biden matter, but life goes on whether or not they are caught and punished. But if the DOJ and State AGs don’t investigate every claim and prosecute when it is appropriate, then every current and future politician will learn that they don’t have to care about the law.

    DRJ (531157)

  52. Kevin,

    Every New Mexico person I know (and I know quite a few, and have lived there) argues for more representation, although in different forms. But New Mexico is a small population State and it is likely that your residents can meet, know, and talk to your politicians — IMO more likely than residents in most States.

    Why might this be? Do you sense that New Mexicans are more politically aware/active or possibly more disillusioned?

    DRJ (531157)

  53. Kevin M (2d6744) — 7/20/2023 @ 10:36 pm

    After typing on a new keyboard, I have an observation (and not for the first time): The CAPS LOCK key on most keyboards is much bigger than it needs to be, and in the wrong place. It should be over with “ScrLk”

    I think it’s inherited from the original IBM pC fromm 1981. What anybody needs the Caps Lock*Shift to equal small letters I don’t know.

    Sammy Finkelman (64ff8b)

  54. > Increase Congress to 1305 members (triple 435), which dilutes the power of the 2 “Senate” votes in the EC. Elect those representatives from the same 435 districts, using a single ranked-choice selection by each voter, the top 3 finishers being elected.

    > Impossible to gerrymander and more voters will have a representative that shares their views.

    That would work. I’d prefer to have 1305 districts because reducing the ratio of people to representative should increase connection between the people and their representative and will help restore trust in the legislature by making it more possible for everyone to know the representative or someone who knows the representative, but this proposal woudl absolutely be an improvement over today’s world.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  55. DRJ (531157) — 7/21/2023 @ 10:45 am

    But if the DOJ and State AGs don’t investigate every claim and prosecute when it is appropriate, then every current and future politician will learn that they don’t have to care about the law.

    Yes, they do, and about things that could be argued were violations of law – but they have to most care about whose side the prosecutors are on………….

    (maybe most of the FBI though just didn’t want to prosecute anybody politically sensitive)

    Sammy Finkelman (64ff8b)

  56. > But New Mexico is a small population State and it is likely that your residents can meet, know, and talk to your politicians — IMO more likely than residents in most States.

    state,sure, but the federal congressperson to voter ratio is still effectively the same.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  57. There is much of interest in this Monmouth poll.

    (As I said over at Political Betting, though I have been predicting that Trump decline, I am cautious about this evidence, since, for most of us, it is so easy to fool ourselves when we see evidence that we want to see.

    But, if the decline continues, . . . )

    Jim Miller (e96cbf)

  58. My concern about a third party ticket is that it dramatically increases the likelihood of the election being sent to the house, where (a) each state’s delegation gets one vote, (b) the majority of state delegations are republican even when the dems have an overall majority in the house, and (c) these two facts combined all but guarantee a trump victory.

    aphrael (4c4719)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0882 secs.