2020 Election Fallout 14: Arrests And The Big Lie

[GreyhoundFan]

"Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee personally vetted Trump’s fraud claims, new book says. They were unpersuaded."

Quote

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham agreed to hear Rudolph W. Giuliani out.

In a Jan. 2 meeting arranged by Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, and held in his West Wing office, the South Carolina Republican met with Giuliani and his legal team to learn about findings they said could hand Trump a second term.

Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney at the time, put forward a computer whiz who presented a mathematical formula suggesting Biden’s support in certain states was unrealistic. Graham, a lawyer and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, found the reasoning too abstract. He wanted hard evidence. “Give me some names,” Graham said at the Saturday meeting. “You need to put it in writing. You need to show me the evidence.”

Giuliani promised details by Monday — proof that scores of ballots had been cast in the names of dead people and people under 18, among other irregularities.

That scene is recounted in a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa. The book, “Peril,” describes parallel efforts by the South Carolina Republican and his conservative colleague from Utah, Sen. Mike Lee, to personally investigate the president’s claims of voter fraud as the lawmakers prepared to certify Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6.

Graham and Lee, both of whom ultimately voted to certify the results, took the claims of election fraud seriously enough to get briefed on the details, involve their senior staff and call state officials throughout the country. But privately, Graham gave the arguments a withering assessment, according to the book, saying they were suitable for “Third grade.”

The episode illustrates how strenuously the president’s legal team sought to nullify the results of the election; how flimsy even their more serious claims were; and what little stock the president’s own allies placed in his objections, even as they stood steadfastly with their standard-bearer.

Giuliani’s promised proof arrived on Jan. 4 in the form of several memos he sent to Graham, one titled “Voting Irregularities, Impossibilities, and Illegalities in the 2020 General Election.”

Graham had already proved himself willing to act on assertions of election irregularities, calling Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in November to see if he could toss mail ballots in counties found to have high rates of nonmatching signatures, Raffensperger later said. Graham maintained he was only inquiring about the state’s signature-matching requirements.

The memos from Giuliani included sweeping claims lacking references or evidence. One said Pennsylvania had processed 682,777 mail-in ballots without proper observation — an assertion underlying a suit tossed out by a federal judge two months earlier. “If you deduct just this number, President Trump wins the state by hundreds of thousands,” the memo argued. Another claimed hundreds of dead people had voted in Georgia, based on an extensive analysis of “mail-in and absentee ballot voter names and obituaries.”

Graham dispatched his driver to deliver the documents to his top lawyer on the Judiciary Committee. The lawyer, Lee Holmes, was unimpressed, according to the account in “Peril.”

It was impossible for him to tell precisely what kind of records had been used to conduct the analysis, which proved nothing conclusively, in his view. Of the more sensational claims, such as ballots from the deceased, Holmes thought it was much more likely, based on Giuliani’s own evidence, that some people had voted and then died, according to the book. He was equally unconvinced by theories about people voting twice, improper absentee ballot applications and fraudulent ballots cast from vacant or nonexistent addresses. “Holmes could find no public records that would even allow someone to reach these conclusions,” according to the account in “Peril.”

Where he could find relevant records, they contradicted Giuliani’s conclusions. Claims of nearly 12,000 so-called “overvotes” in Arizona — when someone picks more than the maximum number of selections allowed — masked the fact that only 180 applied in the presidential contest, not nearly enough to close Biden’s margin of victory in the state.

The argument that “Georgia’s 2020 election is in doubt and should be nullified,” was laid out in an “Executive summary” of “Independent analysis conducted by expert CPAs and Ivy League statisticians,” according to the documents provided by Giuliani. The experts were unnamed, but their alleged probe — correlating data for 7.6 million registered voters with postal records — struck Holmes as unfeasible or, at best, inconclusive, because it would involve matching millions of registered voters with U.S. Postal Service data. Similar analysis failed to convince a District Court judge in Nevada, who wrote in a December judgment dismissing a suit from the Trump campaign that there was insufficient information about how the data was obtained and used and “what the rate of false positives would be.”

