77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election
February 2, 2021 5:18 AM   Subscribe

...Thursday the 12th was the day Mr. Trump’s flimsy, long-shot legal effort to reverse his loss turned into something else entirely — an extralegal campaign to subvert the election, rooted in a lie so convincing to some of his most devoted followers that it made the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol almost inevitable.

...In coming days, a presidential transition like no other will be dissected when he stands trial in the Senate on an impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection.” Yet his lie of an election stolen by corrupt and evil forces lives on in a divided America.
77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election [NYT]
posted by y2karl (153 comments total) 60 users marked this as a favorite
 


I've found that on some sites I can read the whole article in Reader View in Safari (other browsers presumably have equivalents), this article being one example.

Otherwise (for example The Times here in the UK, which is impenetrably paywalled) I just work on assumption that the two and a half paragraphs I get to read are all that exists of the article. So not very interesting or detailed, and it trails off in the middle of a sentence, as though the writer couldn't be bothered.
posted by Grangousier at 5:37 AM on February 2, 2021 [13 favorites]


(The fight in the Oval Office is, however, excellent. I'm not sure I can take the phrase Resolute Desk that seriously any more, though.)
posted by Grangousier at 5:44 AM on February 2, 2021 [3 favorites]


Yeah, that Oval Office scene is right out of a QAnon Anonymous Florida Flynn story.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:06 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]



Bonus episode: Inside the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency


surely this
posted by lalochezia at 6:09 AM on February 2, 2021 [6 favorites]


Several things of interest:

"As Trump’s official election campaign wound down, a new, highly organized campaign stepped into the breach to turn his demagogic fury into a movement of its own...Called Women for America First, [the Jan. 6 rally organizer] had ties to Trump and former White House aides then seeking presidential pardons, among them Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn....

"The group’s founder, Amy Kremer, had been one of the original Tea Party organizers, building the movement through cross-country bus tours. She had been among the earliest Trump supporters, forming a group called Women Vote Trump along with Ann Stone, ex-wife of the longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone."

Rally permit (.pdf).

WFAF are also fans of Josh Hawley. Background on other rally sponsors (Mother Jones): Sponsors of the Pre-Attack Rally Have Taken Down Their Websites. Don’t Forget Who They Were. And interesting money behind rally organizers.

Mona Eltahawy: White Women Storm the Capitol: The audacious innocence afforded to white womanhood
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:11 AM on February 2, 2021 [19 favorites]


The fight in the Oval Office is, however, excellent. I'm not sure I can take the phrase Resolute Desk that seriously any more, though.

Style Guide: When referenced in the context of the Trumpian Interregnum Years it should be referred to as the Dissolute Desk.
posted by srboisvert at 6:29 AM on February 2, 2021 [23 favorites]


I've found that on some sites I can read the whole article in Reader View in Safari (other browsers presumably have equivalents), this article being one example.

Save to Pocket will also get you past about 80% of paywalls (notably fails with WSJ).
posted by srboisvert at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


Wow that "bonus episode" Axios article is indeed crazy. At the bottom they credit anonymous sources , but some of that had to come from Lyons, Cipollone, or Herschmann. Can they be supenoaed for the impeachment trial?

On the paywall subject, I think NYT should make their impeachment reporting free, like they did with COViD. Or maybe there is a way to get it through a library account? Of course the people who really need to read it (Fox News viewers) are not going to look at it no matter what.
posted by CostcoCultist at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2021 [5 favorites]


Pretty sure the source in the Axios article I linked is Eric Herschmann.
posted by all about eevee at 6:50 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


I disagree with the timeline. It's 92 days so far, and this isn't over.

Donald Trump hires new impeachment defense team after lead lawyers quit
The new lawyers are not without controversy. David Schoen represented Roger Stone, who was convicted in November 2019 of obstructing a congressional investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, and then had his prison sentence commuted by Trump.

The Atlanta-based lawyer also met with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when the financier was preparing for trial in New York on charges relating to sexual exploitation and shortly before Epstein died in jail in 2019.

Bruce Castor is a former acting attorney general of Pennsylvania and a prominent Republican who has been slammed by advocates for victims of sexual crimes because of his stance against reforms involving help for past victims of Catholic priests and in the case of university football coach and predator Jerry Sandusky.

And Castor gained notoriety for declining to prosecute Bill Cosby more than a decade before the entertainer was eventually convicted in 2018, and also sued Cosby’s victim, Andrea Constand, in a case that was dismissed, and then was sued by Constand for defamation, which was settled.
I'm dizzy. Roger Stone, Jeffrey Epstein, Jerry Sandusky and Bill Cosby. That's some fine company you keep.

The outgoing team indicated that Trump didn't want to go with the unconstitutionality argument. These new bozos deny it, but everything indicates he is still committed to The Big Lie defense. The election was rigged.

He's going to use the trial to continue the big lie. He knows the jury is 50% his friends and co-conspirators. He knows he'll be acquitted.

Then he'll say he was acquitted because his defense was successful, proving the big lie true. That'll start on day 97.
posted by adept256 at 6:57 AM on February 2, 2021 [32 favorites]


house managers' impeachment trial brief
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:34 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


NYT is paywalled otherwise I could read and discuss that link.

I don't know about Iphones, but if you have an Android, it can be read in an Incognito tab.
posted by y2karl at 7:40 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


Wow, that report of the meeting is a wild ride:
The Powell team needed to regroup. They shifted to a new grievance to turn the conversation away from their embarrassing errors. Powell insisted that they hadn't "lost" the 60-odd court cases, since the cases were mostly dismissed for lack of standing and they had never had the chance to present their evidence.

Every judge is corrupt, she claimed. We can't rely on them. The White House lawyers couldn't believe what they were hearing. "That's your argument?" a stunned Herschmann said. "Even the judges we appointed? Are you out of your fucking mind?"
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:45 AM on February 2, 2021 [5 favorites]


The paywall thing is just irritating, minimal effort is needed to get around that.

