We could hope for the "dustbin of history," but I doubt it. There are many examples in the world of minority dissenters/insurrectionists that have refused to go away despite the apparent hopelessness of their cause. Palestinian kids throwing rocks at tanks comes to mind. As does the sizeable group who still believes the insurgency in the American civil war was "justified". And the various sub-grouping of Muslims who can't seem to accept their differences.
Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama said on Wednesday that former President Donald Trump pressed him to illegally remove President Joe Biden from office and hold a new presidential election, moves that are both unconstitutional.
"President Trump asked me to rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency," Brooks said in a statement responding to Trump's withdrawal of his endorsement of Brooks' US Senate campaign....
Kudos, but Brooks is still a sleaze for accepting Dolt .45's endorsement in the first place.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama said on Wednesday that former President Donald Trump pressed him to illegally remove President Joe Biden from office and hold a new presidential election, moves that are both unconstitutional.
"President Trump asked me to rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency," Brooks said in a statement responding to Trump's withdrawal of his endorsement of Brooks' US Senate campaign....
Kudos, but Brooks is still a sleaze for accepting Dolt .45's endorsement in the first place.
Did Brooks ever explain just how a congresscritter from Alabama was supposed to pull off this feat?
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
Did Brooks ever explain just how a congresscritter from Alabama was supposed to pull off this feat?
There's no more detail in the article, but I suppose that once one decides to take a crap on the Constitution there's no reason to hold back on the mechanics of doing so.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Did Brooks ever explain just how a congresscritter from Alabama was supposed to pull off this feat?
There's no more detail in the article, but I suppose that once one decides to take a crap on the Constitution there's no reason to hold back on the mechanics of doing so.
True dat, but maybe Cheetohead secretly thought Brooks is Dumbledore.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
... Oh man, the sad, shabby, loser slap fight between Donald Trump and Mo Brooks! Jeeeeezus. Loser un-endorses other loser, accomplishing little beyond shining a white-hot spotlight on both losers’ rapidly-vanishing clout. Even for such human urinal cakes, it’s almost too mortifying to watch, like some John Waters-directed survivalist game show.
Mo, you traitorous taintwart, you knew he was a snake when you incited a terrorist mob to attack Congress in his name, so expect no tears over this reversal of fortune, though if you’re in the mood for a little payback, I don’t imagine the January 6th commission is difficult to reach. Oh, and Donnie? The loserstink is coming from YOU, dawg.
The Deposed Dotard must be going stir-crazy, pacing around Marm-a-Lago, watching his endorsement lose value faster than the ruble, which explains why he’s lobbed another doomed nuisance lawsuit at Hillary Clinton n’ friends. There must be something sadomasochistically comforting about the dependable ritual of humiliating legal defeat, right? I mean…apparently....
"Mo, you traitorous taintwart"
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
As Ginni Thomas, a prominent conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, made the case to overturn the election to a top adviser to former President Donald Trump in the days after the 2020 election, she cited several conspiracy theories popular with the president’s most deluded supporters
In her messages, published Thursday by CBS News and the Washington Post, Thomas urged then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to look into the claims of Steve Pieczenik, a little-known conspiracy theorist whose ideas are often too crazy for even Alex Jones.
Thomas appeared to have wholly embraced Pieczenik’s off-the-wall claims in her texts, including the idea that Trump’s election defeat was really a ruse meant to entrap Democratic voter fraudsters.
“If you believe what Steve Pieczenik has to say, you have completely lost all touch with reality,” said Jordan Holmes, a comedian who follows InfoWars and its guests, including Pieczenik, on his Knowledge Fight podcast....
It’s not clear how Thomas first encountered Pieczenik’s work. But her praise for his obviously ludicrous claims demonstrate the power that conspiracy theories had on Trump’s inner circle....
When the wife of a SCOTUS justice, a powerful activist and lobbyist in her own right who has a direct line to the WH CoS, is spewing such nonsense America has truly gone off the deep end.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
So let's say there's a fictional person - we'll call her "Ginni" - who is in a fictional work by, say, Michael Crighton, and in this book she's the founder and CEO of a company called "Conspiracies R Us (CRU). She's also married to a fictional Supreme Court Justice - we'll call him "Clarence". Ginni's company gets taken to court a lot, mostly for fraud and such, but also for international trade violations and racketeering. In one such case, Conspiracies R Us has lost in the Court of Appeals and has further appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court verdict, Ginni's company will likely be forced into bankruptcy and most of the upper management will likely go to prison.
Is it hard to decide if Clarence should recuse himself? Or if possibly he should resign as he has clearly benefitted from Ginni's evilness?
So let's say there's a fictional person - we'll call her "Ginni" - who is in a fictional work by, say, Michael Crighton, and in this book she's the founder and CEO of a company called "Conspiracies R Us (CRU). She's also married to a fictional Supreme Court Justice - we'll call him "Clarence". Ginni's company gets taken to court a lot, mostly for fraud and such, but also for international trade violations and racketeering. In one such case, Conspiracies R Us has lost in the Court of Appeals and has further appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court verdict, Ginni's company will likely be forced into bankruptcy and most of the upper management will likely go to prison.
Is it hard to decide if Clarence should recuse himself? Or if possibly he should resign as he has clearly benefitted from Ginni's evilness?
As I understand it, the Supreme Court has exempted itself from lower federal court ethics rules and guidelines. Things that may appear inappropriate and indeed are inappropriate which would require recusal don't apply and there are no legal consequences. The only legal remedy is impeachment of a justice (not even sure how that works, guessing Congress and there won't be the votes for conviction).