Graham’s attorney shared those concerns.

“Holmes found the sloppiness, the overbearing tone of certainty, and the inconsistencies disqualifying,” the authors write. The memos, he determined, “added up to nothing.”

But it wasn’t until after a pro-Trump mob ransacked the Capitol that Graham, speaking on the Senate floor, said, “Count me out. Enough is enough. I’ve tried to be helpful.”

He has since tacked back, visiting Trump at Mar-a-Lago, speaking to him regularly and saying the GOP “can’t grow” without the former president. Still, he has continued to deliver criticism directly to Trump, according to the book. In a phone call this summer, he bemoaned Trump’s volatility and focus on voter fraud, telling the former president, “You f---ed your presidency up.” Trump abruptly hung up on him. A spokesman for Graham declined to comment.

The same day Graham met with Giuliani in the West Wing, Lee received a two-page memo from the White House marked, “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.” It included a stunning claim — that Vice President Pence could hand the election to Trump because seven states had submitted dueling slates of electors to Congress, split between the incumbent and Joe Biden. Pence could simply set those states aside on Jan. 6 and count only electors from the remaining states, it claimed. “Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.”

That outcome was envisioned by John Eastman, the conservative legal scholar and author of the memo, titled, “January 6 scenario,” which was obtained for “Peril” and reviewed by The Washington Post.

Lee knew dueling electors were merely Trump loyalists putting themselves forward in certain states, in a move the authors describe as “a social media campaign — an amateur push with no legal standing.” Electors are bound by the popular vote in each state; because they sum to 538, an absolute majority of 270 is needed to clinch the presidency.

The authors suggest the senator, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, was surprised this theory had been circulated by Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law and former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. Document in hand, and bewildered that theories about dueling electors were still coming from Trump’s legal team, Lee made “phone call after phone call” to officials in some of the relevant states, such as Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona, he told constituents in a Jan. 27 online town hall, appearing to refer to the Eastman memo without naming its author. A spokesman for Lee did not respond to a request for comment.

No one seemed poised to certify a new slate of electors. “At that point, I believed that we had reached the end of the process, as indeed we had,” Lee said during the town hall.

The senator also explained his interpretation of the limited role the Constitution gave to Congress and the vice president in counting electoral votes — an interpretation in conflict with the one outlined by Eastman, who argued Pence could be the “ultimate arbiter” and either name Trump the president-elect or send the matter to the House.

Eastman even anticipated what “Peril” describes as “certain outrage and worry of a coup.” In the memo, however, he dismissed these concerns as, “Howls, of course, from the Democrats …”

Four days after his memo reached Lee, the law professor addressed Trump supporters outside the White House on Jan. 6. A week after that, Chapman University announced his immediate retirement from the Orange, Calif., school.

In an email to The Post, Eastman said his memo merely “explored all options that had been proposed.” Ultimately, his advice to Pence was not to act on the basis of the dueling electors, he added, because “at that point, no legislature had certified an alternative slate of electors.” Rather, he counseled the vice president to delay certification, Eastman said, by pointing to objections leveled by state legislators — a move Pence explored, according to “Peril,” but did not make.

Eastman’s remarks on Jan. 6, he said, were unplanned and designed to “fill a gap in the roster of speakers when the president’s arrival was delayed.”

Lee, for his part, said in a Fox News interview a month after the Jan. 6 riot that Trump deserved a “mulligan” for the speech he delivered encouraging his supporters to march on the Capitol, using a golf term for giving someone another try.

 

[Howl]

More about the Eastman memo. Pretty damned alarming: 

Unroll of the thread w/ the details here: This was an actual, no-bullshit plan from within the Oval Office to stage a coup of the American government and bring us under one-party dictatorial rule.