I have tried but have not been able to get around it on mobile. I thought I'd mention it because I certainly care whether other mefites can read the links I post.

I asked because often here it seems we can be dinged for not reading the link and then commenting. If this is the "official" impeachment thread those rules are usually relaxed and I'd like to participate. But I don't want to be told I'm breaking the rules for not discussing a link I can't read.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:45 AM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


Apologies for any derail. I am excited to discuss impeachment!
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


NYT paywall got you down? Fortunately, somebody on a Texas A&M sports forum has pasted the full text.

Unless you want to hear about how Mark Zuckerberg stole the election, don't read the comments.
posted by box at 7:56 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


...The Jan. 6 rally effectively became a White House production

Women for America First was the original organizer of the Jan. 6 rally in Washington. But at the turn of the year, Mr. Trump decided to join the rally himself, and the event effectively became a White House production, with several people close to the administration and the Trump campaign joining the team.

The former Trump campaign adviser Katrina Pierson was the liaison to the White House, a former administration official said. And the president discussed the speaking lineup, as well as the music to be played, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations.

Mr. Stockton, the bus-tour organizer, said that he had been surprised to learn that the protest would include a march from the Ellipse to the Capitol. That march — the prelude to the riot — had not been the plan before the White House became involved.
Key Takeaways From Trump’s Effort to Overturn the Election
posted by y2karl at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2021 [6 favorites]


McConnell: Trump tricked me into backing his coup

Oh you sweet summer child.
posted by Mchelly at 8:50 AM on February 2, 2021 [15 favorites]


I'm finally starting to notice and appreciate the joy of not having Trump blurting out nonsense on Twitter to take over the news cycle daily. It's been long enough that it's starting to feel like - fingers crossed hard - a new normal.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:54 AM on February 2, 2021 [30 favorites]


This article is really excellent. As a friend of mine said, it's a second draft of history. Just far enough away from the events to have a little historical perspective, but still quite fresh and in the moment. I particularly appreciate the structure of the narrative, the slide from somewhat reasonable efforts to contest details of the election the first few days, to the much more dubious and troubling doomed legal efforts, to quasi-legal politicking, to outright sedition and incitement of a riot. The details of McConnell's strategizing are pretty great too.

The one thing missing is what was Trump's plan there in the end. Did he believe that a violent attack on the Capitol would work? Was there some complex plan that he believed would result in him seizing power with that mob? I don't think so. I think he just let the anger grow and grow and egged them on to attack democracy as a fuck you to the whole country. And I hope to see him convicted for it; not just in impeachment, but in an actual criminal trial.

Meantime we still have a Republican party that backed all this nonsense, even after the attack on them and their colleagues. We haven't even begun to repair that damage.

(As always, archive.org has a full copy of the NYT article paywall-free. I find it bizarre that people complain about paywalls and that they "deserve" to read important stuff for free, like impeachment and Covid. Why? Why not pay for the valuable product you covet? Or if you can't / won't pay for something, use one of the various ways to circumvent the paywall and stop complaining. There is a larger question of whether MeFi should focus on paywalled links, and I'm all in favor of providing non-pay alternative links. But the NYT does not owe you free journalism.)
posted by Nelson at 8:56 AM on February 2, 2021 [45 favorites]


...Because a number of the rioters prominently displayed symbols of right-wing militias, for instance, some experts called for a crackdown on such groups. Violence organized and carried out by far-right militant organizations is disturbing, but it at least falls into a category familiar to law enforcement and the general public. However, a closer look at the people suspected of taking part in the Capitol riot suggests a different and potentially far more dangerous problem: a new kind of violent mass movement in which more “normal” Trump supporters—middle-class and, in many cases, middle-aged people without obvious ties to the far right—joined with extremists in an attempt to overturn a presidential election.

To understand the events of January 6 and devise solutions to prevent their recurrence, Americans need a fine-grained comprehension of who attacked the Capitol. Understanding the ideology and beliefs of those who commit political violence is important, but so is knowing what kind of people they are and what their lives are like.

The Capitol Hill Rioters Aren't Like Other Extremists
posted by y2karl at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2021 [3 favorites]


As I said...I haven't been successful in circumventing the paywall on mobile. Please be kind. I am not lazy or complaining to be a jerk.

I am grateful for people who posted a link so I can read the article. Sorry for not being as techy as others to accomplish this on my own. I also absolutely cannot afford a subscription to anything right now. Or ever want to give NYT money. Just want to read the articles posted to MeFi because I love this site and discussing the links. Thanks!
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2021 [17 favorites]


not certain wanting to substantively participate in discussion, here, equates to finding a product valuable or coveting it. that said, it is a pretty good article.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


I'm getting the uneasy feeling that, no matter what the outcome of this impeachment trial is, the result is going to become an excuse to not prosecute Trump for other more politically-divisive or establishment-imperiling-to-pursue stuff like the “Russia if you're listening...” treason, or to put aside SCOTUS packing or other strategies to stridently check the unconstitutional seizures of judicial branch power by the Republicans.

Sort of like with Bush II and war crimes, the movers and shakers will bank their political capital, dust their hands off, and let bygones be bygones. Except that all of the instabilities and cracked foundations the Trump era introduced-slash-heralded will still be there.
posted by XMLicious at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2021 [12 favorites]


Among other things, Women for America First nicely connects the Trumpies and Tea Partiers, for anyone who thinks all this BS just popped out of the woodwork (I know that probably doesn't apply to most MeFites, but I've certainly run into NeoCons who, either in bad faith or no, just didn't make that connection).
posted by aspersioncast at 9:28 AM on February 2, 2021 [8 favorites]


Tea Party organizer Amy Kremer was directly involved. So was the Thomas More Society.
posted by all about eevee at 9:45 AM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


I've been listening to the recent Behind the Bastards episodes about historical fascist insurrections.

Hitler had a friendly court on his side when he was tried for his attempted coup in the Beer Hall Putsch. He was allowed to speak freely (including a four-hour "opening statement") about his oh-so-selfless and oh-so-noble motivations, in a trial that was heavily covered by the press. Yes, he was convicted, but with a sentence so lenient it was basically just giving him some free time to write Mein Kampf.

