[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'[...] Trump directed his lawyer, [...] Giuliani, to [...] ask the Department of Homeland Security if it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states[...]

[...] Trump, [...] meeting with Attorney General [...] Barr, raised the possibility of whether the Justice Department could seize the machines, a previously undisclosed suggestion that Mr. Barr immediately shot down.

[...] Trump told Mr. Barr that his lawyers had told him that the department had the power to seize machines as evidence of fraud.'

'The accounts about the voting machines emerged after [...] Trump declared at a rally in Texas that he might pardon people charged in connection with the storming of the Capitol last Jan. 6 if he were re-elected. [...] Trump also suggested that his vice president, Mike Pence, could have personally "overturned the election" by refusing to count delegates to the Electoral College who had vowed to cast their votes for [...] Biden [Trump posted a statement today saying Pence should be investigated for refusing to overturn the election]'

'Giuliani was vehemently opposed to the idea of the military taking part in the seizure of machines [...] The conflict between him and his legal team, and Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and Mr. Byrne came to a dramatic head [...] during a meeting with Mr. Trump [...]

[...] Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell presented Mr. Trump with a copy of the draft executive order authorizing the military to oversee the seizure of machines. After reading it, Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Giuliani to the Oval Office, according to one person familiar with the matter. When Mr. Giuliani read the draft order, he told Mr. Trump that the military could be used only if there was clear-cut evidence of foreign interference in the election.

Powell, who had spent the past month filing lawsuits claiming that China and other countries had hacked into voting machines, said she had such evidence, [...] But Mr. Giuliani was adamant that the military should not be mobilized, the person said, and Mr. Trump ultimately heeded his advice.

[...]

Even Mr. Giuliani, who had spent weeks peddling some of the most outrageous claims about election fraud, felt that the idea of bringing in the military was beyond the pale.'

https://www.nytimes....g-machines.html

So that bit I quoted before about Trump having been just '5 Rudys' away from stealing the election... is still probably accurate, but Rudy appears to be the unlikely antihero of this particular subdrama. OTOH the military probably (I hope?) would have refused it as an illegal order (and Trump wouldn't have been able to find a way around the military chain of command... no doubt he could have found a large number of active duty soldiers to do his bidding if they were not held back by the generals---guess no general would have been sufficiently tempted by anything Trump could offer?... not even California?...).

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'[...] stroke sends Senate Democrats reeling

[...] Democrats lose their working majority in his absence.

While [...] expected to make a full recovery, no one knew when he would return [...]

“It’s devastating. And the only silver lining is that there’ll be a path to a full recovery,” [...]

[...] could leave Democrats reliant on Republican votes to move forward on nominees and other priorities.

[...] health problems can change the composition of the Senate, with the late Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) long absence just the most recent example. Former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) had a stroke in 2012 and didn’t return until 2013. Former Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) missed eight months after suffering a stroke [...] But the stakes are higher here, since none of that happened in an evenly divided Senate'

https://www.politico...stroke-00004432

Wonder how much (at absolute minimum) he'd have to recover to vote... I'd guess so long as he's still alive and can make it into the Senate (looks like unlike the House the Senate does not allow remote voting) if they're desperate.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'If [...] Biden's nominee will divide the Senate strictly along party lines, some will argue that the Vice President cannot break the tie. Back in 2020, noted Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe advanced this position[...] anticipating a possible 50-50 vote on the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. [...]

"While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate's "Advice and Consent" role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.

You don't have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: "In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made." Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices. . . .

For those who care about the details, Hamilton's view and the historical practice (up until this administration) is confirmed by the structure and drafting history of our Constitution. As a structural matter, the provision granting the vice president the power to break ties in the Senate is located in Article I, which addresses Legislative Power. By contrast, the Senate's "Advice and Consent" power over judicial appointments appears in Article II, making it a form of power wielded by the Senate that is executive, not legislative, in nature. The vice president has some power to influence legislation, by casting a tiebreaking vote in the Senate, while the Senate has some power to influence executive appointments, by granting or withholding consent. Structurally, the vice president cannot smuggle his Article I legislative tiebreaking power into Article II to undermine the Senate's unique Article II executive power of advice and consent."

[...] Tribe also noted two recent academic analyses that reached the same conclusion.

[...] Vice Presidents have cast tie-breaking votes for judicial nominations in the past. [...] So even if Tribe were correct as an original matter, it would seem it is two [sic] late to turn back now.'

https://reason.com/v...-get-confirmed/

So if the right-wing supermarjority on the Supreme Court doesn't want to let a 50-50 nominee in... they have a strong enough legal argument against it to provide plausible deniability.

Secondary argument:

'Some even ventured to argue that Biden's promise to appoint a Black woman constitutes illegal discrimination. [...] constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Turley, who has written multiple op-eds suggesting that Biden's promise is unconstitutional discrimination.

[...] Trump signaled just two years ago that he had his own gender litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination [would nominate a woman].