By the way, Eastman got a boot in the ass from Chapman Univ. back in January after he spoke at the rally prior to the Jan 6 insurrection.  And yup, Eastman is also Federalist Society. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Howl

[GreyhoundFan]

BTs are still trying to turn insurrectionist Ashli Babbit into a martyr. I like this for the simplicity and truth:

[Cartmann99]

Spoiler

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Maybe this will give TFG the stroke we all know is coming if there are actual consequences to his words and actions: "Biden White House leans toward releasing information about Trump and Jan. 6 attack, setting off legal and political showdown"

Quote

The White House is leaning toward releasing information to Congress about what Donald Trump and his aides were doing during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol despite the former president’s objections — a decision that could have significant political and legal ramifications.

Trump has said he will cite “executive privilege” to block information requests from the House select committee investigating the events of that day, banking on a legal theory that has successfully allowed presidents and their aides to avoid or delay congressional scrutiny for decades, including during the Trump administration.

But President Biden’s White House plans to err on the side of disclosure given the gravity of the events of Jan. 6, according to two people familiar with discussions who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.

In response to questions about White House deliberations over what information to release, Biden spokesman Michael J. Gwin said the president views the attack on the Capitol as “a dark stain on our country’s history” and is “deeply committed to ensuring that something like that can never happen again, and he supports a thorough investigation.”

Members of the investigative committee argue that Trump no longer enjoys the protection of executive privilege, encouraging the White House to push aside institutional concerns about sharing information with Congress and aid the panel in an investigation focused on what Democrats and a handful of Republicans have called an assault on democracy.

“It’s not really relevant because there’s no president involved — there’s no such thing as a former president’s executive privilege,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a committee member who teaches constitutional law. “That’s extremely dilute and not really relevant.”

What Trump was doing while the attack was occurring and who he was speaking with are among the big, unanswered questions concerning the assault on the Capitol.

The debate over the veracity of his executive privilege claims comes as the committee is moving into a new, more aggressive phase of its investigation. Having requested material from telecom, social media companies and the White House — and receiving some response — it is now looking at how best to compel testimony and documents from those reluctant to participate.

Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) said this week that his panel will soon issue subpoenas to witnesses and organizations, adding that the committee has started scheduling closed door testimony with cooperative witnesses. A preliminary list of subpoenas is expected to be released by the committee as soon as Thursday and may include prominent Trump allies and White House officials.

Trump has derided the committee’s work as partisan and is promising to fight its effort to collect information and testimony related to the attack.

“The highly partisan, Communist-style ‘select committee’ has put forth an outrageously broad records request that lacks both legal precedent and legislative merit,” Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich said in a statement. “Executive privilege will be defended, not just on behalf of President Trump and his administration, but also on behalf of the Office of the President of the United States and the future of our nation.”

In response to the House panel’s request, the National Archives has already identified hundreds of pages of documents from the Trump White House relevant to its inquiry. As required by statute, the material is being turned over to the Biden White House and to Trump’s lawyers for review.

The committee’s Aug. 25 letter to the National Archives was both sweeping and detailed, asking for “all documents and communications within the White House on January 6, 2021, relating in any way” to the events of that day. They include examining whether the White House or Trump allies worked to delay or halt the counting of electoral votes and whether there was discussion of impeding the peaceful transfer of power.

The letter asked for call logs, schedules and meetings for a large group, including Trump’s adult children, son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and first lady Melania Trump as well as a host of aides and advisers, such as his attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani.

The committee has focused, in part, on seeking information about whether the Trump White House and members of Congress played any role in encouraging the demonstrations, which interrupted the constitutionally mandated certification of electoral votes and unleashed a series of violent confrontations with the U.S. Capitol Police.

So far, more than 650 people have been charged with crimes in connection with the violent demonstrations that delayed that vote. Many were charged with obstructing a federal procedure and for knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building. Documents and testimony could show whether White House officials and members of Congress encouraged or supported those actions, congressional staffers said.

White House documents requested by the panel are identified by National Archives personnel and then sent to Biden and Trump lawyers. The first tranche was sent out Aug. 31, according to a person familiar with the transfer.

Trump has 30 days following the delivery of the documents to decide whether to object to their release, according to the statute. Even if he opposes turning them over, the Biden White House has decision-making authority and can release them, over Trump’s objections, after an additional 60 days has elapsed. Trump’s remaining option would be to go to court to try to halt the release, legal advisers said.