How that applies here:
  • Trump doesn't have a friendly judge, but several members of the court are explicitly, unapologetically on his side and many others will want to downplay the extent of his crimes. They will interfere with the proceedings at any reasonable opportunity and many unreasonable ones.
  • Trump is not as smart as Hitler and couldn't bedazzle an audience for hours, but he has propaganda outlets that only need thirty non-consecutive seconds of vaguely coherent speech per hour to get their message across. As long as he doesn't give epically self-destructive soundbites in the other 3,570 seconds (which, to be fair, is a real risk with Trump), there'll be a lot of incentive for "today was the day he finally became [post-] president" to be the story.
  • Trump isn't 34 years old like Hitler was, he'll be pushing 80 by the next presidential election. He also isn't a political unknown... unfortunately, we've seen exactly what it looks like for him to be in charge. So regardless of the fantasy playing out in his deteriorating narcissistic mind, Republicans in congress will not be supporting him out of deference to him as their eternal führer.
No, the Republican play here is not to acquit Trump. It's to make the trial seem more illegitimate than Trump's crimes.

Though they probably didn't realize it would play out like this, the messaging around his first impeachment being a "witch hunt" gave them a big head start. They're bolstering it this time with arguments that you can't impeach a former president, and with frivolous attempts to introduce impeachment proceedings against Biden on literal day one of his presidency.

Trump is not their Hitler, he's more like their Ludendorff: an aging nationalist icon, whose crimes and incompetence can be minimized as long as it helps align people behind their hateful cause.

I've seen people imagining scenarios like Democrats convicting with 2/3 of members present because Republicans boycotted the conviction vote. If the Republicans thought they could get away with that, it might be plausible: it would fit nicely with the illegitimacy narrative, and it takes Trump out of the equation for 2024 so he doesn't cannibalize support from the candidate they really want. I just doubt they could sell that to Trump's cult as anything other than a betrayal, and they wouldn't casually risk inviting the wrath (electoral and physical) of his base.

Unless the developing schism among the Republicans is so severe and rapid that 17 of them cross over to convict, I don't think the Democrats particularly benefit from either outcome of the trial. So the play for the Democrats, in my opinion, is for the senate trial to be by-the-books to get all the facts out there. Use procedural shutdowns whenever possible for misbehaving Republicans, and avoid bickering about—and therefore legitimizing—arguments made in bad faith (e.g. the big lie that the election was stolen).

Then, the real trial will be in the public sphere... and that trial is the Democrats' to lose. This is perhaps the most sure footing they'll ever find on the moral high ground, and even their historical weaknesses are negated or mitigated:
  • Seen as unpatriotic? Few things are as clearly patriotic as defending the Capitol.
  • Seen as weak on crime, or not supporting police? So let's throw the book at the people responsible for killing a police officer.
  • Seen as do-nothings that snipe at each other? I doubt we'll have a single Democratic vote to acquit.
  • Seen as disregarding the constitution? As much as we dislike the electoral college, it's a constitutional process and so the Democrats are strictly on the pro-constitution side here.
  • Seen as communists? The economic system isn't really relevant, and the imagery of a violent mob trying to overthrow democracy and install their supreme leader fits a lot of the broader stereotypes of communist nations (even though that's really about authoritarianism).
Basically the only way the Democrats' case could be more bipartisan is if the coup had ended up killing a Christian pastor or a fetus. So this is the time to saturate the media with high-minded rhetoric and righteousness (avoiding being too pretentious, cynical, or smug in their word choices) and brutally villainize the most unredeemable Republicans. That strategy will probably never be this easy, effective, and justifiable again.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:50 AM on February 2, 2021 [44 favorites]


A few thoughts. One, if I were Trump, and thank god I am not(!), I would not even have legal representation at the show trial. I would declare the trial a farce, a show trial, not legal, etc and walk out.

Two, and I preface this with the disclaimer that yes, I do believe in political conspiracies at times, that I think that a deal has been or will be made between Biden and Trump. Trump agrees to shut up for say a year or two and Biden calls off the dogs for the "good of the country". I don't know if Biden is strong enough to withstand the pressure from the left to keep at Trump, but like XMLicious above about Bush II, I think it is in everyone's political interest to call in their chips and let bygones be bygones.

Three, no matter what happens, we are all fooked.
posted by AugustWest at 9:52 AM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


I do believe in political conspiracies at times, that I think that a deal has been or will be made between Biden and Trump.

Biden would have to be a complete fool to think he would honor any such agreement. It would be the first such agreement Trump has honored in his life. This is a guy who stiffs his own lawyers.

When you ask out loud "Is Trump capable of shutting up?" the question answers itself.
posted by benzenedream at 10:10 AM on February 2, 2021 [36 favorites]


Trump agrees to shut up for say a year or two and Biden calls off the dogs for the "good of the country".

You seem to be under the belief that Biden calls the shots for Congress and the Senate. He does not. The Presidency is not a dictatorship or even leadership of the party.
posted by srboisvert at 10:16 AM on February 2, 2021 [25 favorites]


Two, and I preface this with the disclaimer that yes, I do believe in political conspiracies at times, that I think that a deal has been or will be made between Biden and Trump. Trump agrees to shut up for say a year or two and Biden calls off the dogs for the "good of the country". I don't know if Biden is strong enough to withstand the pressure from the left to keep at Trump, but like XMLicious above about Bush II, I think it is in everyone's political interest to call in their chips and let bygones be bygones.

