[andi*pandi]

And then after riling them all up to commit crimes, and the crimes happen, they are brushing off the attack as no big deal. Hey, lots of people get assaulted with hammers, it could happen to anyone, why are the pelosis getting special treatment and attention!?!?!!

[reader50]

Originally Posted by MacNNFamous 

So like attempted assassination of Pelosi tho..... wild. Like for real Fox News is getting these nut jobs so hyped they're just goign to try to kill people now. WTF.

Not an assassination. He planned to hammer her kneecaps, and take her hostage with the wire ties he'd brought along. Not sure what his hostage demands would be.

It could have ended in an assassination, when he didn't get his pony/corvette/happy meal/whatever he would demand. What a sweetie.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm guessing he would have wanted Trump reinstalled as president.

[subego]

Surprised to find there are places where this is legal.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Not an assassination. He planned to hammer her kneecaps, and take her hostage with the wire ties he'd brought along. Not sure what his hostage demands would be.

It could have ended in an assassination, when he didn't get his pony/corvette/happy meal/whatever he would demand. What a sweetie.

Is there any publicly released information to this end? And even if the assailant claimed that this was his intent, I'm not sure whether this is going to help him much: clearly, he tried to kill Pelosi's husband. I don't think it is a stretch to conclude that murder was at least one of the options he was considering.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by subego 

Surprised to find there are places where this is legal.

It likely isn’t. That doesn’t mean you can’t potentially get away with it if you’re quick about it.

[reader50]

Chicago / Illinois once had a problem with people buying votes. Take a pic of your ballot, get your $20 (or whatever). So cameras got banned in voting booths there.

Vote buying hasn't been a thing elsewhere, so I don't think cameras are banned in most places. With a majority of voting being done absentee, you can definitely use a camera in your own home to shoot your own ballot. So what's the point of banning them in the less-used polling booths?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Chicago / Illinois once had a problem with people buying votes. Take a pic of your ballot, get your $20 (or whatever). So cameras got banned in voting booths there.

Vote buying hasn't been a thing elsewhere, so I don't think cameras are banned in most places. With a majority of voting being done absentee, you can definitely use a camera in your own home to shoot your own ballot. So what's the point of banning them in the less-used polling booths?

Just like the above picture, that's only a shot of the current selection and has no proof that the vote was actually submitted. I can fill my absentee ballot out any way I want, but if I don't send it in, or if I void it and send in a second one then I can make any claim I want.

Iowa predictably went hard red. Our only incumbent Dem U.S. rep lost to a newcomer, the governor race was a landslide (the DNC put literally zero effort into promoting the Dem candidate), and a virtue-signaling amendment to Iowa's constitution to affirm the right to bear arms passed by a big margin as well.



I'll let you guess where the majority of industry, money, population, and major colleges are.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

So what's the point of banning them in the less-used polling booths?

In both bribery and extortion schemes, being able to prove one voted for a specific candidate is a vital component.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Chicago / Illinois once had a problem with people buying votes. Take a pic of your ballot, get your $20 (or whatever). So cameras got banned in voting booths there.

The SECRET ballot is a cornerstone of functioning democracy.

It is none of your business what I vote, and in order for you never to be able to MAKE it your business, documenting what I voted in any way, shape, or form, needs to be illegal.

[subego]

I essentially agree, but have to point out the documentation is automatically called into question with an electronic voting machine. The photo isn’t proof of who Perry voted for, it’s proof there’s a span of time her machine had that option selected.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

It likely isn’t. That doesn’t mean you can’t potentially get away with it if you’re quick about it.

AFAIK, it’s not legal in Chicago, but it is in LA, and that’s fairly recent (2018).

[andi*pandi]

Too bad Beto and Abrams didn't make it. I didn't expect Val Demings to have much of a shot, because floriduh. Fetterman trounced Oz. Many Trump surrogates lost, and he is predictably disavowing the losers.

I am somewhat relieved that the rest of the red wave mostly.... fizzled?