While Trump has struck a defiant tone, his options may be limited if Biden decides to handover the information the former president says should be protected, according to several legal experts — including those who have reviewed similar requests in the past.

“The law we have is not favorable to the former president,” said Bob Bauer, who served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama. “A former president has a chance to review the materials, to raise issues of privilege and if the former and the current presidents cannot reach some agreement, to take the dispute to the courts.”

Bauer added that while an inquiry into a former president is unique, legal precedents suggest disclosure of the information Congress is seeking.

“The circumstances here — the former president acting at the time in his capacity as a candidate seeking to challenge his defeat at the polls — make this uphill battle much, much tougher,” he said.

Norm Eisen, a former Obama appointee, who advised the first House impeachment inquiry of Trump, said the former president’s power to assert executive privilege has weakened since he left the White House.

“The executive privilege stonewalling that Trump used while he was in office won’t work anymore,” Eisen said, noting that the current president — not the former — has the real decision-making power.

A former federal judge who worked on executive privilege issues in the Ronald Reagan White House and the George H.W. Bush Justice Department pointed out that privilege requests do not typically attempt to shield information about potential wrongdoing.

“With a few notable exceptions, the historical practice has been for Presidents to avoid asserting Executive Privilege to protect from disclosure information that suggests wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing by a President and/or his advisers,” J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. federal judge, said in an email.

Several cases involving requests for tapes and other records from the Richard Nixon White House provide precedent for release of presidential records when requested by Congress or government agencies.

In 1977, the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, rejected Nixon’s privilege claims about White House tapes and documents, embracing the idea that executive privilege “is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic.”

Legal experts also pointed to recent private talks involving Trump officials and Congress that could provide a path to a resolution that does not involve going to court. They cite the negotiations that occurred between lawyers for Trump, the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating claims that a Trump Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, had sought to deploy department resources after the election to back Trump’s claims of massive voting fraud.

In the end, the Biden Justice Department waived executive privilege, and two of Trump’s top former Justice Department officials, Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue, sat for interviews with the Senate Judiciary Committee, providing detailed accounts of what happened during the post-election period.

The decisions Biden and Trump make about the current records and interview requests will be momentous, said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University who has written about the protection of White House documents and previously argued that Democrats’ impeachment efforts against Trump were a misguided use of congressional power.

“There is an unbroken tradition of deference by the incumbent presidents to their predecessors,” Turley said. “In the past, incumbent presidents would generally support their predecessors in restricting access, despite partisan differences. It appears we may be poised here to shatter that tradition.”

 

[smittykins]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

BTs are still trying to turn insurrectionist Ashli Babbit into a martyr. I like this for the simplicity and truth:

I guaran-damn-tee you that had Ashli Babbitt been Black(veteran or not), “she should have obeyed the officer.”

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm sure the mango meltdown is happening: "House Jan. 6 committee issues subpoenas for Trump aides and advisers, including Meadows and Scavino"

Quote

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has issued subpoenas to two top Trump White House officials, former chief of staff Mark Meadows and former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, as well as to Kash Patel, who was serving as chief of staff to the acting defense secretary that day. An additional subpoena targets longtime Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon.

The subpoenas were announced Thursday evening by the committee, which has moved its inquiry into a new, more aggressive stage after requesting White House records last month and sending preservation requests for records to telecom and social media companies.

Trump and his team have condemned the select committee’s inquiry since it began, vowing to fight its demands for documents and interviews with claims of executive privilege. A debate about a former president’s ability to restrict access to information and individuals has already begun in Washington — and is likely to become dramatically more intense now that these first subpoenas have been issued.

Along with asking Meadows, Scavino, Patel and Bannon to hand over records, the committee is instructing the four men to appear for depositions in mid-October.

Bannon and Scavino did not respond to requests for comment. Meadows could not be reached.

Patel issued a statement Thursday evening saying, “I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Committee tried to subpoena me through the press . . . before seeking my voluntary cooperation. I will continue to tell the truth to the American people about the events of January 6th.”

