Patterico's Pontifications

10/1/2024

Vice-Presidential Debate Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:53 am



[guest post by Dana]

With only 5 weeks until the election, the first and only vice-presidential debate will air live tonight at 9 p.m. ET.

So where do the candidates currently stand with voters?

Polls also indicate that Vance has some work to do after he made a rough first impression. In a recent NBC News national poll, 45% of registered voters said they viewed Vance negatively, compared with 32% who said they viewed him positively — making him one of the least-liked vice presidential candidates in the last 30 years. Walz, conversely, was viewed positively by 40% and negatively by 33%. And with his unsubstantiated claims about Haitian immigrants’ eating pets and his tendency to get ahead of Trump on policy, Vance already has drawn more scrutiny than any vice presidential candidate since another Republican, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, burst onto the scene in 2008.

While both candidates have their fans, Walz has misrepresented his time in China, while Vance has made grossly false accusations about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. And Vance continues to double-down on the accusations. And it’s important to note that a few years ago, Vance compared Trump to “America’s Hitler”:

Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick Ohio Sen. JD Vance was once a fervent critic of the former president. In private messages, he wondered ahead of Trump’s election whether he was “America’s Hitler” and in 2017 said the then-president was a “moral disaster.” In public, he agreed Trump was a “total fraud” who didn’t care about regular people and called him “reprehensible.”

“I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler,” Vance wrote in a message to a friend in 2016. “How’s that for discouraging?”

In 2016 and 2017, Vance, then best-known for penning the best-selling book “Hillbilly Elegy” said Trump was “cultural heroin” and “just another opioid” for Middle America. He told CNN ahead of the 2016 election that he was “definitely not” voting for Trump and he also contemplated voting for Hillary Clinton (he ultimately said he planned to vote for independent candidate Evan McMullin.)

“Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us,” he tweeted after the “Access Hollywood” tape was published in 2016.

Vance also liked tweets that said Trump committed “serial sexual assault,” called him “one of USA’s most hated, villainous, douchey celebs,” and harshly criticized Trump’s response to the deadly 2017 White nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“There is no moral equivalence between the anti-racist protestors in Charlottesville and the killer (and his ilk),” Vance wrote in a deleted-tweet.

Given Donald Trump’s age (78) and obvious cognitive decline, it’s very possible that if Trump wins the election and his decline becomes severe, Vance would have to assume the presidency. Voters need to factor that in when voting on November 5. This is a man who was once stalwartly against Trump, with good reason, and then when his ear and ego were tickled by whomever, he reversed course and became a Trump bootlicker. While many members of Trump’s team see Vance’s “transition” as real, for the average voter it might be a different story.

–Dana

132 Responses to “Vice-Presidential Debate Open Thread”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (dade40) — 10/1/2024 @ 11:53 am

  2. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-30CqttO518

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:00 pm

  3. If anyone is a “cynical a–hole it’s Vance.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:01 pm

  4. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:01 pm

    If anyone is a “cynical a–hole it’s Vance.

    But that’s a point in his favor.

    I wonder what made Kamala Harris say this: (or her advisers suggest this.)

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542

    …. Understand what it would mean if Donald Trump were back in the white house with no guardrails. Because certainly, we know now the court won’t stop him. We know JD Vance is not going to stop him. It’s up to the American people to stop him.

    Must have been something that turned up in some focus group. Because why would the idea occur to anyone? Ordinarily

    So all that Vance needs to do, if he dares, is to quote Kamala Harris and say: She’s wrong – he will stop him from going off the rails and violating the constitution, or doing something impractical.

    She’s given JD Vance such an opening.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:27 pm

  5. I didn’t close the quote, which went:

    …. Understand what it would mean if Donald Trump were back in the white house with no guardrails. Because certainly, we know now the court won’t stop him. We know JD Vance is not going to stop him. It’s up to the American people to stop him.

    I wonder who said he would.

    She wasn’t careful to say here – only by voting, not by the method attempted in Butler, Pennsylvania.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:30 pm

  6. “Given Donald Trump’s age (78) and obvious cognitive decline, it’s very possible that if Trump wins the election and his decline becomes severe, Vance would have to assume the presidency. Voters need to factor that in when voting on November 5.”

    Biden’s decline was severe and obvious long before the bubble media acknowledged it, but it didn’t matter to folks anyway. Suddenly, it’s a big deal. Kamala, whose own Senate score is to the left of Bernie, found a running mate to the left of Fidel Castro. But, we should be very concerned about Vance, who’s score is 93% conservative.

    lloyd (aa3791) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:52 pm

  7. The only reason to tune in tonight is to see if Vance can win the debate against the moderators. Walz, if he’s smart (clearly not), should just bring a bag of popcorn and scroll through YouTube videos.

    lloyd (026e99) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:57 pm

  8. Vance can lose if he has to stick by anything and everything that Trump has said, or that he has said that Trump endorsed.

    He can wind up looking very bad – almost like Baghdad Bob.

    Meanwhile Walz won’t take part in any criticism of any of things that (other than maybe by name calling and ridicule without detail.)

    He won’t even argue that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 1:21 pm

  9. (Walz) won’t even argue that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 1:21 pm

    And you know this how?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2024 @ 1:32 pm

  10. lloyd (aa3791) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:52 pm

    Kamala, whose own Senate score is to the left of Bernie, found a running mate to the left of Fidel Castro.

    Who exaggerates , or exaggerated in the past, the number of his trips to Communist China, and his friendliness to the regime.

    He even falsely claimed that he had been in China at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre, but that didn’t stop him from continuing on to take the job he had planned to take in China.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-walz-china-views

    “As the events were unfolding, several of us went in,” Walz said at a 2014 congressional hearing marking 25 years since the massacre.

    He recalled meeting a crowd of people in a Hong Kong train station who were “very angry that we would still go after what had happened.” But Walz, who became fascinated with China during his youth, saw it as an opportunity.

    “It was my belief at that time that the diplomacy was going to happen on many levels, certainly people to people, and the opportunity to be in a Chinese high school at that critical time seemed to me to be really important,” Walz said.

    In 2007, as a newly elected congressman, he told The Hill that “China was coming, and that’s the reason that I went.”

    Only this story is not true.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3172315/tim-walz-misrepresented-time-in-china/#google_vignette

    However, contemporaneous news reports from 1989 indicate that Walz was in Nebraska, his home state, as the massacre unfolded, Minnesota Public Radio reported this week. Walz would go on to teach at a school in Guangdong, China. And contrary to Walz’s claim that he has visited China 30 times, the Harris-Walz campaign told Minnesota Public Radio that he has actually been to the country “closer to 15 times.”

    “I still remember the train station in Hong Kong,” Walz said at a 2014 event in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

    “There was a large number of, especially European, I think, very angry that we would still go after what had happened, but it was my belief at that time that the diplomacy was going to happen on many levels,” Walz said at the 2014 event.

    Fully in the spirit of Joe Biden, except that Biden never tied to portray himself as a modern day fellow traveler.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 1:40 pm

  11. So all that Vance needs to do, if he dares, is to quote Kamala Harris and say: She’s wrong – he will stop him from going off the rails and violating the constitution, or doing something impractical.

    She’s given JD Vance such an opening.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 12:27 pm

    LOL! This really assumes facts not in evidence. First, how would Vance “stop (Trump) from going off the rails and violating the constitution, or doing something impractical”? The VP has no authority to countermand an order from the President. Second, Vance is no Pence; he has repeatedly said that he not have certified the 2020 election had he been VP.

    “I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we had,” Vance said on the venture capitalist podcast “All-In” on Monday (September 9, 2024) in Los Angeles. “I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates. That’s what I would have done. Again, I’ve said that publicly many times.”

    The Ohio Republican was asked by host Jason Calacanis, a tech entrepreneur, four times if he would have “certified the election” had he been in Pence’s position. Four times he declined to say he would. ……
    ……….
    In February, Vance said on ABC News “if I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there.” He said similarly in an interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat in June.

    “The important part is we would have had a big debate. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the results would have been any different, but we at least would have had the debate in Pennsylvania and Georgia about how to better have a rational election system where legal ballots are cast,” Vance said…….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2024 @ 1:43 pm

  12. “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler,”

    Like Trump could grow a moustache. Hitler’s sister, maybe.

    nk (b43a5f) — 10/1/2024 @ 1:47 pm

  13. Sammy suggests this debate strategy:

    So all that Vance needs to do, if he dares, is to quote Kamala Harris and say: She’s wrong – he will stop him from going off the rails and violating the constitution, or doing something impractical.

    That would be amusing to see. I can’t imagine Trump’s reaction. I can’t imagine how fun it would be to see JD walk it back after Trump goes ballistic. The usual approach is to deny Trump would ever do any such thing, and stick to that line.

    Appalled (f24838) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:03 pm

  14. As if anyone is going to change their vote base on the VP nominee.

    Joe (a71fc6) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:08 pm

  15. Search “Sarah Palin.”

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:16 pm

  16. Moderation?

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:17 pm

  17. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2024 @ 1:32 pm

    And you know this how?