[Waragainstsleep]

So will the GOP now be able to stop any and all indictments of Trump? Or can the FBI carry on without instruction from the Jan 6th committee? I assume NYDA will continue to pursue him for whatever dodgy tax shenanigans he was up to as well?

[Thorzdad]

Apparently, Michigan kept its dem governor, and turned both chambers of the legislature blue. And confirmed a constitutional amendment to secure abortion rights. Quite a turn-around from a state where gun-toting “militia” members were allowed into the statehouse, aiming to hang the governor.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So will the GOP now be able to stop any and all indictments of Trump?

Neither the House nor the Senate has a majority of either party yet, but there are enough outstanding races that it could go either way.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So will the GOP now be able to stop any and all indictments of Trump? Or can the FBI carry on without instruction from the Jan 6th committee?

I’m pretty sure the FBI can act on its own, independent on what the J6 committee does, or what house leaders do. It can develop its own evidence as well as use anything the committee has shared with it.

If the republicans take the house, the committee will be disbanded immediately, so there’s probably a caravan running between them and the FBI right now, sending as much evidence and documents as possible before adjournment for the year, just in case the republicans take over.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So will the GOP now be able to stop any and all indictments of Trump? Or can the FBI carry on without instruction from the Jan 6th committee? I assume NYDA will continue to pursue him for whatever dodgy tax shenanigans he was up to as well?

No. The efforts of the January 6th Committee have surely been useful, because they unearthed a lot of pertinent and new information, which could be used by prosecutors.

However, I think the most likely indictment that could lead to a conviction is the documents issue: it is relatively easy to explain (to a jury), very clear-cut and to my understanding has a chance to be concluded within 2 years.

Trump's financial crimes are much harder to explain to non-experts and have no visible victims. Trump's problematic behavior around January 6th seems very hard to prosecute: it would involve a lot of firsts and a sizable chunk of the country believes it is just politically motivated. (I'm still very much in favor of going ahead, obviously, but I still think you have to know what you are getting into.)

[reader50]

The J6 committee has investigative power. They can subpoena documents and testimony, but their enforcement power is limited to contempt. They can lock up an uncooperative witness for example. Actual enforcement would happen through the courts directly, or refer a case to the Justice department to pursue through the courts.

Trump is facing a buttload of legal threats, including:
(documents) mishandling records / playing keepaway with the national archives.
(documents) obstruction charges - playing games with the Justice department.
(documents) espionage charges - mishandling secret documents.
(2020 election) election interference. Trying to steal the election he lost.
(2020 election) incitement to attack Congress on Jan 6.
(IRS taxes) he owed the IRS $100M when he left office, for an improper refund.
(NY state) probable tax fraud. Misleading/shorting taxes.
(NY state) probable securities fraud. Misleading/shorting investors.

All of the above (except J6 incitement) should be readily provable today. The fraud and taxes stuff has been under development for years.

The elections interference includes a recorded call to the Georgia secretary of state, asking for extra votes to be "found". Along with false electors being lined up to choose Trump when state voters had chosen Biden. The espionage charges can include a lifetime ban from holding Federal office, and they've got the documents in hand that he stole.

There's also some private lawsuits going, and some lesser public ones. Fundraising violations, where donations became recurring without the donor's knowledge. Dominion Voting Systems is suing at least two of Trump's lawyers for false statements about their business - not sure if Trump has been named too.

[OreoCookie]

@reader50
What chances do you see that Trump is being convicted for each of them.

Clearly, Trump should be convicted of trying to engineer a coup (how else can you characterize his efforts?), but I don't see that as very likely. Maybe I am wrong, in fact, I hope I am. Do you agree with my assessment?

Ditto for the tax cases, I have the impression that Trump is counting on the courts coming to the conclusion that what he did was “nothing out of the ordinary”, many rich people use the same strategy (albeit unlikely to the same degree).