As much as we ascribe parliamentarian motivations to US politics due to the unavoidable entrenchment of party politics, at its heart the country is still a Republic. Biden holds no sway or power over the House or Senate other than his own personal political capital, the connections he's built up over the years. It's like talking to the Chief of Police when the DA is the one who's prosecuting and they couldn't give a flying fuck. Sure it might help but the Chief of Police can't guarantee it goes away any more than a nine year old could.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that nobody has full control over this process. Anyone professing that someone does is either an idiot or a charlatan. There are going to be many actors approaching the "Trump issue" from every different direction, hardly any of them under the direct control of the executive. Biden may tell Garland to tell the DOJ to not go for the throat on Trump's malfeasance but that's about the best he can do with his actual powers. He can't shut down New York going after him with everything they've got. There are too many cogs in motion and what limited political capital Biden does have is worth far more than trying to stop what is possibly inevitable.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:18 AM on February 2, 2021 [2 favorites]


This is a guy who stiffs his own lawyers

Axios vis Daily Beast: Fees — not just strategy — blew up Trump's legal team.

(Regarding the sudden departure of his entire impeachment legal team this past weekend.)
posted by soundguy99 at 10:24 AM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


The one thing missing is what was Trump's plan there in the end. Did he believe that a violent attack on the Capitol would work? Was there some complex plan that he believed would result in him seizing power with that mob? I don't think so. I think he just let the anger grow and grow and egged them on to attack democracy as a fuck you to the whole country. And I hope to see him convicted for it; not just in impeachment, but in an actual criminal trial.

This. The power of the US exists in the people not in the buildings*. OK. They took the capitol. So Congress finds a tennis court in Virginia and counts the votes there. There's literally nothing that can be done for the "correct" line of succession to be established and continued. As long as the military respects that, which I understand was their only priority during all of this insurrectionist bullshit, there was literally nothing that could be stopped. Even if it did stop anything, it would be literally fuck everything, we're in the streets and counter marching on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

* Yes I know it's corny and idealistic but it's technically correct, the best kind of correct
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:26 AM on February 2, 2021 [5 favorites]


Of the planning for the infamous January 6 rally:
For Mr. Trump, the rally was to be the percussion line in the symphony of subversion he was composing from the Oval Office.
An unusually poetic phrasing from the NYT.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


Tea Party organizer Amy Kremer was directly involved. So was the Thomas More Society.

The who society? Oh this is perfect, let's have a history lesson!

Evil May Day (wikipedia)
According to the chronicler Edward Hall (c. 1498–1547), a fortnight before the riot an inflammatory xenophobic speech was made on Easter Tuesday by a Dr Bell at St. Paul's Cross at the instigation of John Lincoln, a broker. Bell called on all "Englishmen to cherish and defend themselves, and to hurt and grieve aliens for the common weal".[6] Over the following two weeks there were sporadic attacks on foreigners and rumors abounded that "on May Day next the city would rebel and slay all aliens".[6]

...

Within a few hours approximately a thousand young male apprentices had congregated in Cheapside. The mob freed several prisoners who were locked up for attacking foreigners and proceeded to St Martin le Grand, a liberty north of St Paul's Cathedral where numerous foreigners lived. Here they were met by the under-sheriff of London, Thomas More, who attempted in vain to persuade them to return to their homes. As soon as More had calmed them, however, the inhabitants of St Martin started to throw stones, bricks, bats and boiling water from their windows, some of which fell on an official who screamed: "Down with them!"
Huh, turns out Thomas More was pro-immigrant and anti-mob violence. In fact he put himself between the xenophobic mob and their intended victims.

Shakespeare wrote of his opinion on refugees in the play titled Thomas More;
Should so much come too short of your great trespass
As but to banish you, whether would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error,
Should give you harbour? go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, any where that not adheres to England,
Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the claimants
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? this is the strangers case;
And this your mountainish inhumanity.
Paraphrasing, if you were exiled, which is less than you deserve, you'd hope to be treated as a refugee better than this. Put yourself in their shoes. Not a very Trumpian sentiment.

I don't know why they chose to call themselves the Thomas More Society. Probably because of his religious
persecution. Probably because they're historically illiterate and that's the only part they know. Regardless, the real Thomas More definitely would not have their back.

I just had to look at their website to see if they had an explanation. Holy shit they are a giant bag of assholes. Fuck those guys.
posted by adept256 at 10:35 AM on February 2, 2021 [27 favorites]


From TFA: “They can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned — I’ve had it with these people. Let’s fight back,” Mr. Graham said. “We lose elections because they cheat us.”

From Fox: Meanwhile, President Biden has been a "huge disappointment" in carrying out his message of unity, said Graham
posted by aspersioncast at 10:51 AM on February 2, 2021 [5 favorites]


.....the vast majority of Republican attorneys general, whose dead-on-arrival Supreme Court lawsuit seeking to discount 20 million votes was secretly drafted by lawyers close to the White House, The Times found.

This is not surprising, but it is good to see it documented.
posted by thelonius at 11:12 AM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


I'm dizzy. Roger Stone, Jeffrey Epstein, Jerry Sandusky and Bill Cosby. That's some fine company you keep.

And somehow, the Qanons are very concerned about pedophilia
posted by thedamnbees at 11:12 AM on February 2, 2021 [37 favorites]


> I don't know why they chose to call themselves the Thomas More Society. Probably because of his religious persecution. Probably because they're historically illiterate and that's the only part they know.

It is possible to be both historically literate and selective in memory.

Most things named after More in the US (such as the Thomas More Law Center, launched by Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan) can be assumed to be organized on behalf of ultra-right Catholics with axes to grind regarding women's autonomy and the separation of church and state.
posted by at by at 11:20 AM on February 2, 2021 [16 favorites]


This is the opportunity to present cogent, digestible information to explain _how we know_ that the election was legitimate and as fair as it could be.

I remember wondering how I could trust the election if it were to turn out differently.
posted by amtho at 11:26 AM on February 2, 2021 [3 favorites]


From TFA: “They can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned — I’ve had it with these people. Let’s fight back,” Mr. Graham said. “We lose elections because they cheat us.”

Graham was well aware of the 2012 post-Romney-defeat post-mortem saying the Republicans could not be the party of angry white men forever, or they'd meet demographic doom. And Graham is presumably aware of the extent that Republicans rely on vote suppression as it is. Graham is simply lying here.
posted by Gelatin at 11:46 AM on February 2, 2021 [6 favorites]


@HeathaT: The Biden White House will check to see if it is technically possible to release visitor logs from Trump administration, Press Secy says.