Trump issued a lengthy statement that said he would fight the subpoenas by invoking executive privilege. In the statement, he also made the type of false claims about the 2020 election that were embraced by the mob of his supporters as they ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 and engaged in violent clashes with the police.

“Hopefully the Unselect Committee will be calling witnesses on the Rigged Presidential Election of 2020, which is the primary reason that hundreds of thousands of people went to Washington, D.C. in the first place,” he said.

The executive privilege questions will be especially focused on Meadows and Scavino because of their roles in the White House and access to Trump before, during and after the Jan 6 disturbance.

On the day of the attack, Meadows and Scavino were firsthand witnesses to the president’s state of mind and hopes for his speech on the Ellipse, where he urged thousands of protesters to go up Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol and to “fight like hell” for their country. After violence broke out at the Capitol and police shot a rioter, Meadows, working with Scavino and with help from Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, repeatedly tried to get Trump to issue a public message to tell his supporters to stop their protest and leave the Capitol grounds. These details were first reported in the book “I Alone Can Fix It” by Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker.

In a letter accompanying the subpoena to Meadows, the committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), writes that the panel has obtained “credible evidence” of Meadows’s involvement within “the scope of the select committee’s inquiry.” The letter cites several examples of Meadows’s communication and proximity to the former president leading up to and on the day of the insurrection.

Thompson also notes that Justice Department documents reveal that Meadows “directly communicated with the highest officials at the Department of Justice requesting investigations into election fraud matters in several states” and made contact with “several state officials to encourage investigation of allegations of election fraud.”

Thompson wrote to Scavino that “it appears you were with or in the vicinity of former president Trump on January 6 and are a witness to his activities that day. You may also have material relevant to his video taping and tweeting messages on Jan 6.” The letter cites reports in a new book, “Peril,” by Washington Post writers Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, that Scavino was also with Trump on Jan. 5 “when he and others were considering how to convince Members of Congress not to certify the election for Joe Biden.”

In its letter to Bannon, the select committee writes that the longtime activist and adviser has “information relevant to understanding important activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol” on Jan. 6.

“For example, you have been identified as present at the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, during an effort to persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of the election the next day, and in relation to other activities on January 6,” Thompson writes. “You are also described as communicating with then-President Trump on December 30, 2020, and potentially other occasions, urging him to plan for and focus his efforts on January 6.”

Patel, a former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), worked in White House national security positions under Trump before transferring to the Pentagon. When the panel requested documents from the Pentagon in August, it mentioned Patel specifically. The committee requested “documents and communications concerning possible attempts by President Donald Trump to remain in office after January 20, 2021.” The panel also asked for communications about martial law.

On Thursday, the committee subpoenaed Patel for “all documents and communications to, from, or referring to Patel, relating to civil unrest, violence, or attacks at the U.S. Capitol; challenging, overturning, or questioning the validity of the 2020 election results; or the counting of the electoral college vote on January 6, 2021.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[fraurosena]

25 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A haha emoji is not enough. Because: 

[BensAllergies]

Just wait; it gets better.

In response to yesterday’s subpoenas, TFG claimed that the House Dems were seeking to distract from today’s Arizona report results. He praised the Cyber Ninjas as “highly respected auditors,” unaware that report drafts had already started circulating the Arizona news showing that his margin of loss was even wider than previously known.

www.businessinsider.com/trump-hype-arizona-audit-result-seems-unaware-confirms-biden-win-2021-9%3famp

Also it seems like he’s since deleted the statement because I couldn’t find it on the Save America website.

[Cartmann99]

I'm eagerly awaiting the conspiracy theory that explains how the Cyber Ninjas were persuaded to turn against Trump.

[Cartmann99]

 

[Howl]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I'm sure the mango meltdown is happening: "House Jan. 6 committee issues subpoenas for Trump aides and advisers, including Meadows and Scavino"

I'd be surprised if any of these people respond to the subpoenas and I'd also be extremely surprised, shocked in fact, if the Dems have the cajones to enforce them. 