    I don’t know that it will extend to that, but I suspect he won’t even challenge any statements abut the 2020 election (other than maybe by a brief word)

    Vance won’t say the vote counting itself was fraudulent, but the moderators may bring it up.

    Now maybe they don’t want Walz to defend himself where he has no defense but it’s OK to press on where Trump/Vance is wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:20 pm

  18. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2
    024 @ 1:43 pm

    First, how would Vance “stop (Trump) from going off the rails and violating the constitution, or doing something impractical”? The VP has no authority to countermand an order from the President.

    Well, that sort of thing hasn’t stopped anyone in this election from claiming that they’ll do something that they can’t. Besides there is moral and political persuasion.

    And it is a fact that Rudolph Giuliani and White House counsel Pat Cipollone and White House lawyer Eric Herschmann on December 18, 2020 prevented Donald Trump from listening to lawyer Sidney Powell and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to declare martial law and seize voting machines or anything else they wanted except possibly call for a rally in Washington on January 6, which he did in a tweet sent after midnight after the meeting had ended.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rudy-giuliani-testimony-january-6-committee-unhinged-white-house-meeting-oval-office

    Rep. Jamie Raskin said that Giuliani and Trump allies Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn and the CEO of Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, showed up at the White House on Dec. 18, without an appointment, and were allowed in by a junior staffer. They went to the Oval Office, Raskin said, and were able to speak to Trump alone “for some time — until White House officials learned of the meeting.”

    The White House counsel apparently wasted no time — Powell testified, “I bet Pat Cipollone set a new land speed record” to get to the Oval Office. Powell estimated she and the outside advisers had 10 to 15 minutes alone with Trump….

    … Four days earlier, on Dec. 14, 2020, the Electoral College had met and certified that Joe Biden had won the 2020 presidentially election. On Dec. 16, Trump’s outside advisers drafted an executive order proposing that the defense secretary seize voting machines and analyze them. Under the proposed order, Trump would also appoint a special counsel — Sidney Powell — with the power to seize machines and charge people with crimes. Trump’s advisers brought the draft order with them to the White House on Dec. 18.

    Derek Lyons, the White House staff secretary, told the committee in earlier recorded testimony that Powell and Flynn were fighting with White House officials — he said the two “were looking for avenues that would result in President Trump remaining President Trump for a second term.”

    White House officials were incensed. Raskin said they and Trump’s outside advisers fought and traded personal insults, profanity and the meeting even devolved into “challenges to physically fight.”

    Cipollone and then-White House attorney Eric Herschmann pushed back at claims the election was stolen. Cipollone said Powell and others displayed a “general disregard” for backing up what they were saying.

    Herschmann recalled that “at one point, Gen. Flynn took out a diagram that supposedly showed IP addresses all over the world, who was communicating with whom, via the (voting) machines and some comment about Nest thermostats being hooked up to the internet.”

    Cipollone said that he and Herschmann and another lawyer kept asking them “one simple question — where is the evidence?” Powell and the other advisers responded, he said, with “a general disregard for the importance of backing up what you say with the facts.”

    Herschmann said that he asked Powell about all of the election lawsuits she had lost. She claimed the judges were “corrupt.” “‘Every single case in the country?'” Every judge, “‘even the ones we appointed?'” That, he said, was the nice version.

    He said of the meeting that “the screaming was completely, completely out there.” He also said that “what they were proposing, I thought, was nuts.”

    Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, said the committee had spoken with six of the participants and others who “could hear the screaming from outside the Oval Office.”

    In his deposition, Giuliani characterized his comments as telling the White House aides, “‘you guys are not tough enough.'”

    “Or maybe, I put it another way, ‘you’re a bunch of p***ies,'” he said during his deposition, using a crude euphemism for cowards. “Excuse the expression. But I’m also sure those words were used.”

    “Flynn screamed at me that I was a quitter. He kept turning around and screaming at me,” Herschmann said. He remembered telling Flynn to “seat your f***ing a** back down.”

    The meeting ended after midnight on Dec. 19. The committee showed a text sent by Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, to Tony Ornato, the former deputy chief of staff for operations. Hutchinson wrote that “the west wing is UNHINGED.”

    Shortly after Trump’s fiery Oval Office meeting, he tweeted to his supporters to attend a big protest in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:38 pm

  19. Of course, JD Vance wouldn’t say any such thing unless he got prior permission from Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:40 pm

  20. J. the “D” is for Doubletalk Vance, whose personal motto is “Don’t Believe Everything You Think”, is perfectly capable of giving any number of mutually irreconcilable answers to any question.

    It is a rare talent, augmented by his longwindedness and total indifference whether any of the answers is correct.

    Only the time limits in the debate rules will inhibit him.

    nk (b43a5f) — 10/1/2024 @ 2:41 pm

  21. He even falsely claimed that he had been in China at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre, but that didn’t stop him from continuing on to take the job he had planned to take in China.

    Walz reminds me a great deal of Joe Biden (and Trump, for that matter): personable enough (except for as a boss, where it would appear that all three men are complete a-holes), but thoroughly mediocre in abilities, intellect, and temperament. Walz’s story about his China excursions and escorting students on the trips over there is interesting enough, except for just like Joe Biden, he has to gild the lily with a bunch of nonsense that isn’t plausibly true. As Sammy points out, he has lied about the timeline of his visit in order to place him there during the Tiananmen Square massacre, just as he lied about his rank in the army, lied about his doctoral degree studies, lied about being named the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce man of the year, etc.

    I think politicians in general are very needy people, always concerned that their life’s experiences aren’t particularly impressive. So they tend to embellish them a great deal. This is just yet another point suggesting that our democracy so very rarely elects the best and brightest, preferring instead the comfortably mediocre.

    JVW (d17bc5) — 10/1/2024 @ 3:13 pm

  22. Walz is the guy who will ding your car in the parking lot and wait by your car until you come back to apologize and give you his insurance information.

    Vance is the guy who rear-ends you while drunk and begs you tearfully not to make a police report, promises to pay for all your damages, and then you never hear from him again.

    Trump is the guy who steals your car and threatens to have Roy Cohn sue you for defamation if you report it to the police.

    nk (b43a5f) — 10/1/2024 @ 3:32 pm

  23. Harris is the one that bails out the guy arrested for stealing your car.

    SaveFarris (6139a3) — 10/1/2024 @ 4:09 pm

  24. Things that happen when you are not waiting to give some imaginary victim your insurance information:

    On September 23, 1995, Walz, a 31-year-old, newlywed, high school teacher and football coach, was pulled over doing 96 miles per hour in a 55mph zone. The officer who stopped Walz smelled a “strong odor of alcoholic beverage”, according to the police report.

    After failing a field sobriety test and preliminary breath test, Walz was taken to a local jail in Dawes County, Nebraska

    …. he had a blood alcohol concentration of .128 (approximately .028 over the state’s limit at the time),…

    But when Walz was faced with allegations of a DUI in 2006, his campaign denied that he was ever drunk and instead claimed it was a misunderstanding between Walz and the state trooper who pulled him over for speeding.

    “Walz was hard of hearing, a result of his years as an artillery soldier in the Army National Guard, and had trouble hearing the trooper,” Meredith Salsbery, communications director for the Walz campaign, told the NuJournal at the time.

    “He couldn’t understand what the trooper was telling him during the field sobriety test, and the trooper refused to speak up,” the communications director added.

    It is unclear why Walz’s campaign team misrepresented the incident at the time

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/1/2024 @ 4:19 pm

  25. Walz is the guy who will ding your car in the parking lot and wait by your car until you come back to apologize and give you his insurance information.

    Nah, Walz is the guy who dings your car in the parking lot and then makes a big show of writing a note which he puts underneath your wiper blade while the witnesses are watching, but he leaves a fake name and phone number.

    JVW (d17bc5) — 10/1/2024 @ 4:32 pm

  26. I think politicians in general are very needy people, always concerned that their life’s experiences aren’t particularly impressive. So they tend to embellish them a great deal. This is just yet another point suggesting that our democracy so very rarely elects the best and brightest, preferring instead the comfortably mediocre.

    Well said.

    Dana (5698a0) — 10/1/2024 @ 6:09 pm

  27. Walz is not all that well-informed – about anything – he said 1400 people were killed by Hamas on October 7 – that was the initial estimate but it was later revised to 1200 of which slightly less than 800 were ordinary civilians.

    Neither candidate answered the questions, with Vance being worse

    Both candidates make wild inaccuracies on all subjects.

    Vance says things over the heads of his audience that sound relevent but aren’t.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 10/1/2024 @ 6:35 pm

  28. Walz had to be pushed by the moderator to fact check Vance – and then he didn’t in detail.’

    he New York Times reported the other day that febtanyl is smuggled in carr=s driven by Americaan citizens. If the cartels earlier used foreign nationals tey learned to use American citizens who drove many times across the border,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/28/world/americas/fentanyl-drug-smugglers-us.html

    The recruiters generally deliver the same pitch: We will pay you anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 for a few hours of low-risk work.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 10/1/2024 @ 6:43 pm

  29. The moderators had a good choice of subjects, but that’s the best point about this.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 10/1/2024 @ 6:46 pm

  30. I’m following the debate on NRO. Not listening to the two jamokes blather on; that I can do later via YouTube. But I’m reading the live-blogging that NRO is doing. Thus far, they think that Vance is mopping the floor with Walz. I wonder if that’s what the undecided voter sees, or if it really matters.