[reader50]

The tax and securities fraud cases in NY will go against Trump. Or more specifically, the Trump organization. Their former chief financial officer has turned state's witness, so it's a slam-dunk. But those cases mostly carry financial penalties for Donald, because it's his company at risk rather than himself.

I haven't heard anything about the IRS audit since he left office. He may have paid them back, which would close that case.

No charges have been filed in the Mar-a-Lago documents case - the risks I show are those used to get the search warrant. He's solidly guilty on all three items, but has a proven track record of delaying court proceedings. I expect convictions on any charges that get filed - after long delays. Seating impartial jurors will be a formidable challenge.

Election interference is another solid case - he involved too many other people. Advice for successful conspiracies - keep the numbers small. Fewer people who may turn witness, or prove to be a plant. However, this is another case that will get dragged out. Convictions eventually, but it will take years.

On the private front, Dominion (and Smartmatic) sued Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell for defamation for $4B (yes, Billion) and that case may expand to include Trump. They won't get damages that high - lawyers suggest the figures were chosen for publicity purposes. But they could get millions.

The J6 stuff ... I agree with Oreo. Could be difficult to prove to a jury. If they pursue these charges, I think the case can be proven - the J6 committee turned up a LOT. But long delays, and I'm not sure what the political fallout would be. Trump followers act like cultists a lot of the time.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by reader50 

On the private front, Dominion (and Smartmatic) sued Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell for defamation for $4B (yes, Billion) and that case may expand to include Trump. They won't get damages that high - lawyers suggest the figures were chosen for publicity purposes. But they could get millions.

Feels like billion might be the right price range. Voting machines must be big business what with the number of them and the level of security required etc. Maybe not $4B but $1B seems quite reasonable. I figured the only reason they won't get that is because Giuliani and Powell don't have it to give them.

Anyway lets hope theres enough charges, fines and suits on the various tables to see Trump locked up and bankrupt before the next election.

[OreoCookie]

@reader50
- I agree with you on the tax case. Although I think his children might be punished by not being allowed to represent companies, at least in the state of NY.

- I haven’t heard anything of substance regarding the IRS case. Maybe he will get into trouble when the tax case gets resolved, if a court finds that Trump has undervalued his assets substantially for tax purposes might get him into hot water. But I reckon he’d just have to pay back taxes.

- You are right about the documents case. Although I think it is quite likely that Trump will be indicted for that soon, and chances seem very good that Trump will eventually be sentenced. The question is sentenced to what? A felony conviction with probation wouldn’t be the end of the world for him.

- I’m a bit pessimistic about the election interference case. Interestingly, the most promising avenue is in the state of Georgia, so that might face less political headwind than a federal case.

[Waragainstsleep]

I sense that the NY cases are quite personal. Like they really hate him. So I think they are saving their cases so that when he gets done for the more serious election tampering but he doesn't get that big a sentence they can jump out and add some icing on top, or when he gets away with the other big stuff and can breathe a sigh of relief they can pop up and say "not so fast buddy!"

[Thorzdad]

A two-fer for sanity yesterday. Warnock wins the Georgia senate seat and the Trump Organization was found guilty on all charges of tax fraud.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

A two-fer for sanity yesterday. Warnock wins the Georgia senate seat

To temper that, 48.6% of voters, some 1.7 million, tried to elect a complete moron and liar to represent them.

What the actual fuck.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

To temper that, 48.6% of voters, some 1.7 million, tried to elect a complete moron and liar to represent them.

What the actual fuck.

Warnock had a (D) next to his name, and that’s all most of them needed to know. It’s been that way for a good long time now.

But, to temper that a bit, Warnock defeated an all-in, Trump-endorsed, Trump-wannabe, Trumpster. There’s some little bit of solace in that, I think.

[Thorzdad]

Trump digital trading cards. Only $99 each. Good lord.

[andi*pandi]

such ridiculous photoshop. what a colossal narcissist.

[Spheric Harlot]

I had to Google it.
https://www.collecttrumpcards.com/
God, that’s hilarious.