The "Subpoena? I'm not responding to any f**king subpoena, so f**k you and the process server it rode in on" (with zero consequences) precedent set during the previous administration is extremely unfortunate.  

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

I'd be surprised if any of these people respond to the subpoenas and I'd also be extremely surprised, shocked in fact, if the Dems have the cajones to enforce them. 

The "Subpoena? I'm not responding to any f**king subpoena, so f**k you and the process server it rode in on" (with zero consequences) precedent set during the previous administration is extremely unfortunate.  

I hope to be shocked, but like you, I doubt it. This will be a long drawn out battle in the courts, I suspect.

[Ozlsn]

6 hours ago, Howl said:

I'd be surprised if any of these people respond to the subpoenas and I'd also be extremely surprised, shocked in fact, if the Dems have the cajones to enforce them. 

The "Subpoena? I'm not responding to any f**king subpoena, so f**k you and the process server it rode in on" (with zero consequences) precedent set during the previous administration is extremely unfortunate.  

I think if you want to start resetting the nation you basically have to start enforcing the subpoenas. If you don't have the option to ignore it with no consequences at a lower court level you shouldn't at this level either. If you want the system to work you have to be consistent.

[Xan]

4 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

I think if you want to start resetting the nation you basically have to start enforcing the subpoenas. If you don't have the option to ignore it with no consequences at a lower court level you shouldn't at this level either. If you want the system to work you have to be consistent.

I think they've been reluctant to push because they know the crazies will rise up again.  Additionally, they are hesitant when it comes to arresting one of their own -- even if it's someone as crazy as Mo Brooks.  However, they're going to have to enforce subpoenas or this will go nowhere and the next coup will finish us off.

My feeling about the crazies is that there are more of us than there are of them.  If they rise up, they rise up.  Personally, I don't care if the National Guard mows them if they try to enter the Capitol.  (Honestly, I used to be nicer but I'm just done.)

[Ozlsn]

12 minutes ago, Xan said:

think they've been reluctant to push because they know the crazies will rise up again. 

The problem being it reinforces that there are no consequences for this. As I've said previously a lot of them are wealthy enough - or have enough gullible donors - to not care about fines, but I think sitting in jail might convince them of the wisdom of turning up.

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, Xan said:

My feeling about the crazies is that there are more of us than there are of them.

So very true. They are just extremely loud and their voices get amplified by all the media attention they are getting.

But if you don’t want them to overrun democracy, it is time to stop playing nicely. A soft approach will not have any effect whatsoever.

It puts me in mind of something that happened years ago when my youngest was about four or so, and I was with him in the communal changing room at the swimming pool after his weekly swimming lessons. There was a whole group of four year olds with one of their parents helping them dry off and get dressed after their lesson. Some also had siblings there. One of these siblings was a boisterous and careless little terror and his mom had no control over him whatsoever. Other parents were exasperated with his behavior but his mom was too meek to keep him in check. One week the kid thought it was funny to loudly throw the door shut, open it, and banging it closed again. This was not only irritating, but also dangerous as there were quite a few toddlers around. His mom did not stop him. The only thing she did was gently say “You shouldn’t do that. Please stop.” Of course the kid ignored her. After he almost hit a toddler with the door, I had enough. I said to his mom, if you won’t do anything about it, I will, and told him in no uncertain terms to let go of the door and get back to his mom right now! Quite shocked at my decisive tone, he meekly went to his wide eyed mom.

Soft approaches are fine, but when they don’t work, you need to change your tactics. That doesn’t mean you have to get ugly, but you have to show you mean what you say.

The time for being nice in American politics has long gone. People in the other party, even those whom you were friendly with, have turned out to be monsters who love power so much they are willing to overthrow democracy in order to hold on to it.

Democrats need to show their teeth, start growling, and if necessary, bite— and bite hard.

Edited September 25, 2021 by fraurosena

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Soft approaches are fine, but when they don’t work, you need to change your tactics. That doesn’t mean you have to get ugly, but you have to show you mean what you say.

The time for being nice in American politics has long gone. People in the other party, even those whom you were friendly with, have turned out to be monsters who love power so much they are willing to overthrow democracy in order to hold on to it.