    JVW (d17bc5) — 10/1/2024 @ 6:54 pm

  31. *I* think Vance is mopping the floor with Walz and I hate it.

    aphrael (078a66) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:09 pm

  32. I think Vance is mopping the floor.
    But who is undecided at this point?

    Joe (a71fc6) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:18 pm

  33. Walz: “I’ve become friends with school shooters.”

    lloyd (991efb) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:32 pm

  34. I’m sure the Democrat-friendly media will summarize the events along the lines of “Governor Tim Walz introduced the nation to ‘Minnesota nice’ this evening as he genially fended off attacks from Senator J.D. Vance and made a strong case for Kamala Harris to be elected President.”

    JVW (d17bc5) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:32 pm

  35. More Minnesota nice:

    Tim Walz tries to explain lie about being in Hong Kong during Tiananmen Square protest: “I’m a knucklehead at times“

    lloyd (991efb) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:35 pm

  36. This debate isn’t going to make any difference to voters. Nobody is going to care if JD Vance is an appalling human being or not because their decision will be based on Trump. Nobody is going to care if Walz seems to be weak or not because it’s the VP and Kamala isn’t that old.

    Nic (120c94) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:42 pm

  37. One, the really unfortunate thing is that, while Vance can handle himself in a debate, he had to sell his political soul to Trump in order to have a viable career path.
    Two, Vance had to have the better debate because his running mate is 78 and mentally unwell.
    Three, Walz was outsmarted and looked confused at times. It was like he was both over-prepared and under-prepared.
    Four, Vance still cannot say that Trump lost. He can bullsh-t as much as he wants, but that’s the fundamental dishonesty of Trump, and Vance can’t run counter to it which, to me, is disqualifying, especially after Vance earlier said that he wouldn’t do what Pence did.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:47 pm

  38. Nobody is going to care if JD Vance is an appalling human being or not because their decision will be based on Trump. Nobody is going to care if Walz seems to be weak or not because it’s the VP and Kamala isn’t that old.

    I read a good point on NRO: while that has certainly been true in past elections, this year is quite different. For one thing, neither Kamala Harris nor Tim Walz have really been out on the campaign trail interacting with normal everyday Americans or fielding questions from the press. And given that there currently is no scheduled second debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, this may serve as the lasting impression that voters have of the two respective tickets. Naturally I am not expecting millions of voters to suddenly flip their choice either way, but what if enough undecided voters in key swing states use tonight as the basis by which they cast their vote? Especially now in these days when voting is already underway, could this debate have moved the needle just enough in one direction or the other?

    JVW (d17bc5) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:48 pm

  39. I guess that MSNBC is conceding that Vance had a great night, but they are dinging him on his non-answer about January 6 to suggest that perhaps that undid all of the points he built up in the debate.

    JVW (d17bc5) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:50 pm

  40. @36 “This debate isn’t going to make any difference to voters.”

    A sure sign Vance won the debate.

    lloyd (1d7a73) — 10/1/2024 @ 8:35 pm

  41. Bill Melugin
    @BillMelugin_

    “CBS cuts Vance’s mic while he’s explaining how the Biden/Harris admin has allowed over 800,000 migrants to enter the U.S. via the CBP One App “lawfully”. It then sounded like Walz claimed the CBP One app has been used since the 90s, which is completely false. The Biden/Harris admin started using it in winter 2023 to begin mass paroling migrants into the country by the hundreds of thousands, typically between 1,300-1,500 every single day.”

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/1/2024 @ 9:00 pm

  42. Brit Hume: “The moderators were obnoxious and made it feel like three-on-one on Vance, and Vance was just fine.”

    lloyd (1d7a73) — 10/1/2024 @ 9:05 pm

  43. @lloyd@40 What about this debate means that it would make a difference to voters? I gave reasons why I think it won’t. JVW gave reasons why he thinks it might. You gave no reasons at all other than an oblique ad hominem.

    Nic (120c94) — 10/1/2024 @ 9:16 pm

  44. Tim walz makes clinton’s choice of timmy kaine look like an inspired choice! He should of answered about the chinese trip in chinese! If harris loses pa. because gov. shapiro was outstanding. Kennady put LBJ on the ticket.

    asset (76ac95) — 10/1/2024 @ 10:02 pm

  45. Vance was in his element. It would have been surprising if he had not done well.

    An elite law school graduate and masterful storyteller with almost two years as a U.S. Senator under his belt, answering intelligent and informed questions from informed and intelligent people, in a cordial setting.

    Walz would not have been anyone Vance had not faced before — whether senior NCOs in the Marines or college and law school professors.

    It’s when Vance tries to be a rabble rouser that he flubs. Like a trained opera singer in a hog calling contest. But he has Trump to make up for that lack. And to learn from.

    nk (f4ffc0) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:17 am

  46. MB: We have a lot to get to ahead, gentlemen, on many topics. But right now I want to talk about personal qualifications. The Vice President is often the last voice the President hears before making consequential decisions. We want to ask you about your leadership qualities, Governor Walz. You said you were in Hong Kong during the deadly Tiananmen Square protest in the spring of 1989. But Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets are reporting that you actually didn’t travel to Asia until August of that year. Can you explain that discrepancy? You have two minutes.

    TW: Yeah. Well, and to the folks out there who didn’t get at the top of this, look, I grew up in small, rural Nebraska, town of 400. Town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on, and I’m proud of that service. I joined the National Guard at 17, worked on family farms, and then I used the GI bill to become a teacher. Passionate about it, a young teacher. My first year out, I got the opportunity in the summer of 89 to travel to China, 35 years ago, be able to do that. I came back home and then started a program to take young people there. We would take basketball teams, we would take baseball teams, we would take dancers, and we would go back and forth to China. The issue for that was, was to try and learn. Now, look, my community knows who I am. They saw where I was at. They, look, I will be the first to tell you I have poured my heart into my community. I’ve tried to do the best I can, but I’ve not been perfect. And I’m a knucklehead at times, but it’s always been about that. Those same people elected me to Congress for twelve years. And in Congress I was one of the most bipartisan people. Working on things like farm bills that we got done, working on veterans benefits. And then the people of Minnesota were able to elect me to governor twice. So look, my commitment has been from the beginning, to make sure that I’m there for the people, to make sure that I get this right. I will say more than anything, many times, I will talk a lot. I will get caught up in the rhetoric. But being there, the impact it made, the difference it made in my life. I learned a lot about China. I hear the critiques of this. I would make the case that Donald Trump should have come on one of those trips with us. I guarantee you he wouldn’t be praising Xi Jinping about COVID. And I guarantee you he wouldn’t start a trade war that he ends up losing. So this is about trying to understand the world. It’s about trying to do the best you can for your community, and then it’s putting yourself out there and letting your folks understand what it is. My commitment, whether it be through teaching, which I was good at, or whether it was being a good soldier or was being a good member of Congress, those are the things that I think are the values that people care about.

    MB: Governor, just to follow up on that, the question was, can you explain the discrepancy?

    TW: No. All I said on this was, is, I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I will just, that’s what I’ve said. So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest, went in, and from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in governance.

    MB: Thank you, governor.

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/2/2024 @ 5:49 am

  47. Hitting the vital issues, getting to the bottom of those China visits, while JD still refuses to concede that Biden won in 2020.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 6:24 am

  48. JD still refuses to concede that Biden won in 2020.

    Things that people do when the lose elections:

    JDV: Yeah, well, look, Tim, first of all, it’s really rich for Democratic leaders to say that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on January the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country.

    Klink has his bleach to cry into, and you have this as your sore thumb.

    Maybe you should be more worried about your MAGA hat candidate for governor that you are swooning over.

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/2/2024 @ 6:44 am

  49. Paul, I have things to do today. You will have to troll yourself while I am gone. Since it is pretty much what you do while I am here, I should not be too much of a burden on you.

    (Hopefully the response is a variation of “ThANk YOU fOr aDMittINg yoU arE A TRoll!!!!”)

    BuDuh (e40dba) — 10/2/2024 @ 6:48 am

  50. This debate isn’t going to make any difference to voters. Nobody is going to care if JD Vance is an appalling human being or not because their decision will be based on Trump. Nobody is going to care if Walz seems to be weak or not because it’s the VP and Kamala isn’t that old.

    Nic (120c94) — 10/1/2024 @ 7:42 pm

    Showing how moderate and nonpartisan you are.

    NJRob (ac8f20) — 10/2/2024 @ 7:21 am

  51. JDV: Yeah, well, look, Tim, first of all, it’s really rich for Democratic leaders to say that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on January the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country.

    JDV was conceding the obvious, but he has repeatedly said had he been in Pence’s position he would have done Trump’s bidding.