🍿
posted by tonycpsu at 11:51 AM on February 2, 2021 [19 favorites]


I presume by "technically possible" the questions run from "did Trump have them shredded" to "did they bother to keep any in the first place."
posted by Gelatin at 11:55 AM on February 2, 2021 [18 favorites]


What makes you think they even keep logs? It seems they just let any crazy person waltz in and yammer at the president.
posted by JackFlash at 11:57 AM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


I am assuming they did not keep logs at all.
posted by all about eevee at 11:58 AM on February 2, 2021


I've been close enough in my life to the innards of the United States Government to know that regardless of whether official Visitor Logs (tm) were kept, some number of people in the civil servant class had to keep some kind of records. The sheer number of people involved in getting visitors around facilities demands that. My guess is that Joe Biden himself has a lot of knowledge about who those people might be, and that his team is very interested in scouring any sources of information, be they databases, spread sheets, or scraps of paper.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:05 PM on February 2, 2021 [10 favorites]


The wild meeting story is interesting to me because it's so obviously narrated by Herschmann. It doesn't even feel like there's plausible deniability. It almost reads like a first person account, and they replaced "I" with "Herschmann."

It's not that that's bad exactly, but the fig leaf here is microscopic! Maybe for legal reasons they couldn't attribute it to him or something.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:11 PM on February 2, 2021 [3 favorites]


I mean, I would assume that they wouldn't bother to keep logs just out of laziness. If not that then out of an interest in NOT taking notes about a criminal conspiracy (insert the wire gif here).

But they also sent e-mails about their various crimes so who knows?!
posted by VTX at 12:15 PM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


house managers' impeachment trial brief

better link

maybe this isn't the impeachment thread. just in case.

unpresident's "answer... to article i: incitement of impeachment"
posted by 20 year lurk at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


Maybe for legal reasons they couldn't attribute it to him or something.

Axios would be honoring Herschmann's desire not to be identified.
posted by mmascolino at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


What makes you think they even keep logs? It seems they just let any crazy person waltz in and yammer at the president.

If the secret service/whitehouse staff did not keep logs they should all be immediately fired for being so horrendously derelict in their duties that they cannot be trusted at all going forward. Of note is that they did have to replace Biden's campaign Secret Service detail because of trustability concerns - this may be a deep problem like the far-right/white nationalist infiltration of police forces.
posted by srboisvert at 12:20 PM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


The wild meeting story is interesting to me because it's so obviously narrated by Herschmann. It doesn't even feel like there's plausible deniability. It almost reads like a first person account, and they replaced "I" with "Herschmann."

Oh, the story in which manly man Herschmann shouts down the military man?
Finally Herschmann had enough. "Why the fuck do you keep standing up and screaming at me?" he shot back at Flynn. "If you want to come over here, come over here. If not, sit your ass down." Flynn sat back down.
I do have to admit, I'm taking a lot of pleasure in how miserable they all are in this story.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:24 PM on February 2, 2021 [19 favorites]


I saw him put a note in his mouth. Since Trump was ever the germaphobe, I was shocked he appeared to be chewing and swallowing the paper. It must have been something very, very sensitive.

- Unhinged: An Insider Account of the Trump White House, Omarosa Manigault Newman 2018.

That was regarding notes on a meeting with Cohen. Omarosa might be making shit up, but it's in character. I've also heard that he was astonished that his lawyers were doing something as incriminating as taking notes. He forbid notes to be taken during his meeting with Putin, confiscating them from the interpreters. He made sure his perfect phone call went into super-encryption jail.

I mean, there probably are logs, but any that he knew of are probably ash.
posted by adept256 at 12:30 PM on February 2, 2021 [3 favorites]


For a general understanding of Trump's approach to transparency and required record keeping: Meet the guys who tape Trump's papers back together (2018).

The question of White House visitor logs under Trump goes back to the beginning of the presidency. They announced in April 2017 they would withhold all visitor logs, a shocking and unprecedented form of secrecy for a president to do. The article at the time makes it sound like the logs were still being kept (by the Secret Service) and might be available 5 years after the end of the Trump Presidency.

There were a bunch of lawsuits but the big decision seems to be May 2020 when a federal appeals court upheld that the White House could keep its visitor logs secret. This article doesn't go into detail about whether logs existed at the time or might become available in the future.
posted by Nelson at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


Every time I was in the White House (not too often) or the Old EOB (which is the way into the WH for most people, I think), I physically signed an entry log, so unless they went in the front door, I would expect there would be a log.
posted by MtDewd at 1:20 PM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


The off-the-rails story is insane, and unsurprisingly, IMPOTUSx2 is a weak-willed coward.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:22 PM on February 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


The pillow guy makes an appearance on Newsmax, and it doesn't go well for him.

(Video of Newsmax anchor repeatedly reading a statement about being unable to verify allegations of fraud while Mike Lindell rants about cancel culture in the background)
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 5:09 PM on February 2, 2021 [8 favorites]


Well, really Pillowman was mostly ranting about hacked Dominion machines, which was why the anchor was reading the legal statement - they did bring him on to talk cancel culture and his Twitter ban but he was insisting on talking about all his election fraud “evidence.”. Pillowman did yell about cancel culture there at the end but before that, Newsmax was trying to drown out his election fraud yelling.
posted by angeline at 5:31 PM on February 2, 2021 [4 favorites]


Who could have guessed that "cancel culture" was always really just "don't want to be sued for $1.3B worth of slander culture"?
posted by sainttoad at 6:02 PM on February 2, 2021 [9 favorites]


Also worth pointing out again, the only reason they are reading the legal disclaimer is because Newmax does not have liability immunity from Section 230. Zuckerberg and Dorsey will never police their own platforms as long as they have their unique and unprecedented immunity from giving a shit. It's quite profitable for them.
posted by JackFlash at 6:27 PM on February 2, 2021 [5 favorites]