Fitting that, just as the world at large is beginning to realise that NFTs are just a colossal scam designed to get people to buy imaginary money, Tr*mp would jump on it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Trump digital trading cards. Only $99 each. Good lord.

That's another example of me not knowing whether this is real or fake, and it scares me …

Thing is, with Trump, parody often becomes reality

[Thorzdad]

Quite the clown show going on over in the House of Representatives this week. Sadly, I think it presages pretty much every consequential vote for the next year or two.

[reader50]

I'm hoping most Reps cut a deal with Dems and shut the MAGA guys out. Choose a moderate Republican as Speaker, and negotiate some compromises. You know, compromises - what legislatures are supposed to do.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I'm hoping most Reps cut a deal with Dems and shut the MAGA guys out. Choose a moderate Republican as Speaker, and negotiate some compromises. You know, compromises - what legislatures are supposed to do.

There are moderate republicans? I mean, sure, moderate in comparison to the maga faction gumming up the works at the moment. But actual moderates?

I’m not sure it’s in democrats’ best interests to get involved. That just opens them up to being played, once again, as dupes. There’s no actual way to enforce any concessions supposedly made in a back room. A republican speaker could just as easily “forget” they made any concessions to the democrats and there would be squat the dems could do about it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I'm hoping most Reps cut a deal with Dems and shut the MAGA guys out. Choose a moderate Republican as Speaker, and negotiate some compromises. You know, compromises - what legislatures are supposed to do.

In a vacuum this might be a compromise, but I am not sure how many people would actually be available to that. Trump reset what counts as moderate. Moreover, even “true” moderates currently don’t hold any significant power within the GOP, at least not as far as I can tell.

The thing is that even if the Democrats were to cut a deal, the situation seems so volatile within the GOP that they couldn’t count on them holding their end of the bargain. Right now I don’t even understand why the GOP is self-owning itself so hard: McCarthy seems to think that if he lets people vote 100 times, he’ll eventually be elected. I’m sure he has given mutually exclusive promises to everyone and their sister in the hopes for a few votes. Complete irresponsible extremists (even within the GOP) are promised posts of very prominent committees (e. g. Ways and Means).

And the agenda (I have left out legislative on purpose) seems to revolve around finding pretexts to launch impeachment proceedings against President Biden, surely also as “payback” for “what the Dems did to Trump”.

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

There are moderate republicans? I mean, sure, moderate in comparison to the maga faction gumming up the works at the moment. But actual moderates?

That and if the GOP can’t even agree amongst themselves for reasons that are not evident to me (Why are they voting against McCarthy? What is the long-term strategy here?) and seem completely counterproductive, this is not a trustworthy partner in a compromise. Plus, the Democrats have remember e. g. what happened to Garlands nomination and how the GOP threw its purported justification over board when it became convenient for them.

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

I’m not sure it’s in democrats’ best interests to get involved. That just opens them up to being played, once again, as dupes.

Gotta agree here. The GOP has poisoned the well, too, with its “end justifies the means” politics. Nor do I see how they could even hold themselves to their end of any bargain within their own party as well as across parties.

Strategically, I think it is better for the Democrats to let the GOP fail here. Whether that is better for the country is IMHO not obvious. There could definitely be some damage. But on the other hand, letting the current GOP fail is what is needed for a new party/new GOP to emerge that is capable of governing again. I don’t think it is healthy for a democracy to have just one sane party that is able to govern.

Plus, the Democrats have been very successful at getting legislation passed that has bipartisan support. I don’t think they need to get involved in the election of the speaker to have a positive impact.

[reader50]

It seems that the Speaker need not be a current member of Congress (though this is traditional). So one of the primaried-out-of-office Republicans who voted to impeach Trump could be selected as Speaker. Like Kinzinger or Cheney, who both served on the J6 committee.

[Thorzdad]

Reports of some of the concessions McCarthy has made to the maga holdouts have been trickling out. One is that he will agree to a cut in the defense budget in order to reduce US aid to Ukraine.