    Rip Murdock (79ab8a) — 10/2/2024 @ 7:26 am

  52. That…was something else.

    I don’t think anyone expected how well Vance looked last night… even looked, Presidential.

    The usual conventional wisdom is that debates, even VP debates, don’t matter electorally. But, man… this election is a weird one.

    You have one debate that effectively knocked the sitting President out of the campaign….

    You have another debate, that the main story was how the moderators became the story and the “They’re Eating Cats & Dogs™”…

    And the LAST debate before the election is between the VP candidates, where early voting has started in some states, is going to be the last time a debate *could* have any impact.

    I doubt this would change those who were already decided… but, those undecideds may have been given the right amount of nudging by Vance’s performance.

    We’ll see in about a month.

    My takeaway still, is that this is Harris/Walz’s to lose, and there’s plenty of time for Trump to trip over is wang.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 7:39 am

  53. Other thing to consider…Trump is term-limited. One could watch Vance last night and warm to the fact that a vote for Trump/Vance is a vote to advance the career of, at last, a capable communicator in Vance…something the GOP has long needed.

    The only other GOP candidate that communicates as well as Vance is Youngkin, Vivek and DeSantis.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 7:53 am

  54. There were 4 people debating on the stage last night and only 1 of them looked ready to lead if necessary.

    NJRob (ac8f20) — 10/2/2024 @ 7:58 am

  55. #52 —

    I watched the debate last night and figured you would be happy.

    There were many times I thought that JD sounded like he was a running mate for someone like Romney or one of the Bush clan — affable, coherent, only the occasional piece of nonsense (Trump saved Obamacare was an audacious take, to say the least). My guess is that he will be a formidable presidential candidate in 2032, and he will sound rather different than he does today. He can’t answer the “who won 2020” question, because his running mate won’t let him. Contra many Democratic pundits, that does not move things one bit, as folks’ January 6 opinions are locked in.

    As for who won, who lost — this was the type of debate where the partisans select their own candidate as victor and very few are persuaded. I personally liked that the debate was affable — I did not feel like the candidates hated each other. You know how rare that feels these days?

    As for Trump wrecking things — what could destroy him at this point? He has said things that would disqualify anyone else zillions of times, and he stays with us like a bad case of COVID. Maybe he continues to fade a percentage point or two, but he does not fall of a cliff.

    BTW, you misread the last debate. Whatever you think of Harris’ policies or qualities, she demonstrated she could be coherent and manage bullies. Trump portrayed her as a weak idiot, and she showed that she wasn’t and could manage and manipulate the likes of him.

    Appalled (a627f1) — 10/2/2024 @ 8:04 am

  56. @55

    BTW, you misread the last debate. Whatever you think of Harris’ policies or qualities, she demonstrated she could be coherent and manage bullies. Trump portrayed her as a weak idiot, and she showed that she wasn’t and could manage and manipulate the likes of him.

    Appalled (a627f1) — 10/2/2024 @ 8:04 am

    yah, no… Harris wasn’t coherent at all. She reminds me of a HS kid trying to get through a book report in front of class w/o reading the book.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 8:23 am

  57. #56

    And your mileage varies. No surprise there.

    As of now, though, the Trump Harris debate looks like a turning point. The thing that could change that is if the “From the River to the Sea” crowd abandons Harris because they love Iran more than Democracy.

    Appalled (f24838) — 10/2/2024 @ 8:41 am

  58. JDV: Yeah, well, look, Tim, first of all, it’s really rich for Democratic leaders to say that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on January the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country.

    At least one person was unavailable for comment.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/2/2024 @ 8:55 am

  59. Hitting the vital issues, getting to the bottom of those China visits, while JD still refuses to concede that Biden won in 2020.

    75% of democrats, including Biden and Harris themselves, still refuse to concede that Bush won in 2000.

    SaveFarris (79ab12) — 10/2/2024 @ 9:53 am

  60. 75% of democrats, including Biden and Harris themselves, still refuse to concede that Bush won in 2000.

    SaveFarris (79ab12) — 10/2/2024 @ 9:53 am

    Source?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/2/2024 @ 9:57 am

  61. (Hopefully the response is a variation of “ThANk YOU fOr aDMittINg yoU arE A TRoll!!!!”)

    These trolls, they never grow up.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 9:57 am

  62. Jonah, regarding Vance’s misleading “Trump peacefully transferred power” statement.

    Incredible chutzpa. Like saying about a bank robber who got caught, “He didn’t rob a bank, he peacefully gave the money back.”

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:00 am

  63. Speaking of chutzpah:

    ……….
    Some of Vance’s descriptions of Trump strained credulity. He tried to claim that Trump had “salvaged Obamacare” when in fact as president he tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. His attempt to elucidate Trump’s recent statement that tariff policy would alleviate the high cost of child care was hardly more convincing than Trump’s original rambling answer. “He did his job, which is govern in a bipartisan way and get results, not just complain about problems, but actually solve them,” Vance said—a description of the Trump presidency few who lived through it would recognize.
    ………
    ………When Vance tried to draw a parallel with Democrats blaming Russian collusion for handing the 2016 election to Trump, Walz pressed him to answer whether Trump lost the 2020 election.

    “Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance said.

    “That is a damning non-answer,” Walz replied.

    But overall, Vance proved a glib and effective messenger, and his seeming ease at making the case for an imaginary version of Trump highlighted how successful a candidate without Trump’s temperamental liabilities might be………
    ##########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:16 am

  64. @62

    Jonah, regarding Vance’s misleading “Trump peacefully transferred power” statement.

    Incredible chutzpa. Like saying about a bank robber who got caught, “He didn’t rob a bank, he peacefully gave the money back.”

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:00 am

    What an absolute cry baby.

    On the one hand, he cries that Trump did “accept that he lost the election”… on the other hand, he can’t recognize that Trump, did indeed, leave the office at the defined day and time…peacefully even! He acts like Trump was dragged, kicking and screaming, by the Marshal of the Supreme Court!

    Jonah’s analogy needs a ton of work. What’s the equivalence to “robbing the bank” in his analogy?

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:38 am

  65. *didn’t accept

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:38 am

  66. “As for who won, who lost — this was the type of debate where the partisans select their own candidate as victor and very few are persuaded. I personally liked that the debate was affable — I did not feel like the candidates hated each other. You know how rare that feels these days?”

    I agree. You had two candidates who could speak in paragraphs and make a compelling case. JD is more refined but his core mission was to not come across as the Haitians-are-eating-our-dogs guy or the childless-cat-lady-poking guy, so he accomplished that. Similarly, Walz had to not come across as an unrepentant liberal radical. He certainly comes across as the guy you want to have a beer with…so that helps with blue collar men. He missed opportunities and is clearly not as practiced a debater but he passes as someone who could step in as required. No big mistakes were made by either men so overall it’s a push. JD got away with claiming he was just wrong in calling Trump the GOP’s Hitler. How exactly did he get that one SO wrong I wonder?!

    AJ_Liberty (41a0c0) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:47 am

  67. @66

    JD got away with claiming he was just wrong in calling Trump the GOP’s Hitler. How exactly did he get that one SO wrong I wonder?!

    AJ_Liberty (41a0c0) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:47 am

    He, like many on this board.. including me at first, got snookered by the media’s framing of the Orange Man Bad.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:51 am

  68. On the one hand, he cries that Trump did “accept that he lost the election”…

    Not the point, which is that even now Vance is too afraid of Trump to say that he lost fair and square, and it’s disqualifying.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:57 am

  69. Hi AJ. You said:

    I’m not a prophecy guy….

    AJ_Liberty (5c80ba) — 9/29/2024 @ 8:09 am

    What exactly is a “non prophecy guy?” An atheist?

    BuDuh (50eb03) — 10/2/2024 @ 11:24 am

  70. JD got away with claiming he was just wrong in calling Trump the GOP’s Hitler. How exactly did he get that one SO wrong I wonder?!

    AJ_Liberty (41a0c0) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:47 am

    Blind ambition.

    Rip Murdock (79ab8a) — 10/2/2024 @ 11:37 am

  71. JD got away with claiming he was just wrong in calling Trump the GOP’s Hitler. How exactly did he get that one SO wrong I wonder?!

    AJ_Liberty (41a0c0) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:47 am

    When running for Senate Vance knew which way the wind blew, and it blew from Mar-a-Lago.

    Rip Murdock (79ab8a) — 10/2/2024 @ 11:41 am

  72. @68

    Not the point, which is that even now Vance is too afraid of Trump to say that he lost fair and square, and it’s disqualifying.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 10:57 am

    That is the point.

    He “lost”. Yes.

    But “fair and square”. There were a lot of hinky bidness in 2020. You and Jonah refusing to acknowledge that simply makes you a liar. Loosey goosey, record number of mail in ballots, no to poor signature verification, weeks of 24/7 drop boxes, fouled up voting rolls, weak chain of custody controls, Zuckerberg bucks facilitating private-public partnership to curate Democrat-only mail-in votes… all amounts to a system that will be rife with criticisms, even if your preferred candidate won.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 11:52 am

  73. whembly, to this day you have no evidence of serious fraud, hence fair and square, hence Vance disqualified himself.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:12 pm

  74. Oh, and you’re lying that I’m lying.
    You’ve had years to present factual evidence that tens of thousands of ballots were illegal and fraudulent, and you’ve produced bupkes. CyberNinjas!!