Democrats need to show their teeth, start growling, and if necessary, bite— and bite hard.

All of this. And when they complain point out that they call themselves the party of law and order - because they do, don't they - and as such they should respect the rule of law and turn up when subpoenaed, or be prepared to sit their arses in jail until they indicate that they are willing to do so.

[Howl]

The Sept rally at the US capitol was a total dud.  This time around there was a large major law enforcement presence. 

My personal opinion (!) is that the arrest and charges against the Jan 6 insurrectionists put the quietus on most "Patriots".  Keyboard warriors may rail against the unfair treatment of "Patriots" but they also know that those arrested, even if they get away with parole and not actual imprisonment, are facing huge lawyers fees, some have lost jobs and are facing financial disaster, marriages have broken up, houses foreclosed;  others face family estrangement. 

Parole itself costs money; they may be paying for ankle bracelet monitoring.  There could be mandated social media restrictions and THEY CAN'T POSSESS GUNS, which to some of these asshats is total emasculation. 

The are cowards who are not about to risk this themselves. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Howl

[Dandruff]

5 hours ago, Howl said:

My personal opinion (!) is that the arrest and charges against the Jan 6 insurrectionists put the quietus on most "Patriots". 

Semi-quiet, anyway.  I believe they're still the same assholes with the same inclinations but now they have to consider the potential nuisances of arrest when making group plans or just deciding to act as local jerkoffs.  I'm sure they resent this terribly and whine to each other a lot.

[47of74]

Oh look branch trumpvidian fucksticks, it’s the fucking consequences of your actions. 

Quote

In the real world, Joshua Alayon worked as a real estate agent in Pompano Beach, Fla., where he used the handle “SouthFloridasFavoriteRealtor” to urge buyers on Facebook to move to “the most beautiful State.”

But online, data revealed by the massive hack of Epik, an Internet-services company popular with the far right, signaled a darker side. Alayon’s name and personal details were found on invoices suggesting he had once paid for websites with names such as racisminc.com, whitesencyclopedia.com, christiansagainstisrael.com and theholocaustisfake.com.

The information was included in a giant trove of hundreds of thousands of transactions published this month by the hacking group Anonymous that exposed previously obscure details of far-right sites and launched a race among extremism researchers to identify the hidden promoters of online hate.

After Alayon’s name appeared in the breached data, his brokerage, Travers Miran Realty, dropped him as an agent, as first reported by the real estate news site Inman. The brokerage’s owner, Rick Rapp, told The Washington Post that he didn’t “want to be involved with anyone with thoughts or motives like that.”

Good. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by 47of74

[CTRLZero]

I’ve been reading about this hack and release of information of Epik, and look forward to learning more about who is behind all the extremist websites.  

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

Remember the cheers & applause when Dolt 45 praised Wikileaks? As the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for. Many of these people are finding out what they fervently wished on others is not pleasant when turned against them. 

[Howl]

On 9/25/2021 at 2:21 PM, Dandruff said:

Semi-quiet, anyway.  I believe they're still the same assholes with the same inclinations but now they have to consider the potential nuisances of arrest when making group plans or just deciding to act as local jerkoffs.  I'm sure they resent this terribly and whine to each other a lot.

Yes, exactly and why there was a movement on social media warning people off of the Sept. rally.  That worked; the rally was a stupendous dud. 

A few more things. 

A number of insurrectionists have been denied bail and are having to wait things out in jail, which they are only too happy to tell you, sucks.  It's a boring, scary place with bad food. 

DC has appropriately draconian gun laws with serious teeth and these a**hats are all about guns.  Most of the insurrectionists were savvy enough to stay just outside DC and leave weapons in their hotel rooms.  I'm assuming those awaiting trial at home have had to surrender weapons as well. 

The insurrectionists are facing punishment in Federal courts -- a whole different kettle o' fish than state and municipal courts -- with potential incarceration in Federal facilities.  Again, holy sh*t. 

But anyway, f**k them and the buses they rode in on. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Howl