METAFILTER: taking a lot of pleasure in how miserable they all are in this story
posted by philip-random at 6:36 PM on February 2, 2021 [8 favorites]


Read Trump's defense to the House impeachment article (wapo)

Page one, line five:

To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate

The new legal team off to a great start. They seem to have trouble with that word lately, like how they think unity begins with imp.
posted by adept256 at 11:02 PM on February 2, 2021 [10 favorites]


That's a really weak defense, and it's poorly written, too. I actually felt embarrassed when his lawyer argued that the First Amendment was a defense to charges that Trump provoked a riot. Firstly, no; and secondly, these are not criminal proceedings: the charges relate to Trump's fitness for office, not whether his private speech was criminal.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:10 AM on February 3, 2021 [7 favorites]


This bit is partially quoted upthread from another link into nytimes.com but I wanted to add a bit more of the context and emphasize it.

Mr. Stockton said he was surprised to learn on the day of the rally that it would now include a march from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Before the White House became involved, he said, the plan had been to stay at the Ellipse until the counting of state electoral slates was completed.

I don't think Trump will be convicted in his impeachment trial but I do think that we'll eventually come across texts, e-mails, and other evidence that will reveal the White House planning process.
posted by rdr at 12:44 AM on February 3, 2021 [3 favorites]


I have an (almost) nine-year-old daughter. IMPOTUSx2 has been a real challenge for years in trying to teach right from wrong and the importance of following the rules. He'll be acquitted by the Senate and I'm increasingly pessimistic that the state attorneys general will do anything. (Seriously, what the fuck are they waiting for?) "Rich white dudes get away with everything" is a shitty message to have to deliver to your child.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:56 AM on February 3, 2021 [18 favorites]


"Rich white dudes get away with everything" is a shitty message to have to deliver to your child.
Is there value in voicing something which has been silently the case for hundreds of years?
At least our kids will grow up without the lies we were told.
posted by fullerine at 2:12 AM on February 3, 2021 [13 favorites]


MtDewd: Every time I was in the White House (not too often) or the Old EOB (which is the way into the WH for most people, I think), I physically signed an entry log, so unless they went in the front door, I would expect there would be a log.

[ears perk up] Hast thou a tale to tell, friend?
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:29 AM on February 3, 2021 [1 favorite]


He'll be acquitted by the Senate and I'm increasingly pessimistic that the state attorneys general will do anything.

I’d love to suggest that we not keep assuming that Republicans won’t vote to convict him, and that we push back when we hear others doing so. Even though they’re giving every indication that that’s what will happen. Because every time we send the message that Republican lockstep is normal and expected, it gives them more sanction to do it. After all, if even the opposition expects it, then it must be okay.

What happened on the 6th was NOT normal. It was NOT politics as usual. We should keep insisting that we expect Republicans to do the right thing and help unify the country by sending a firm message that insurrection is completely beyond the pale, that attacking Congress is wrong, that building a gallows and shouting “hang Mike Pence” was wrong, that what we saw in the Capitol is not what Americans stand for. We need to let them know we genuinely expect them to put country over party.

I think a large majority of Americans agree that what that mob did was abhorrent - was viscerally wrong. That’s what we need to keep reiterating- that we actually have unity as a country about this (even the majority of Trumpists agree it was wrong - to the point that they’re still insisting that it was actually antifa who did it). McConnell is more on our side than theirs on this one issue. This is the time to apply pressure to every non-Trumpist Republican (and they do exist, and we only need 17) in office that we genuinely expect better from them. We should be sending emails to Pence’s office demanding he make a statement. This was not the America they believe in. We need to keep pushing the message that we expect Republican leadership to just this once, step up and do what they know is the right thing.

(Not intended as a callout of kirkaracha or anyone else here saying that they’ll acquit, I just keep hearing it and thinking it myself - and I think we need to stop giving it oxygen.)
posted by Mchelly at 7:54 AM on February 3, 2021 [26 favorites]


Mr. Stockton said he was surprised to learn on the day of the rally that it would now include a march from the Ellipse to the Capitol ... I do think that we'll eventually come across texts, e-mails, and other evidence that will reveal the White House planning process.

I don't think there was any secret about the planning. Here is Trump's speech:

And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down-- We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol

"I'll be right there with you" ... right before Trump scurried back into his bunker at the White House to watch it all on TV.
posted by JackFlash at 8:00 AM on February 3, 2021 [6 favorites]


Further to Mchelly's comment above, Steven Calabresi who is a founder of the Federalist Society (and lots of other evil credentials and record) just wrote a piece in the Daily Caller calling for Trump's conviction. This is someone who called the Mueller investigation unconstitutional, so there's definitely a change afoot. I don't think I'd put money on a conviction, but the odds aren't zero either.
posted by bcd at 8:11 AM on February 3, 2021 [12 favorites]


...so there's definitely a change afoot.

In a country (or maybe better said, a political party) ruled by laws, the Trump impeachment should be open and shut. The only real weight, I cynically believe, will be brought by groups like the National Association of Manufacturers (who categorically condemned Trump Jan 6th) and others that, effectively drive government with the power of the purse.

If Trump loses the ability to bring in money by alienating 'the donors' - he's cooked, if he can keep the promise of money coming in, nothing will change.

McConnell's moves in the past week or so suggest 'money's' interest in the R party is waning and if they don't 'act decisively' - not just Susan Collins-esqu statements of concern - 'money''ll re-consider their commitments. And then (!) Graham's prediction from 2015 will come true (! and which would be craaaaazy!)
posted by From Bklyn at 9:13 AM on February 3, 2021 [3 favorites]


The sources of funding that I know of are:

1) Corporations who play both sides but don't like regulations and pay the Rs more
2) grassroots donors
3) dark money from billionaires (e.g. Mercers)
4) dark money from foreign sources (e.g. russia --> NRA --> congress)
5) Murdoch running Fox as a dedicated campaign ad for Republicans

If #1 decreases will the others compensate?
posted by benzenedream at 9:29 AM on February 3, 2021


FOIA Nate just got back his FOIA request from the DHS.