Another concession being reported is, when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling, the magas do not want that to be a clean bill. They want major concessions. Word is they are eyeing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other such programs for large cuts.

McCarthy himself has said that, on his first day, he will move to fire 87,000 workers at the already understaffed and underfunded IRS.

[Waragainstsleep]

Maybe if the stalemate lasts long enough, the mainstream republicans will get so pissed at the magas, they'll pick a speaker that'll really piss them off with help from the dems.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Reports of some of the concessions McCarthy has made to the maga holdouts have been trickling out. One is that he will agree to a cut in the defense budget in order to reduce US aid to Ukraine.

Another concession being reported is, when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling, the magas do not want that to be a clean bill. They want major concessions. Word is they are eyeing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other such programs for large cuts.

McCarthy himself has said that, on his first day, he will move to fire 87,000 workers at the already understaffed and underfunded IRS.

Jesus Christ.

Fuck these people.

Hard.

[ghporter]

They do not deserve a single fuck among them.

And McCarthy has lost (at least) a twelfth time. It ain’t happening dude.

I can see a lot of back room bargaining with some of the newer Republican reps. The Dems only need 6 or 7 votes to put Hakeem in the Speaker’s seat…

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

It seems that the Speaker need not be a current member of Congress (though this is traditional). So one of the primaried-out-of-office Republicans who voted to impeach Trump could be selected as Speaker. Like Kinzinger or Cheney, who both served on the J6 committee.

One thing I did not consider was that electing a speaker is a prerequisite for beginning the new legislative session. (The German system is different, the previous regime stays in power until a new one is elected.)

On paper, Kinzinger and Cheney look like good choices. Both are very conservative by any pre-Trumpian metric. However, I think they could only be elected if moderate Republicans split off and essentially formed something like a coalition with the Democrats. Again, on paper not a bad idea, but this is a huge risk for these moderate members. This could work spectacularly well for them or go spectacularly badly.

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Reports of some of the concessions McCarthy has made to the maga holdouts have been trickling out. One is that he will agree to a cut in the defense budget in order to reduce US aid to Ukraine.

Sounds more like hostage negotiations to me. AFAIK US aid to Ukraine has strong popular support even amongst Republicans.

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Another concession being reported is, when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling, the magas do not want that to be a clean bill. They want major concessions. Word is they are eyeing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other such programs for large cuts.

McCarthy himself has said that, on his first day, he will move to fire 87,000 workers at the already understaffed and underfunded IRS.

That sounds performative and like pure virtue signaling to me. None of this will pass in the Senate.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

They do not deserve a single fuck among them.

And McCarthy has lost (at least) a twelfth time. It ain’t happening dude.

That's the thing that I don't get: even if he were elected in the 15th round, he's severely damaged, over leveraged (in terms of political promises and deals) and could be ousted at any point.

It would have been smarter for him to withdraw after the first round, let someone else be the idiot, and then come to the rescue when those GOP holdouts finally figure out how stupid and pointless their efforts are.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I can see a lot of back room bargaining with some of the newer Republican reps. The Dems only need 6 or 7 votes to put Hakeem in the Speaker’s seat…

I'm not sure if this is going to happen, but that would be glorious. All of McCarthy's concessions would disappear in a puff of smoke.

[Thorzdad]

Saw this posted last night, and got a good chuckle out of it.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sounds more like hostage negotiations to me. AFAIK US aid to Ukraine has strong popular support even amongst Republicans.

True. However, many in the Q/MAGA crowd, such as the holdouts, aren’t down with aiding Ukraine. They couch their “concerns” in terms of fiscal responsibility, but it certainly seems interesting that they are okay with Ukraine being overrun by Trump’s buddy Vladimir and the US not doing anything to prevent it.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That sounds performative and like pure virtue signaling to me. None of this will pass in the Senate.

I’m not sure the senate has any voice in the matter of hiring/firing. The house has always been said to be in charge of the nation’s pocketbook, but I don’t know just how autonomously it can act. The senate definitely has to agree on the big budget bill, but the operational things that McCarthy & Co are making noise about, I have no clue.