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:13 pm

  75. TW: … But look, this issue is what’s on everyone’s mind. Donald Trump put this all into motion. He brags about how great it was that he put the judges in and overturned Roe versus Wade, 52 years of personal autonomy. And then he tells us, oh, we send it to the states. It’s a beautiful thing. Amanda Zaworski would disagree with you on it’s a beautiful thing. A young bride in Texas waiting for their child at 18 weeks. She has a complication, a tear in the membrane. She needs to go in. The medical care at that point needs to be decided by the doctor. And that would have been an abortion. But in Texas, that would have put them in legal jeopardy….

    Sez who? Not local or state prosecutors. Lawyers!

    And what kind of lawyers? Almost certainly “pro-choice:” lawyers.

    They are like Hamas. They cause, or try to cause, (they don’t succeed very much) the injury or death of the people of whom they whose welfare they are putatively interested in, and then complain about it.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:45 pm

  76. @73

    whembly, to this day you have no evidence of serious fraud, hence fair and square, hence Vance disqualified himself.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:12 pm

    I just listed them.

    I’m not convinced it would’ve matter. In either case, it’s impossible to know either way.

    There’s no way YOU can deem it as “fair and square” as you can’t prove it. No one could… and that is the point.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:48 pm

  77. @74

    Oh, and you’re lying that I’m lying.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:13 pm

    Pure ignorance.

    Keep crying.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:50 pm

  78. whembly (477db6) — 10/2/2024 @ 11:52 am

    weeks of 24/7 drop boxes,

    No different than unmonitored USPS mail boxes.

    If you’re saying an Elections board could create filled in ballots, and pretend to have received them from outside, it’s the same however delivered.

    There’s a problem with that kind of fraud. You must use the name of a real registered voter. You have to make sure the ballot style matches his address. You have to make sure that said voter does not attempt to vote.

    It’s impossible to create more than 30 or 60 such ballots without the whole scheme being discovered.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 10/2/2024 @ 12:52 pm

  79. Loosey goosey, record number of mail in ballots, no to poor signature verification, weeks of 24/7 drop boxes, fouled up voting rolls, weak chain of custody controls, Zuckerberg bucks facilitating private-public partnership to curate Democrat-only mail-in votes… all amounts to a system that will be rife with criticisms, even if your preferred candidate won.

    None of which are evidence of fraud. “Evidence of fraud” would be counterfeit ballots, ballot counts that exceeded the total number of voters, evidence of ballot box tampering, tampering with voting machines, etc. none of which has been proven to occur (except in the fevered minds of people like Rudy Giuliani.)

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/2/2024 @ 1:15 pm

  80. Its not a bad thing to say that there could have been shenanigans.
    Its not a bad thing to say it was a close election.

    It would be difficult to prove yes or no.

    Its not terrible to advocate for things that would harden a vote against systemic fraud.

    I can look at people who argue that democracy must be loosy goosey in the mail in ballot process and simultaneously say I am a bad person for saying things looked suspicious with a mocking sneer.

    Joe (a71fc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 1:26 pm

  81. “Not the point, which is that even now Vance is too afraid of Trump to say that he lost fair and square, and it’s disqualifying.”

    I’m curious if this all tracks back to Trump’s defense against the J6 charges. He can’t break Kayfabe because this IS the defense…should he lose in November and have to face the docket. Vance appears a chameleon. One day he can spit fire about Haitians stealing and eating pets then the next he can be midwest nice. He also seems willing to triangulate on abortion, but I confess that I think his position is less unclear than how people are spinning it…but who knows for sure.

    He’s not insane….at least

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 10/2/2024 @ 2:47 pm

  82. He’s not insane….at least

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 10/2/2024 @ 2:47 pm

    Do you think he is “not a prophecy guy,” like you?

    BuDuh (573730) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:17 pm

  83. I just listed them.

    You listed allegations, not evidence. Trump lost 65 out of 66 times in court. You don’t have the illegal or fraudulent ballots that would make a difference in one state, let alone three or four. Zuckerberg is irrelevant.
    The irony is that, just today, Jack Smith laid out more evidence of Trump’s criminality relating to the election that he was too much of a spoiled child to concede.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:25 pm

  84. Do you think he is “not a prophecy guy,” like you?

    BuDuh (573730) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:17 pm

    Take it from me, BuDuh. You will be happier if you move on from the snark. I know, because I used to be snarky myself.

    norcal (48503c) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:34 pm

  85. I just listed them.

    You listed allegations, not evidence.

    They aren’t even allegations, they’re complaints about change, none of which are illegal, or lead to anything that was illegal.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:49 pm

  86. norcal (48503c) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:34 pm

    I am assuming you didn’t read AJ’s original comment. Nothing snarky going on here.

    BuDuh (573730) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:58 pm

  87. I am assuming you didn’t read AJ’s original comment. Nothing snarky going on here.

    BuDuh (573730) — 10/2/2024 @ 3:58 pm

    Link?

    norcal (48503c) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:01 pm

  88. The Pennsylvania “changes” were shown to be illegal in a court of law.

    Making elections less secure as you raise the stakes every election guarantees corrupt people to engage in shenanigans trying to “save democracy.”

    NJRob (586365) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:04 pm

  89. Speaking of the filing, some excerpts.

    Privately, the defendant told advisors–including P6 Campaign personnel, P7 (a White House staffer and Campaign volunteer), and P8 (the Vice President’s
    Chief of Staff)–that in such a scenario, he would simply declare victory before all the ballots were counted and any winner was projected. Publicly, the defendant began to plant the seeds for that false declaration.
    […]
    In the immediate post-election period, while the defendant claimed fraud without proof, his private operatives sought to create chaos, rather than seek clarity, at polling places where states were continuing to tabulate votes. For example, on November 4–P5 a Campaign employee, agent, and co-conspirator of the defendant–tried to sow confusion when the ongoing vote count at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan, looked unfavorable for the defendant. There, when a colleague at the TCF Center told P5 “We think [a batch of votes heavily in Biden’s favor is] right.” P5 responded, “find a reason it isn’t,” “give me options to file litigation,” and “even if itbis [sic].” When the colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot, a violent effo1i to stop the vote count in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, P5 responded, “Make them riot” and “Do it!! !” The defendant’s Campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the defendant sometimes used the resulting confrontations to falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access, thus serving as a predicate to the
    defendant’s claim that fraud must have occurred in the observers’ absence.

    Contrary to the defendant’s public claims of vict01y immediately following election day, his advisors infonned him that he would likely lose. On November 7, in a private Campaign meeting that included P2, P3, P4 and White House staffer P9 who came to serve as a conduit for information from the Campaign to the defendant, Campaign staff told the defendant that he had only a slim chance of prevailing in the election, and that any potential success was contingent on the defendant winning all ongoing vote counts or litigation in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Within a week of that assessment, on November 13, the defendant’s Campaign conceded its litigation in Arizona–meaning that based on his Campaign advisors’ previous assessment, the defendant had lost the election.

    That same day, in an implicit acknowledgment that he had no lawful way to prevail, the defendant sidelined the existing Campaign staff responsible for mounting his legal election challenges. From P2, P3 and others who were telling the defendant the truth that he did not want to hear–that he had lost –the defendant turned to CCl, a private attorney who was willing to falsely claim victory and spread knowingly false claims of election fraud.
    […]
    Following election day and throughout the charged conspiracies, the defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These lies included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, noncitizen,
    or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the defendant to votes for Biden. And the defendant and co-conspirators continued to make these unsuppo1ied, objectively unreasonable, and ever-changing claims even after they had been publicly disproven or after advisors had directly info1med the defendant that they were untrue.

    The evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew his fraud claims were false because he continued to make those claims even after his close advisors–acting not in an official capacity but in a private or Campaign-related capacity–told him they were not true. These advisors included P9 the White House staffer and Campaign conduit, and Pence, the defendant’s running mate.
    […]
    But the defendant disregarded P9 and Pence in the same way that he disregarded
    dozens of court decisions that unanimously rejected his and his allies’ legal claims, and that he disregarded officials in the targeted state–including those in his own party–who stated publicly that he had lost and that his specific fraud allegations were false. Election officials, for instance,
    issued press releases and other public statements to combat the disinformation that the defendant and allies were spreading. At one point long after the defendant had begun spreading false fraud claims, P15 a White House staffer traveling with the defendant, overheard him tell family members that “it doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”

    The defendant and his co-conspirators also demonstrated their deliberate disregard for the truth–and thus their knowledge of falsity–when they repeatedly changed the numbers in their baseless fraud allegations from day to day. At trial, the Government will introduce several instances of this pattern, in which the defendant and conspirators’ lies were proved by the fact that they made up figmes from whole cloth. One example concerns the defendant and conspirators’ claims about non-citizen voters in Arizona. The conspirators started with the allegation that 36,000 non-citizens voted in Arizona; five days later, it was “beyond credulity that a few hundred thousand didn’t vote”;
    three weeks later, “the bare minimum [was] 40 or 50,000. The reality is
    about 250,000”; 57 days after that, the assertion was 32,000; 58 and ultimately, the conspirators landed back where they started, at 36,000–a false figure that they never verified or corroborated.