The DHS apparently has ZERO on all plans, memorandum, and emails regarding security planning for the January 6yh, 2020 "Save America" Event on the U.S. National Mall.

Now the question is did they:

a) lie out of their assholes or
b) not have any planning in place whatsoever

Either way does not look good...

Abolish the DHS and ICE btw.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:12 AM on February 3, 2021 [12 favorites]


I believe a majority of Republicans want to convict. That they don't like Trump and want him out of the political sphere forever.

I also believe that what they're saying in public is not what they're discussing among themselves. These same people see this as an opportunity to wring some hard deals out of Democrats in exchange for their votes to convict. They want to put Dems in a position of having to decide whether convicting Trump is more important to them than, say, protecting expansions to the ACA from filibuster.
posted by at by at 10:17 AM on February 3, 2021


They want to put Dems in a position of having to decide whether convicting Trump is more important to them than, say, protecting expansions to the ACA from filibuster.

No promise a Republican makes is worth anything. Which is why the Democrats' lack of fecklessness on the pandemic relief bill is so refreshing -- they have the votes to pass the bill they want, and its provisions are popular among voters of both parties, so they can dare the Republicans to vote against it and hopefully exact a political price when they do.

Trump and his minions, from Lindsay Graham to the Capitol insurrectionists, act the way they do because their agenda is not broadly popular and they have no hope of implementing it in an even remotely fair democratic system.

Their bluster, bullying, and authoritarianism is a sign of weakness, not strength, and it's high time we shamed anyone in the public sphere who is impressed by those tactics as fools, cowards, or fascists.
posted by Gelatin at 10:24 AM on February 3, 2021 [30 favorites]


MtDewd:
[ears perk up] Hast thou a tale to tell, friend?

Not really. I worked for IBM in DC and we had a lot of government accounts. I was in the New EOB a lot, the Old EOB a couple of dozen times, and in the White House only 2 or 3 times, and those were in the basement.
I guess my tale is that I thought that my basement was nicer than the White House basement.
(And I did not have a very nice basement)
posted by MtDewd at 10:48 AM on February 3, 2021 [4 favorites]


I believe a majority of Republicans want to convict.

Um. 45 (90%) of them just voted to dismiss without holding a trial at all. This is not strong evidence that they "really" want is to convict.

I also believe that what they're saying in public is not what they're discussing among themselves.

It . . . doesn't matter, really, what they say in public vs. what they say in private if the simple fact is that a necessarily public vote to convict means that they're in serious danger of being primaried from the right and then losing at their next election.

That's the primary lens by which to view all this, IMO. Will Romney vote to convict? Maybe - he seems to have strong personal approval in Utah even when he's bucked Trump in the past, so he might figure he can tough it out. (And he's not up until 2024 anyway.) Will Ohio's Rob Portman vote to convict? Maybe - he just said he's not running again, so he's got nothing to lose. So on and so forth. Are there enough R's in this position to get enough to vote to convict? I don't think so.

They may well want Trump to be barred from holding office again, they undoubtedly want the MAGAhats to shut up and vote as they're told - but this is the wind they sowed, and it's their whirlwind they're reaping. They're not gonna have some kind of moral or ethical revelation where they're gonna risk their power and authority by bucking the most vocal and committed Republican voters.

They want to put Dems in a position of having to decide whether convicting Trump is more important to them than, say, protecting expansions to the ACA from filibuster.

This seems to me to be a misread of the filibuster situation - right now it's the Dems who actually hold power here. For all that Manchin and Sinema have said they are committed to keeping the filibuster, if they change their minds, it's toast.

Which means in practice that if the R's become too obstreperous, the Dems can force some level of cooperation by threatening to eliminate it. (There has even been some speculation that Manchin's/Sinema's/other conserva-Dems' support for the filibuster is itself a bit of a "say one thing in public but another in private" theater - namely, that when push comes to shove over specific legislation (like, say, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act) and Senate R's block it, then Manchin et. al will "reluctantly" agree to eliminate the filibuster since the R's have "proven" they won't cooperate. So they got political cover for eliminating it even though they support it in principle.)
posted by soundguy99 at 11:16 AM on February 3, 2021 [7 favorites]


Um. 45 (90%) of them just voted to dismiss without holding a trial at all. This is not strong evidence that they "really" want is to convict.

They also talk to each other.

So they mostly knew and probably coordinated who would vote for/against the measure. It's kind of the inverse of the scenario you present about the filibuster. "You five are voting against the motion to dismiss? Cool, then I can vote for it so I don't get primaried by someone nuttier than me."

Definitely not all GOP senators but some of them certainly. If they view it as politically advantageous to convict, just like your hypothesis that Manchin/Sinema will "reluctantly" vote to eliminate the filibuster some GOP senators will "reluctantly" vote to convict. Maybe....we hope.

This seems to me to be a misread of the filibuster situation - right now it's the Dems who actually hold power here.

I think this is only true once an organizing resolution has been passed and I don't believe that's happened yet.

I think the rest of your analysis is dead on. I can easily see two more bills getting passed via reconciliation and then something REALLY popular will get presented and then you'll see the dems nuke the filibuster to get it passed.
posted by VTX at 11:26 AM on February 3, 2021 [1 favorite]


I think this is only true once an organizing resolution has been passed and I don't believe that's happened yet.

It sounds like this actually just finally happened!
posted by jason_steakums at 11:43 AM on February 3, 2021 [13 favorites]


Politico headline: "Biden embraces the left, while McCarthy may purge a member on the right"

So leftists are demanding covid relief for the unemployed and rightists are claiming Jewish space lasers started wildfires in California.

Radicals on both sides.
posted by JackFlash at 12:02 PM on February 3, 2021 [16 favorites]


I think the rest of your analysis is dead on. I can easily see two more bills getting passed via reconciliation and then something REALLY popular will get presented and then you'll see the dems nuke the filibuster to get it passed.