[reader50]

Fiscal bills have to start in the House, but both houses have to pass them. As the IRS funding is already on the books, the Senate would have to agree to the cut. So that won't pass.

More concerning is if the House held up future legislation. The 2023 budget already passed, so it's immune. And Dems ran a substantial Ukraine aid bill though the lame duck Congress, so they're probably good through summer. But after that, it will be a problem. Even with a majority of Reps and Dems in favor of Ukraine aid, the Speaker can prevent bills from coming up for a vote. Of course, he agreed that a single Rep can call for his ouster.

[andi*pandi]

but he got voted in, right? so he must have made some deals.

[ghporter]

I’m thinking that Kevin spent a lot of time with “under the table” bargaining. Underhanded, unethical, and intended to undermine the Constitution. Plus, you can interpret “under the table” any way you wish, which can be amusing.

However he managed, he’s essentially epoxied the House into a solid “do nothing” body. That’s not going to buff out when EVERYBODY starts having problems because we don’t have a budget. His constituents certainly won’t be happy when their expected pork fails to appear.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Fiscal bills have to start in the House, but both houses have to pass them. As the IRS funding is already on the books, the Senate would have to agree to the cut. So that won't pass.

Ditto for pretty much any of the initiatives the GOP purports to back. The hurdle in the Senate is even bigger since many bills would have to be passed with 60 votes as opposed to a simple majority. All Republicans and >10 Democrats would have to vote in favor. So that’s not going to happen.

Originally Posted by reader50 

More concerning is if the House held up future legislation. The 2023 budget already passed, so it's immune. And Dems ran a substantial Ukraine aid bill though the lame duck Congress, so they're probably good through summer. But after that, it will be a problem. Even with a majority of Reps and Dems in favor of Ukraine aid, the Speaker can prevent bills from coming up for a vote. Of course, he agreed that a single Rep can call for his ouster.

My expectation is that there will be simply more gridlock: pass nothing through Congress, hoping that just like during Trump’s Presidency that this would force Democrats to make concessions. I expect that Republicans will put on a show and e. g. explore the photo collection on Hunter Biden’s laptop and start impeachment proceedings against President Biden.

On the other hand, I do think it is realistic that Democrats might be able to peel off some moderate Republicans for very specific bills. President Biden has been surprisingly savvy when it comes to bipartisan legislation. Perhaps some of the moderate Republicans that won Democratic seats might be up for that? In their constituency bipartisanship might be an asset rather than a liability.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I’m thinking that Kevin spent a lot of time with “under the table” bargaining. Underhanded, unethical, and intended to undermine the Constitution. Plus, you can interpret “under the table” any way you wish, which can be amusing.

Yeah, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he made mutually exclusive promises to different parties.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

However he managed, he’s essentially epoxied the House into a solid “do nothing” body. That’s not going to buff out when EVERYBODY starts having problems because we don’t have a budget. His constituents certainly won’t be happy when their expected pork fails to appear.

Yeah, although I think the GOP could use the delay between cause and effect for its advantage. Look at how little average Americans “felt” during Trump’s Presidency: lots of agencies were understaffed simply because nobody was appointed as a successor. I remember some German and European bureaucrats complaining at the time that “there was simply nobody to call” on the American side.

[Thorzdad]

Apparently the US hits the debt ceiling tomorrow, and congress needs to authorize raising it. And the little cadre of malcontents that held McCarthy’s speakership hostage is moving to hold the raising hostage, too. Gonna be a really ugly week, I think.

[Thorzdad]

This is some next-level trolling DeSantis got hit with.

[Laminar]

She got Chuck Grassley, too.



I'm kind of meh on the whole thing, it's liberal back-slapping no more creative than the "I did that" stickers. They're politicians, they post with random weirdos and I'm sure accept bad art all day, they've done nothing new here. It's just something for people to post on Facebook.