    Ultimately, the defendant’s steady stream of disinfo1mation in the post-election period culminated in the speech he gave at a privately-funded, privately-organized rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, 2021, in advance of the official proceeding in which Congress was to ce1iify the election in favor of Biden. In his speech, the defendant repeated the same lies about election fraud in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that had been publicly, or directly, debunked. The defendant used these lies to inflame and motivate the large and angry crowd of his supporters to march to the Capitol and disrupt the certification proceeding.

    Folks, don’t be that gullible chump. Trump lied, he knew that he lied and he fooled way too many gullible MAGA rubes that the election was “stolen” and “rigged”.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:09 pm

  90. The Pennsylvania “changes” were shown to be illegal in a court of law.

    Irrelevant. They were legal as of Election Day, and there was no evidence of serious fraud that arose from those changes.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:11 pm

  91. Folks, don’t be that gullible chump. Trump lied, he knew that he lied and he fooled way too many gullible MAGA rubes that the election was “stolen” and “rigged”.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:09 pm

    Yes. Remember, Trump told Mike Pence, “You’re too honest”, which signifies that Trump knew he lost the election.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-mike-pence-too-honest-overturn-election-january-6-2022-11#:~:text=Mike%20Pence%20wrote%20in%20his%20forthcoming%20memoir%20that%20President%20Donald

    norcal (48503c) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:15 pm

  92. Regarding Trump’s Fraud Electors scheme.

    Shortly after election day, the defendant began to target the electoral process at the state level by attempting to deceive state officials and to prevent or overturn the legitimate ascertainment and appointment of Biden’s electors. As President, the defendant had no official responsibilities related to the states’ administration of the election or the appointment of their electors, and instead contacted state officials in his capacity as a candidate. Tellingly, the defendant contacted only state officials who were in his political party and were his political supporters, and only in states
    he had lost. The defendant’s attempts to use deceit to target the states’ electoral process played out in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as across these and other states that used certain voting machines. In addition to the following evidence of the defendant’s conduct during the charged conspiracies, at trial the Government will elicit testimony from election officials from the targeted states to establish the objective falsity–and often, impossibility–of the defendant’s fraud claims. Notably, although these election officials would have been the best sources of information to determine whether there was any merit to specific allegations of election fraud in their states, the defendant never contacted any of them to ask.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:20 pm

  93. Irrelevant only to partisans who move the goal posts because their only desire is winning, not fair elections.

    NJRob (586365) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:25 pm

  94. Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson
    Debate Postmortem

    J.D. Vance, as anticipated, easily won the debate on demeanor, facts, and analysis. But in fairness to a sometimes herky-jerky and nervous Tim Walz, he had the harder task of defending the temporary make-over of Harris, her co-culpability for the last three-and-a-half-years of the Biden disaster, and her unwillingness to implement her supposedly “change” agenda in the last months of her vice-presidential tenure.

    The moderators, Nora O’Donnell, and, especially, Margaret Brennan, also as expected, ganged up on Vance. The had learned nothing, and forgot nothing from the last disastrous, and biased debate moderators–now proving the wisdom of Donald Trump’s refusal to do any more network debates other than on Fox.

    The two moderators shamelessly broke their own rules by fact-checking (wrongly and solely) Vance. They ignored questions of the administration’s reactions to Hurricane Helene, the Ukraine war, the recent Trump assassination attempts, or crime, while only briefly touching on Iran and a Middle East on the brink of total war.

    Instead, they concentrated, as also expected, on climate change, abortion, health care, and childcare. All were issues they thought might more easily embarrass Vance. And, of course, as also expected, the two ended the debate pressing Vance on January 6.

    And yet Vance again won decisively. In doing so, he dispelled the smear that he was somehow “mean”, when, in fact, he proved calm and magnanimous as he dissected Walz.

    The nation perhaps learned that Trump selected him to articulate his MAGA positions, and perhaps in a manner superior to Trump’s own. In contrast, Harris picked Walz. assuming he would not upstage her and perhaps by his limitations would make her look more competent in comparison.

    The debate will give some momentum to Trump-Vance in the last month of the campaign.

    It follows the lethargic Biden-Harris reaction to Hurricane Helene, whose toll in human life and property had been initially and vastly ignored by the media.

    It follows the growing specter of a theater-wide Middle East war, as Israel faces off against Iran and its appendages (all empowered after 2020 by Biden-Harris).

    It follows the chaos of a longshoremen’s strike intended to shut down the country.

    And it follows Harris’s continued inability to survive serial soft-ball interviews without her memorized and banal answers.

    As a result, the slow hemorrhaging of Harris-Walz will likely still continue in the last month of the election.

    VDH says it best.

    NJRob (586365) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:27 pm

  95. Ooh, a little whiny today, aren’t you, Rob.
    There was no goalpost moving. You made your court challenges and you lost. The reason you lost is–in many cases–you were too late. The reason you were too late is because Trump started this Big Lie too late and his army of MAGAs tried to backfill them with lawsuits and empty allegations, but with embarrassingly bad results.

    It still remains that you have no evidence of serious fraud. The reason you have no evidence is that Trump pulled most of these allegations straight from his ass, but he did have some help from his very devoted followers.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:30 pm

  96. There’s a problem with that kind of fraud. You must use the name of a real registered voter. You have to make sure the ballot style matches his address. You have to make sure that said voter does not attempt to vote.

    You know how you do that, right?

    The dead.

    Your friend down at the coroner’s office can give you a list of everyone who’s expired. And as long as your state doesn’t purge the voting rolls regularly, you’ve got a list that has no chance of submitting competing ballots.

    SaveFarris (1a7861) — 10/2/2024 @ 6:02 pm

  97. @NJRob@50 Same answer at I gave to lloyd. Do you have any actual reasons that contradict what I said, or are you just ad homineming along?

    Nic (120c94) — 10/2/2024 @ 6:54 pm

  98. Democratic party on how tim walz did. Nobody votes for vice president. If harris loses left is ready to take over democrat party.

    asset (4d9437) — 10/2/2024 @ 9:46 pm

  99. The real JD vance before he needed to sell his soul to satan/trump. If harris loses real leftists will take over the democratic party that started with clinton’s loss in 2016. Donor money can’t buy love and hillary found out she couldn’t even rent it. Bush & bowman lost because a lack of democrats anger with the party hacks.

    asset (4d9437) — 10/3/2024 @ 3:39 am

  100. And now the mask is off. By demanding the most radical leftist ever running for president to win a mandate you have proven what you are.

    Thank you.

    NJRob (950f6a) — 10/3/2024 @ 5:04 am

  101. https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/10/02/october-surprise-kamala-harris-embraces-striking-port-workers-owns-any-resulting-economic-damage-n2180060

    She supports shortages and rationing. Of course she does. She’s a socialist.

    NJRob (950f6a) — 10/3/2024 @ 5:12 am

  102. @95

    It still remains that you have no evidence of serious fraud. The reason you have no evidence is that Trump pulled most of these allegations straight from his ass, but he did have some help from his very devoted followers.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/2/2024 @ 4:30 pm

    And it still remains that Jack Smith has Jack Sh*t after reading his one-sided screed, only to be sustained by a rabid anti-Trump judge.

    Furthermore, any lawyer who applauds or tacitly approve of Smith’s release evidence to the public in this manner, and obvious 6th amendment violation, is a fraud to their profession.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 6:29 am

  103. whembly,

    I am hoping rationality will return to you after the election. Your #102, complaining about Jack Smith, is garbage, with some bonus MAGA-style naughty words. In order to meet the standards of the Supreme Court immunity decision, Smith had to lay out his evidence to demonstrate he was talking about private conduct, not presidential conduct. Sorry if it’s not nice to the sensitive old toddler you currently support.

    I don’t anticipate (and neither did Jack Smith) this release would move anyone one iota in the election. The only thing that sounded like “news” to me — as in a surprising piece of information — was that Trump called Bannon two hours before Bannon went on the air predicting all heck would break loose on 1/6. (Well, the fact that Pence kept detailed notes was interesting). It’s not that it’s old news — but it confirms the current understanding of what happened on 1-6 among the anti-Trump, and does not disturb the willful ignornance among the pro-Trump.

    Appalled (3a823b) — 10/3/2024 @ 7:14 am

  104. Furthermore, any lawyer who applauds or tacitly approve of Smith’s release evidence to the public in this manner, and obvious 6th amendment violation, is a fraud to their profession.