[...] Reagan promised that he would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity. [...]

The point is that this seems to be a very convenient moment to suddenly raise such a fuss — one in which a rather arbitrary line is being drawn.

But it's also one that could put pressure on Republican officeholders to take a stand. Are they, too, going to complain that this pick was designated for a Black woman, after not complaining about Trump designating one for a woman?'

https://www.washingt...tive-criticism/

So both sets of arguments are contradicted by recent practice. But since the Supreme Court supermarjority privileges constitutional originalism---especially where it provides cover for partisanship---their view of the constitution seems likely to trump recent practice?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Homeland Security Warns Ottawa-Style Anti-Vax Convoy Could Wreck Super Bowl Sunday

[...] DHS has warned law-enforcement and public safety officials to prepare for a copycat version of the protests that have brought [...] Ottawa to a virtual standstill in recent weeks. "The convoy will potentially begin in California as early as mid-February and arrive in Washington, D.C., as late as mid-March, potentially impacting the Super Bowl LVI [...] and the State of the Union Address [...] the convoy could severely disrupt transportation, federal government, and law enforcement operations through gridlock and potential counterprotests." [...] "They are definitely going to follow the Canadian model and shut down Washington."'

Homeland Security Warns Ottawa-Style Anti-Vax Convoy Could Wreck Super Bowl Sunday (thedailybeast.com)

Exclusive: Department of Homeland Security warns that trucker protests in U.S. could begin on Super Bowl Sunday (yahoo.com)

Just in time to spread the love BA.2 pi?... Much as I'd like it to backfire, IDK if it will... maybe if they disrupt the Super Bowl?

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 10 February 2022 - 03:12 PM

[Malankazooie]

SotU tonight. First for Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. as PotUS. How do you think he breaks it down? Also one of The Squad members will give a rebuttal (for a more progressive criticism of not doing more?). Something the Republican party would never do. Not good optics as we steamroll into the 2022 midterms. Maybe save that for an off election year? Just a suggestion.

[Malankazooie]

Finally got around to watching some of the highlights and good lord was it cringey. And I'm not talking just about Biden. The whole lot of them make my skin crawl. I don't want any of these clowns making any decisions that impact my life, full stop. Can we get more people in there that are like, I don't know, under the age of 60? F'n hell.

Don't shoot the messenger guys,

Spoiler

but I think we need a change in 2024.

[Cause]

The hunter biden laptop story is back! Does anyone know what the truth is separate from the fiction? Did Ukraine just make them dig it back up?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 20 March 2022 - 02:56 PM, said:

The hunter biden laptop story is back! Does anyone know what the truth is separate from the fiction? Did Ukraine just make them dig it back up?

New York Times confirmed that some of the emails on the laptop 'have been authenticated':

'possible criminal violations of tax laws, as well as foreign lobbying and money laundering rules[...]

[...] prosecutors face a number of hurdles to bringing criminal charges[...] including proving that [Hunter] intentionally violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires disclosure to the Justice Department of lobbying or public relations assistance on behalf of foreign clients.

[...] emails [...] obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by [Hunter] in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

In some of the emails, [Hunter] displayed a familiarity with FARA, and a desire to avoid triggering it.

[...] 2014[ email...] outlined his vision for working with Burisma. [...] indicated that the forthcoming announcement of a trip to Ukraine by Vice President Biden — who is referred to in the email as "my guy," but not by name — should "be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands."

The announcement "could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation. We need to temper expectations regarding that visit," [...]

[... he] indicated that Burisma's officials "need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policymakers, and that we need to abide by FARA and any other U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board."

He suggested enlisting the law firm where he worked at the time[...] to help Burisma through "direct discussions at state, energy and NSC," [...]

The firm "can devise a media plan and arrange for legal protections and mitigate U.S. domestic negative press regarding the current leadership if need be," [...]

[Hunter ...] did not register under FARA on behalf of Burisma.

[...] Hunter [...] discussed inviting foreign business associates, including a Burisma executive, to a dinner [...] at a Washington restaurant where Vice President Biden would stop by. It is not clear whether the Burisma executive attended the dinner, although the vice president did make an appearance'

https://www.nytimes....esultPosition=6

Still possible the authenticated emails were hacked and planted on the laptop, perhaps alongside doctored photos or emails.

[LinearPhilosopher]

i don't know what thread this belongs in but I couldn't believe it.

https://twitter.com/...StxGkxNrDC5gScc

"Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. Many of his employees are so poor, you’re paying their welfare benefits. And he’s not the only tech billionaire offloading his payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it?"

Listen, he's not saying anything crazy. Its the fact that TUCKER CARLSON of all people, is saying this?

Is this an elaborate prank?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

LinearPhilosopher, on 22 March 2022 - 12:30 AM, said:

i don't know what thread this belongs in but I couldn't believe it.

https://twitter.com/...StxGkxNrDC5gScc

"Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. Many of his employees are so poor, you're paying their welfare benefits. And he's not the only tech billionaire offloading his payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it?"