What could be interesting is the court of public opinion on a justice and how and what kind of peer pressure there may be and how it could be applied. They and their families are usually apolitical for this reason.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
So let's say there's a fictional person - we'll call her "Ginni" - who is in a fictional work by, say, Michael Crighton, and in this book she's the founder and CEO of a company called "Conspiracies R Us (CRU). She's also married to a fictional Supreme Court Justice - we'll call him "Clarence". Ginni's company gets taken to court a lot, mostly for fraud and such, but also for international trade violations and racketeering. In one such case, Conspiracies R Us has lost in the Court of Appeals and has further appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court verdict, Ginni's company will likely be forced into bankruptcy and most of the upper management will likely go to prison.
Is it hard to decide if Clarence should recuse himself? Or if possibly he should resign as he has clearly benefitted from Ginni's evilness?
It shouldn't be and wouldn't be for anyone with any integrity or moral compass. But I predict he will not only not recuse himself from any such cases, he'll instead pretend that he's somehow a victim of something and his poor wife is being cancelled and her first amendment rights are being violated. Clarence will not cry, though.
So let's say there's a fictional person - we'll call her "Ginni" - who is in a fictional work by, say, Michael Crighton, and in this book she's the founder and CEO of a company called "Conspiracies R Us (CRU). She's also married to a fictional Supreme Court Justice - we'll call him "Clarence". Ginni's company gets taken to court a lot, mostly for fraud and such, but also for international trade violations and racketeering. In one such case, Conspiracies R Us has lost in the Court of Appeals and has further appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court verdict, Ginni's company will likely be forced into bankruptcy and most of the upper management will likely go to prison.
Is it hard to decide if Clarence should recuse himself? Or if possibly he should resign as he has clearly benefitted from Ginni's evilness?
It shouldn't be and wouldn't be for anyone with any integrity or moral compass. But I predict he will not only not recuse himself from any such cases, he'll instead pretend that he's somehow a victim of something and his poor wife is being cancelled and her first amendment rights are being violated. Clarence will not cry, though.
Fat tony didn't recuse himself from ruling in favor of his duck hunting buddy.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
As I understand it, the Supreme Court has exempted itself from lower federal court ethics rules and guidelines. Things that may appear inappropriate and indeed are inappropriate which would require recusal don't apply and there are no legal consequences. The only legal remedy is impeachment of a justice (not even sure how that works, guessing Congress and there won't be the votes for conviction).
What could be interesting is the court of public opinion on a justice and how and what kind of peer pressure there may be and how it could be applied. They and their families are usually apolitical for this reason.
If Clarence cared about being remembered as the most corrupt SCOTUS justice ever, he would have altered his and Ginni's behavior long ago.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Dolt .45 won NC. What are they hoping to accomplish?
Senter's demands are a potential violation of state law. In a legal memo responding to community calls for a "forensic audit" of voting machines, Mark Payne, an attorney retained by the Surry County Board of Elections, wrote this week that it was illegal to provide access to voting machines to unauthorized individuals. Anyone threatens or intimidates an election officer could also face felony charges, according to a state statute.
Senter and a prominent pro-Trump election conspiracist, Douglas Frank, met with Huff on March 28, claiming “there was a 'chip' in the voting machines that pinged a cellular phone tower on Nov. 3, 2020, and somehow influenced election results," the state election board said, calling the claim “fabricated disinformation.” Separately, in a public gathering that Huff did not attend, Senter threatened to have Huff's pay cut, according to Huff, who said a person at the meeting told her about the threat.
This stuff has got to stop.
Lock him up.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
A judge on Wednesday issued a scathing ruling against the investigator hired by Republicans to look into the 2020 election in Wisconsin, accusing him of unprofessional and misogynistic conduct, forwarding his decision for possible disciplinary action against Michael Gableman.
Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington ordered that Gableman be fined $2,000 a day until he complies with his earlier ruling. He also determined that Gableman violated his oath as an attorney following his “disruptive and disrespectful” appearance in court last week. At that hearing, Remington found a defiant Gableman to be in contempt after he refused to answer questions under subpoena in the courtroom. His attorneys tried unsuccessfully to block the subpoena.
“Wisconsin demands more from its attorneys,” Remginton wrote. “Gableman’s demeaning conduct has discredited the profession and every other person sworn ’to commit themselves to live by the constitutional processes of our system.”
The order comes in an open records lawsuit filed by liberal government watchdog group American Oversight. It is one of three open records lawsuits the group filed against Gableman, Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and the state Assembly. The group has won a series of victories before Remington and another Dane County judge after Gableman and Vos failed to produce the requested records in a timely manner....
Gableman was hired a year ago by Vos, under pressure from Donald Trump to investigate the former president’s loss to President Joe Biden by just under 21,000 votes in Wisconsin. The investigation has cost taxpayers about $900,000 so far. Biden’s victory has survived two recounts, multiple lawsuits, a nonpartisan audit and a review by a conservative law firm....
Pooor Trumpettes.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
One more example of a RepuQ pol fomenting massive election fraud, abetting a violent coup attempt, and shunning all accountability for his actions. Shameful. FU Lindsey.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Wisconsin’s Republican Assembly leader on Friday ended a 14-month, taxpayer-funded inquiry into the 2020 election by firing his hand-picked investigator....
Opps.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
It never ends.