    The original indictment well spells out Trump’s crimes, whembly, and this filing adds more flesh to Trump’s criminal bone.
    Also, Smith didn’t release the filing, Chutkan did, and I’m sure she understands the 6th Amendment way better than you.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/3/2024 @ 7:21 am

  105. Whembly,

    they don’t care. The mobys are just that. The NeverTrumpers will tear down every law, break every rule just to get Trump.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 10/3/2024 @ 7:39 am

  106. @103

    whembly,

    I am hoping rationality will return to you after the election. Your #102, complaining about Jack Smith, is garbage, with some bonus MAGA-style naughty words. In order to meet the standards of the Supreme Court immunity decision, Smith had to lay out his evidence to demonstrate he was talking about private conduct, not presidential conduct. Sorry if it’s not nice to the sensitive old toddler you currently support.

    I don’t anticipate (and neither did Jack Smith) this release would move anyone one iota in the election. The only thing that sounded like “news” to me — as in a surprising piece of information — was that Trump called Bannon two hours before Bannon went on the air predicting all heck would break loose on 1/6. (Well, the fact that Pence kept detailed notes was interesting). It’s not that it’s old news — but it confirms the current understanding of what happened on 1-6 among the anti-Trump, and does not disturb the willful ignornance among the pro-Trump.

    Appalled (3a823b) — 10/3/2024 @ 7:14 am

    Tell me you haven’t read the Supreme court Trump v. US without telling me.

    Smith and Judge Chutkan has pretty much violated the directive from the Supreme Court.

    You know that report you talk of? It’s supposed to be done pre-triall, with the defense having the opportunity to, in a adversarial way as it’s supposed to be, to challenge each and every evidence the government want’s to present. Due Process demands that the defense gets an opportunity to cross examine and/or confront the evident in order to suppress, and if needed, appeal any immunity-related claims. Because in a normal process, the defense gets to “color” the evidence that the government presents that can contradict it on the spot.

    Evidene that is not subjected to cross examination and confrontation is misleading in its strength or weight. It’s incomplete in a normal sense. Evidence present in this way creates an impression and any delayed confrontation can be ineffective when it might have been devasting at the time.

    The live adversarial process allows the defense to bring about the truth and ensures that their defendant’s rights are met. That’s why the 6th amendment exists.

    Chutkan allowing Smith’s evidence in such a way, that hasn’t been subjected to that adversarial process to support the government’s claims is therefore misleading and inaccurate, as the whole purpose of doing so is to make it appears to be established facts when it is not.

    The mere fact that Trump’s lawyers can “respond” to the filing doesn’t solve the significant due process issues.

    Instead, both Smith and Chutkan contorts the normal process so that they can air the one-sided presentation for the express purpose to getting this information out to the public weeks before the election. If you can’t see how this damages the integrity of the judicial system, then I can only assume you’re a partisan hack perpetuating a civic disaster in the making.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 8:16 am

  107. @104

    Chutkan did, and I’m sure she understands the 6th Amendment way better than you.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/3/2024 @ 7:21 am

    Not when the defendant is Trump.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 8:17 am

  108. @105

    Whembly,

    they don’t care. The mobys are just that. The NeverTrumpers will tear down every law, break every rule just to get Trump.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 10/3/2024 @ 7:39 am

    I’m here to tell them, that everything doesn’t begin or end with Trump. Whatever precedent set used to “get Trump”, can and will be used against post-Trump.

    That’s why it’s colorable to describe all the cases against Trump as “lawfare”, particularly the novel pathways Jack Smith is on.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 8:23 am

  109. Whembly, I am not a lawyer, could you explain why there was an “obvious 6th amendment violation”. It’s not obvious to me, and I guess I would be surprised if a judge would allow an obvious violation, but I’m open to hearing more.

    Text of 6th amendment, just so we’re all on the same page:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Nate (2ee797) — 10/3/2024 @ 8:27 am

  110. Not when the defendant is Trump.

    Trump doesn’t get special treatment, and he’s not above the law. The common practice in federal court cases is that filed documents and decisions get released.

    About this Zuckerberg nonsense, he gave $400 million to two non-profits, where county elections offices applied for the grants.

    “Mark and Priscilla provided funding to two non-partisan organizations that helped cities and states ensure that residents could vote regardless of their party or preference,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “Nearly 2,500 election jurisdictions from 49 states applied for and received funds, including urban, suburban, rural, and exurban counties.”

    This means that these offices received $160k on average. I’m not surprised that Zuckerberg isn’t doing this again. For one, there wasn’t a big and relatively sudden transition to mail-in ballots. For another, who needs all the screaming and whining and caterwauling from the MAGAs.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/3/2024 @ 8:33 am

  111. You know that report you talk of? It’s supposed to be done pre-triall, with the defense having the opportunity to, in a adversarial way as it’s supposed to be, to challenge each and every evidence the government want’s to present. Due Process demands that the defense gets an opportunity to cross examine and/or confront the evident in order to suppress, and if needed, appeal any immunity-related claims. Because in a normal process, the defense gets to “color” the evidence that the government presents that can contradict it on the spot.

    Evidene that is not subjected to cross examination and confrontation is misleading in its strength or weight. It’s incomplete in a normal sense. Evidence present in this way creates an impression and any delayed confrontation can be ineffective when it might have been devasting at the time.

    The live adversarial process allows the defense to bring about the truth and ensures that their defendant’s rights are met. That’s why the 6th amendment exists.

    So, looking beyond the Trump indictment, you don’t think the Justice Department should release of any indictments that spell out the details backing up the charges (for example, the details of the Sean Combs indictment)?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/3/2024 @ 8:49 am

  112. Also, Whembly & Rob, to clarify:

    I and I suspect many others strongly care about due process and the rights of defendants even when that defendant is someone I don’t like. I don’t like Trump, but I absolutely don’t want him to be treated any worse in the legal system than anyone else would be. So if there’s a concern I’m open to hearing it.

    But this just seems like a normal court proceeding?

    I also don’t think he should be treated better than a normal defendant (except in ways that protect the Presidency; I’m fine with some things within the scope of his office getting a broad immunity), as that presents problems as well.

    Nate (cfb326) — 10/3/2024 @ 9:34 am

  113. whembly,

    As you know, th Supreme Court remanded the 1/6 case to the lower court for further proceedings. Part of the task the Supremes gave to the lower court was making a determination on whether the actions at issue were part of official duties or unofficial:

    If a President’s actions constitute non-core official presidential conduct, he is at least presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for that conduct. 144 S. Ct. at 2328, 2331; id. at 2332 (reserving whether “this immunity is presumptive or absolute . . . [b]ecause we need not decide that question today”). The Government can overcome that presumptive immunity by demonstrating that “applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Id. at 2331-32 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754). Just as the inquiry into whether conduct is official or unofficial is “necessarily factbound,” Trump, 144 S. Ct. at 2340, with “[t]he necessary analysis [being] . . . fact specific,” id. at 2339, so too should be the inquiry into whether any “presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances,” id. at 2337. The analysis should first identify the specific alleged act at issue, and then determine whether criminal liability for the act intrudes on a relevant Executive Branch authority or function, taking care not to “conceive[] of the inquiry at too high a level of generality.” Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (reversing district court in civil immunity case). Such an approach recognizes that Executive authority has limits—boundaries imposed by constitutional text, the separation of powers, and precedent—and that application of criminal law to the President’s official conduct does not per se intrude impermissibly on Executive Branch authority and functions. Cf. Trump, 144 S. Ct. at 2327 (“If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere ‘individual will’ and ‘authority without law,’ the courts may say so.”) (quoting Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring)). These principles for assessing whether the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is immune apply equally to evidence. The Government may not introduce evidence of immunized official conduct against a former President at a trial, even to prove that the former President committed a crime predicated on unofficial conduct. Id. at 2340-41.

    Thats a lot of words — but basically, Jack Smith has to file what evidence he has and where he got it to proceed with this case. It’s hardly a 6th amendment violation to do what the Sureme Court told him he must do.

    Appalled (143cb7) — 10/3/2024 @ 9:41 am

  114. By the way, the quoted is from Jack Smith’s own filing — his explanation for why he did what he did.

    Appalled (143cb7) — 10/3/2024 @ 9:43 am

  115. Report? What report? This is a SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT!!!!!

    First, the judge will hold hearings, if the Defendant requests, to test the legal sufficiency of the accusations. To wit, whether they allege something that is a crime under the law and the defendant can be ordered to stand trial for it.

    Next, there will be a trial and the government will have to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In all stages, the process must be PUBLIC as required by the SIXTH AMENDMENT!!!!

    Putin and Orban and Erdogan and Kim Jong Un may do it differently, with a secret trial and secret charges which are not revealed publicly until the defendant’s body has been returned to his relatives after his execution, but Trump has not been elected Dictator here, yet, not even for one day.

    If you guys want to bullsh!t us, you should grow beards like Ted “Cuddly Bunny” Cruz and J. the “D” is for Dissembler Vance. In case you have difficulty keeping a straight face.

    nk (1b68d7) — 10/3/2024 @ 9:53 am

  116. Whembly, the default rule is that filings in federal court proceedings are public unless there is a compelling reason for them not to be.