Listen, he's not saying anything crazy. Its the fact that TUCKER CARLSON of all people, is saying this?

Is this an elaborate prank?

Not just tech. Walmart, fast food, etc. Longstanding widespread corporate malfeasance.

Also... that tweet is from 2018.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Ah I didn't note the time stamp. Curious how this is now making the rounds.

[Maark Abbott]

LinearPhilosopher, on 22 March 2022 - 01:18 PM, said:

Ah I didn't note the time stamp. Curious how this is now making the rounds.

Probably because with living costs spiralling out of control, and more and more people dependent on pathetically low wages just to survive, it's more relevant than ever.

[Malankazooie]

Dang, Ladybug got overcome by the vapours. That dainty southern belle must of had the hand fan at the ready as she was obsessing on child pornography. And hoo-boy, she is still hurt about how Brett Kavanaugh was treated, like what is it now, four years ago?

Someone should check Ladybug's and Hawley's laptops, because that is classic projection, like Psyche 101 type stuff, right?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Congress Eyeing "Dumpster Fire" of Hate Talk in Spy Agency Chat Rooms

CIA veterans said partisan political talk exploded after Trump took [office and] appointed Mike Pompeo as its director.

The House and Senate intelligence oversight committees are looking into hate speech that has flourished in spy agency chat rooms over the past five years [...]

[...] the system was afire with incendiary hate-filled commentary, especially on "eChirp," the intelligence community's clone of Twitter.

"[...] it became a dumpster fire" of hate speech directed at minorities, women, gays, transexuals and Muslims[...]

[...] there were many employees at CIA, DIA, NSA, and other IC agencies that openly stated that the January 6th terrorist attack on our Capitol was justified."


In the years before before President Donald Trump evinced sympathy for white supremacists and neo-Nazis, partisan political commentary in the Intelink channels was verboten[...]

[...] "There are a bunch of hardline Trumpers in the I.C.," [...] "A lot came to the fore during mask and vax mandates. [...]"

[...] many veteran IC personnel warn that something has to be done to root out bad actors in law enforcement and intelligence.

"My fear is that this will only get worse as we approach the 2022 and 2024 election cycle,"'

Congress Eyeing 'Dumpster Fire' of Hate Talk in Spy Agency Chat Rooms (thedailybeast.com)

Wonder what they've been up to....

[Malankazooie]

Wut up? And also, what's up with that HB stuff? Does it matter, and should we care? Is it tangible. It seems to be circling back to that. I'd provide links, but you guys have your sources - it is jumping off all over the current events / 24-7 news doom scroll.

[Macros]

at least give us some context.
what, are we concerned about HardBack novels?

[Malankazooie]

Harry backs. Swimsuit season is fast approaching and hirsute men everywhere are stressing. What are the solutions? or should we care?

Also, in a minor way, that pesky stuff about Hunter Biden.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Republicans are expected to retake the House in 2022....

'Under current law, a simple majority in the House of Representatives could not only derail the process for counting electoral votes but would also appoint the person who becomes president [...] when that process fails. If Congress wants to prevent this from happening, it needs to look past the Electoral Count Act to another area of law that reformers have yet to address: that governing presidential succession.

[...] The 12th Amendment requires that the vice president[...] open the electoral votes [...] "in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," [...]

[...] a simple majority of either chamber [...] could defeat the concurrent resolution that establishes a joint session. Alternatively, a majority of either chamber could simply refuse to attend [...]

[...] the House[...] adopts its rules just a few days before the electoral votes are counted, meaning a House majority planning to derail the joint session could simply amend or repeal any House rules that might stand in its way. [...]

[...] the Presidential Succession Act [...] makes the speaker of the House first in line for the acting presidency [...]

[...] The House elects its speaker [...] just days before the joint session to count electoral votes [...] while every speaker to date has been a member of the House, this isn't legally required; [...] the House may in fact choose whoever they want as speaker and thereby make that person first in line for the presidency.

Hard-line GOP Reps. [...] recently underscored what this might mean in practice when they suggested that the House might select Trump as speaker if Republicans were to retake the majority in 2022. But the scary truth is that, if Republicans also win a House majority in 2024, they would not have to stop there. A Republican House majority could at that point not only elect Trump as speaker but refuse to participate in the joint session to count electoral votes[...] This would leave the presidency vacant come Jan. 20 — a vacancy that Speaker Trump would then fill by operation of the Presidential Succession Act. And while this appointment would be temporary, Trump would remain there so long as the same House majority refused to finalize the electoral vote count and determine the actual winner.'

The Other Way Trump Could Steal the White House in 2024 - POLITICO

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 31 March 2022 - 05:06 PM

[Macros]

USA, why you so broken?

[Slow Ben]

Macros, on 31 March 2022 - 07:51 PM, said:

USA, why you so broken?

I don’t know but it’s exhausting.