How Trump Could Steal The Election

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

Some people would say I'm still an ass, now.

I don’t GAF what people say. Welcome to the club 

Reading this reminded me of reading the actual Mueller Report

https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/2022.03.02 (ECF 160) Opposition to Plaintiff's Privilege Claims (Redacted).pdf

[MSC]

On 3/6/2022 at 10:15 PM, MigL said:

Some people would say I'm still an ass, now.

Well, when yer da sells Avon... 😆 

[uncool]

On 3/6/2022 at 9:40 AM, iNow said:

This criminal filing is about 60 pages and worth the read in its entirety. It’s hard to argue in good faith that no fraud was being purposely pursued. 
 

https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/2022.03.02 (ECF 160) Opposition to Plaintiff's Privilege Claims (Redacted).pdf

not a criminal filing

it's a brief in a civil case where one of Trump's lawyers is trying to keep his documents out of Congress's hands

those documents being the subject of a subpoena from the select committee to chapman university, which employed the lawyer

[iNow]

Thx for the clarification. Typed that as a quick alternative to my original text of “PDF.”  

[iNow]

Meanwhile, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was texting with Trumps White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows at this time… she was pressing and directly advising them to overturn the 2020 election and reverse the results. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/us/politics/ginni-thomas-trump-mark-meadows.html

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Meanwhile, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was texting with Trumps White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows at this time… she was pressing and directly advising them to overturn the 2020 election and reverse the results. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/us/politics/ginni-thomas-trump-mark-meadows.html

That's behind a paywall here. UK site:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/24/ginni-thomas-donald-trump-mark-meadows-texts-election

The words and style she uses, I cannot believe she is the wife of a US SC judge. Sounds like a QA conspiracist. It makes sense now why Clarence Thomas falls so much along partisan lines. From link:

Quote

When the supreme court rejected Trump challenges over the election in February 2021, Clarence Thomas dissented, calling the decision “baffling”, the Post notes.

Strong smell of rotten apples coming my way.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Strong smell of rotten apples coming my way.

They’re making me sick. They’re making us all sick.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Strong smell of rotten apples coming my way.

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

They’re making me sick. They’re making us all sick.

Just heard on the arvo news in Sydney (Friday) that Trump is suing Hillary Clinton over conspiring to rig the 2016 election results. 🤪

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Just heard on the arvo news in Sydney (Friday) that Trump is suing Hillary Clinton over conspiring to rig the 2016 election results. 🤪

Apparently he's too late due to statute of limitations; 4 years, I think.

[iNow]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Meanwhile, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was texting with Trumps White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows at this time… she was pressing and directly advising them to overturn the 2020 election and reverse the results. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/us/politics/ginni-thomas-trump-mark-meadows.html

More detail from the Skimm:

 

There’s Ginni Thomas. Yesterday, reports revealed the conservative activist — and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Text messages show Thomas called President Biden’s win a “heist” and pressed then-President Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to “release the Kraken” and “help this great president stand firm.”

It’s all part of the evidence Meadows gave to the January 6th panel before he stopped cooperating. And comes weeks after a court filing from the panel argued Trump and members of his campaign engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” to overturn the election.

• Recuse me?: Thomas has so far resisted calls to recuse himself from Trump-related cases — despite his family’s close personal relationship with the admin.

[iNow]

Quote

"The messages — 29 in all — reveal an extraordinary pipeline between [Thomas] and President Donald Trump's top aide during a period when Trump and his allies were vowing to go to the Supreme Court in an effort to negate the election results," write The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and CBS News' Robert Costa, who first reported on the texts.

"The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump's inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president's strategy to overturn the election results — and how receptive and grateful Meadows said he was to receive her advice."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/

[geordief]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/

Scummy is as scummy does.

Edit: is that stuff all projection?

(getting your retaliation in first)

Edited March 25, 2022 by geordief

[MigL]

I does make you wonder, however, how some people on this forum can argue that the Supreme Court is not a political entity, and interprets laws acoording to the Constitution, and not political leaning.

I would argue that your 'checks and balances' are severely screwed up if he doesn't, or isn't forced to, recluse himself

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would argue that your 'checks and balances' are severely screwed up if he doesn't, or isn't forced to, recluse himself

Well...

Quote

Judges on lower federal courts are bound by a code of conduct that requires recusal for conflicts of interest, or even if their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. But Supreme Court justices are permitted to decide for themselves whether recusal is appropriate in a given case. 

It is clear that it's not working. He has never recused himself in 30 years.

Edited March 25, 2022 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Apparently he's too late due to statute of limitations; 4 years, I think.

Also there's the fact that he won that election, which makes the case for harm to his campaign a little weak.  That, to me, is the comical part of all this.

Re: Thomas - I posted in another thread a while ago that many in the Court (and federal judiciary generally) are reportedly privately uncomfortable that Thomas doesn't recuse himself on cases where there's a possible COI with his wife's political activities.  The Court, unfortunately, has a deep tradition of never critiquing  its own, so it would be up to some other body (Congress? (snicker)) to do something.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Also there's the fact that he won that election, which makes the case for harm to his campaign a little weak.  That, to me, is the comical part of all this.

Yeah, that is weird.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Also there's the fact that he won that election,

 

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Apparently he's too late due to statute of limitations; 4 years, I think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/trump-sues-hillary-clinton-others-over-2016-election-he-won/

Strange times indeed.

[iNow]

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

Also there's the fact that he won that election, which makes the case for harm to his campaign a little weak.

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah, that is weird.

The harm claim is a financial one. He alleges spending $24M in legal fees to defend himself, so of course is suing her for triple that amount and asking for $72M. 

It’s never about the actual legality or money though. It’s more of the strategy Steve Bannon described as “flooding the zone with shit” to distract the media, the public, and to keep the rabid base agitated. 

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

The harm claim is a financial one. He alleges spending $24M in legal fees to defend himself, so of course is suing her for triple that amount and asking for $72M. 

It’s never about the actual legality or money though. It’s more of the strategy Steve Bannon described as “flooding the zone with shit” to distract the media, the public, and to keep the rabid base agitated. 

This seems to be a quite unique American phenomenon: make a number up and go for it.

[iNow]

Trump sues everybody. Litigiousness is kinda his thing. 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Trump sues everybody. Litigiousness is kinda his thing. 

Throw enough shit and some of it will stick. Aye.

Edited March 26, 2022 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Throw enough shit and some of it will stick. Aye.

Actually, with the Bannon strategy, it seems like it's never expected to officially stick so much as obscure and delay. The goal is to make it much more difficult to figure out what's NOT shit rather than persuading anyone any of it is true.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Actually, with the Bannon strategy, it seems like it's never expected to officially stick so much as obscure and delay. The goal is to make it much more difficult to figure out what's NOT shit rather than persuading anyone any of it is true.

I’ve previously referred to this as the swarm of bees strategy.

You release a bunch of bees into the space and people behind you start walking out carrying with them all of your valuables while you’re distracted.

You also can’t really focus anymore on just one single bee, even if it’s the most important one (let’s call it the queen). Continuing the analogy of redirecting attention away from the point that actually matters… the swarm protects the queen. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve previously referred to this as the swarm of bees strategy.

You release a bunch of bees into the space and people behind you start walking out carrying with them all of your valuables while you’re distracted.

You also can’t really focus anymore on just one single bee, even if it’s the most important one (let’s call it the queen). Continuing the analogy of redirecting attention away from the point that actually matters… the swarm protects the queen. 

I just wish we could get those guys to bee hive.

[iNow]

Oi