    Smith was required by the court to make a filing explaining why presidential immunity does not apply to the indictment he has brought.

    By default, that filing is public. The defense had the opportunity to argue that it shouldn’t be, and they lost.

    The defense now has to file a rebuttal, laying out why they think immunity does apply.

    This *is* due process in action.

    aphrael (078a66) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:01 am

  117. @109

    Whembly, I am not a lawyer, could you explain why there was an “obvious 6th amendment violation”. It’s not obvious to me, and I guess I would be surprised if a judge would allow an obvious violation, but I’m open to hearing more.

    Nate (2ee797) — 10/3/2024 @ 8:27 am

    Scotus instructed the district court that there needs to be a pre-trial hearing for the prosecution to present evidence to pierce immunity claims and defense to respond to either make the claims immunity is in play or to suppress it for other factors. And if the judge overrules, then the defense can appeal immediately. This is a fundamental due process, as it encourages adversarial back-in-forth to hash out.

    What Smith/Chutkan did, was bypass this adversarial process in order to publicize the one-sided ‘proffer’ right before the election. That was the goal.

    The proper procedure is:
    1) Gov indicts
    2) Defense assess indictments and makes any challenges to evidence/law pre-trial
    3) Judge reviews the Gov’s proffer and Defense’s challenges and issues ruling (which then makes it public).

    What this judge did, was skip step 2.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:11 am

  118. @115

    Report? What report? This is a SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT!!!!!

    First, the judge will hold hearings, if the Defendant requests, to test the legal sufficiency of the accusations. To wit, whether they allege something that is a crime under the law and the defendant can be ordered to stand trial for it.

    Next, there will be a trial and the government will have to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In all stages, the process must be PUBLIC as required by the SIXTH AMENDMENT!!!!

    Putin and Orban and Erdogan and Kim Jong Un may do it differently, with a secret trial and secret charges which are not revealed publicly until the defendant’s body has been returned to his relatives after his execution, but Trump has not been elected Dictator here, yet, not even for one day.

    If you guys want to bullsh!t us, you should grow beards like Ted “Cuddly Bunny” Cruz and J. the “D” is for Dissembler Vance. In case you have difficulty keeping a straight face.

    nk (1b68d7) — 10/3/2024 @ 9:53 am

    Ok nk, show me where this judge gave the defense the opportunity, pre-trial, to make immunity claims against the specific evidence that Smith proffered?

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:16 am

  119. show me where this judge gave the defense the opportunity, pre-trial, to make immunity claims against the specific evidence that Smith proffered?

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:16 am

    Trump’s legal team wants to delay their rebuttal until after the election:

    ……..
    Trump’s team has asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, to grant them five extra weeks to respond to Smith, which would push an Oct. 17 deadline all the way back to Nov. 21 — the week before Thanksgiving. The defense demanded an “equal opportunity” to respond — likewise seeking up to 180 pages of space — and said that the “enormous undertaking” at hand shows they have “good cause.”

    At the outset, the defense noted that the special counsel previously received an extra three weeks to draft his brief in light of the Supreme Court immunity decision in Trump v. United States, but that was before it was clear how lengthy the brief would be. But rather than immediately rebutting the allegations the defense said would fill the “public record at this very sensitive time in our nation’s history” and “basically load up on what [prosecutors] think this case is about” close to the election, Trump’s lawyers are slamming on the brakes.

    “As an initial matter, the Court should expand the page limits for President Trump;s Response to match the 180 pages provided to the Special Counsel. The Court has decided, over President Trump’s objections, that extensive factual submissions are appropriate at this juncture,” the Wednesday filing said. “Having made that determination, President Trump must have an equal opportunity to submit and address facts bearing on immunity, and to rebut the Special Counsel’s misleading submissions. Accordingly, the Court should grant President Trump leave to file a 180-page Response.”
    ………..
    “To do so by October 17—while at the same time grappling with the Special Counsel’s motion to seal and the other dispositive motions that President Trump must file—is not practical and is at odds with the Supreme Court’s directive to carefully consider these momentous issues. Accordingly, good cause exists to extend the Response deadline by 5 weeks, to November 21, 2024,” the filing added.
    ###########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:29 am

  120. “Smith and Judge Chutkan has pretty much violated the directive from the Supreme Court.

    You know that report you talk of? It’s supposed to be done pre-triall, with the defense having the opportunity to, in a adversarial way as it’s supposed to be, to challenge each and every evidence the government want’s to present. Due Process demands that the defense gets an opportunity to cross examine and/or confront the evident in order to suppress, and if needed, appeal any immunity-related claims.”

    Why waste time with a law degree when someone can just rant on the internet…I can almost feel the frothing…

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:31 am

  121. I will note that Whembly bases his argument on the 6th Amendment, which does not appear to be an issue Trump’s attorneys have raised in their filings in this case. I wonder why not/

    Appalled (143cb7) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:43 am

  122. Because the 6th Amendment only applies to trials, not pre-trial indictments? Trump has consistently waived his right to a speedy trial by all of his appeals, and the Speedy Trial Act has numerous exemptions from its time limits, including continuances that serve the ends of justice and delays resulting from pre-trial motions.

    Just guessing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:51 am

  123. The proper procedure is:
    1) Gov indicts
    2) Defense assess indictments and makes any challenges to evidence/law pre-trial
    3) Judge reviews the Gov’s proffer and Defense’s challenges and issues ruling (which then makes it public).

    1) Happened. And the filing was made public, as is the norm.
    2) Will happen.
    3) Will happen.

    We are still at 1. The prosecution has to give the judge the information so they can rule on what is allowed.

    Here’s an article about the process:

    https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-immunity-jack-smith-brief-trial-redactions-rcna173649

    Whembly, do you have any objections to what is stated in this article? Because it sounds like you’re asking for things not to be done normally.

    Nate (cfb326) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:52 am

  124. @123

    Because it sounds like you’re asking for things not to be done normally.

    Nate (cfb326) — 10/3/2024 @ 10:52 am

    I’m asking Smith/Chutkan to follow the Supreme Court directive.

    The very first issue is to separate the official from unofficial conduct, yet Chutkan seems committed to speed above all else.

    She’s making the same mistake as she did last December when the immunity question first came up.

    And like the underlying immunity question, that categorization, the majority stated, raises multiple unprecedented questions about the powers of the President and the limits of his authority under the Constitution.

    The “immunity question” is a separate inquiry from the “categorization” issue. This breaks down into four separate inquiries:

    U

    nofficial and not disputed.

    Claimed Official v. Claimed Unofficial.

    Core Function Official v. Official but subject to presumption.

    Official but presumption rebutted v. Official and presumption not rebutted.

    These questions cannot be addressed — much less resolved — through the presentation of proffers in briefing, which then is made public. That is not what the Supreme Court directed.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 11:41 am

  125. Hey Whembly,

    What’s your source material? This is the closest I can find that ties to your arguments:

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/09/28/my-sixth-sense-about-jack-smiths-proposed-book-report/

    I know you are not an emptywheel consumer.

    As noted above, Trump’s attorneys have not made the 6th amendment argument, but it does look like they have hinted at it.

    Appalled (143cb7) — 10/3/2024 @ 11:56 am

  126. @125

    Appalled (143cb7) — 10/3/2024 @ 11:56 am

    First 51 pages of the SCOTUS’ immunity ruling:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

    Will spend some time on empty wheel…

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 12:02 pm

  127. whembly:

    You are trying to do this directly from the decision as a non-lawyer? Braver man than I. I’d at least be relying on some gloss on the material.

    Warning — emptywheel is very left

    Appalled (42543d) — 10/3/2024 @ 12:09 pm

  128. @127

    whembly:

    You are trying to do this directly from the decision as a non-lawyer? Braver man than I. I’d at least be relying on some gloss on the material.

    I don’t think it’s hard to figure out what SCOTUS wanted. IT seems like they take pains to describe their decisions in the most layman way possible.

    Warning — emptywheel is very left

    Appalled (42543d) — 10/3/2024 @ 12:09 pm

    Noted.

    whembly (477db6) — 10/3/2024 @ 12:16 pm

  129. Ukraine is producing 100,000 drones per month. This is how they compensate for Putin’s meat waves.

    Paul Montagu (759dc6) — 10/3/2024 @ 1:02 pm

  130. Desatan sends in his storm troopers to try and intimidate longshoreman strikers. As I have posted earlier about governors bombing and machine gunning stikers (social history of the machine gun) Biden should ignore donor class and send in federal troops to intimidate desatan.

    asset (6b5261) — 10/3/2024 @ 2:40 pm

  131. Regarding Marge’s comment that “they” can control the weather. I can guess who “they” are, starts with “J” and ends with “w”.

    Paul Montagu (037e5c) — 10/4/2024 @ 5:19 am

  132. The Russian terrorist state gets weapons from the Iranian terrorist state, and they have diplomatic relations with the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations, so of course they’ll remove the Taliban terrorists from their terrorist organization list.

    Paul Montagu (037e5c) — 10/4/2024 @ 5:34 am

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1215 secs.