Reconciliation only occurs once a year.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:20 PM on February 3, 2021 [2 favorites]


I think the "two" reconciliation bill reference is referring to last year's budget and this year's budget.
posted by mmascolino at 12:24 PM on February 3, 2021


Sometimes we get so caught up in all this, we forget how insane it all is. And politicians and journalists are humans like the rest of us. It's not so much a conspiracy (within the Democratic Party or the serious media), as it is a normalization of insanity. I remember once reading an article about the beginning of the civil war in Lebanon, where the reporter described her correspondence with a friend in Beirut. Every new letter contained a small insanity, which the friend brushed off with an "apart from that, everything is fine".
Like "we now have to dodge snipers on our way to the beach, but one gets used to that. Apart from that, everything is fine".
It doesn't happen here on the blue, in that sense, this is a space where one can indulge in reality for some time every day. But at the same time, it feels like it is outside of reality, because most of our surroundings don't have that real space in their lives.
Today I felt Stephen Colbert's monologue (from yesterday, but I've been busy) was a relief. He said it all out loud. I know his is a niche show, but it was still a relief.
posted by mumimor at 12:56 PM on February 3, 2021 [5 favorites]


Reconciliation can be used up to three times year, one each on bills pertaining to spending, revenue, and the federal debt limit. In practice it's usually only used once, for a combined spending and revenue bill. I don't know if this bill is crafted such that it only uses one of those opportunities.
posted by Riki tiki at 1:12 PM on February 3, 2021 [5 favorites]


CNN interview with QAnon believer
posted by mumimor at 1:35 PM on February 3, 2021 [1 favorite]


I think the "two" reconciliation bill reference is referring to last year's budget and this year's budget.

Right.

The one per year rule is a little more complicated. First of all, the year refers to the federal fiscal year which begins in October 2020 for fiscal year 2021. So we are almost half way through fiscal year 2021 but since no reconciliation was used so far, the 2021 opportunity is still available.

In 2017 Republicans used two reconciliation bills. The first in July 2017 was for fiscal year 2017. They attempted to repeal Obamacare but failed by one vote in the senate. Then they used another reconciliation bill in November 2017 for fiscal year 2018 to pass their tax cuts.

So Democrats this year could do something similar, passing one reconciliation bill for fiscal 2021 and turn around immediately and do another for fiscal 2022, which starts in October.
posted by JackFlash at 2:13 PM on February 3, 2021 [6 favorites]


Fiscal years are dumb.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:21 PM on February 3, 2021 [3 favorites]


A lot is going to come down not to rules, and not even to the interpretation of the rules, but to the interpretation of the interpretation of the rules by the media (and, by extension, the public) about when the inevitable happens and Democrats are forced to fire the parliamentarian or engage in some creative interpretation of rules that allow for a whole lot of creative interpretation. I've been pleasantly surprised at most of the coverage of Biden's initial frenzy of executive actions, but I'm starting to see more of the media's Tip'n'Ronnie "bipartisanship means giving the GOP 100% of what they want instead of 200%" fetish about the use of reconciliation, so I hope that Schumer, Pelosi, Sanders, Warren, AOC, and friends all have a really strong script they can read from to emphasize how important a big aid package is to the survival of our economy and our people.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:27 PM on February 3, 2021 [3 favorites]


Fiscal years are dumb

In fairness, regular years are also dumb. Fiscal years are at least dumb in ways that serve functional purposes, though I still have horrible flashbacks from writing financial software that had to support quarterly reports and 13-period calendars at the same time.
posted by Riki tiki at 2:37 PM on February 3, 2021 [3 favorites]


> Fiscal years are dumb.

Any arbitrary and uniform division of time is going to get weird at some level. Look up ISO 8601 Week Date and see how rigidly defining a week as starting on Monday can lead to a year having either 52 or 53 weeks, depending.

Fiscal years are also smart, though. Your (if you live in the US) fiscal tax year ordinarily ends on April 15 of the following calendar year. This generously allows you three and a half months to get your papers and finances in order to settle the previous calendar year's tax bill. Having to file final paperwork at the same time the calendar year ended would be cruel and effectively impossible for many businesses and individuals.
posted by at by at 2:54 PM on February 3, 2021 [2 favorites]


Having to file final paperwork at the same time the calendar year ended would be cruel and effectively impossible for many businesses and individuals.

A friend works for a company where management decided that, yes, fiscal years are dumb.. so they made their fiscal year start on January 1st.

The worst of both worlds!
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 7:37 PM on February 3, 2021


Canada has declared the Proud Boys a terrorist organization. That's a proactive way to prevent the spread of fascism. If only the US could follow the example.
posted by dazed_one at 10:12 PM on February 3, 2021 [5 favorites]


The Guardian reports on the votes on Cheney and Greene
Greene has defended herself on Twitter, claiming that Democrats’ efforts to remove her from the House labor and education committee are an attack on her identity as a “White, Woman, Wife, Mother, Christian, Conservative, Business Owner”.

But her appointment to the education committee was particularly problematic after it was revealed that she had wrongly claimed the 2018 deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, was a “false flag” event staged by those opposing lax gun rights. She has also publicly harassed a survivor of that massacre in person.

Greene also serves on the House budget committee.

It is unusual but not unprecedented for party leaders to remove members from their committee assignments. In 2019, McCarthy stripped Steve King, a Republican from Iowa with a long public record of racist remarks, of his committee seats after he gave an interview to the New York Times questioning why white supremacy was offensive. King lost the Republican primary for his seat in 2020.
posted by mumimor at 1:30 AM on February 4, 2021 [1 favorite]


There was a brief film shown at the Ellipse the day of the riot. Here is a great frame-by-frame analysis of the movie.
posted by all about eevee at 7:28 AM on February 4, 2021 [11 favorites]


That film was some weird shit.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:43 AM on February 4, 2021 [1 favorite]


house managers invite disgraced, dissolute, derelict, covid-failing, twice-impeached former president donald j. ohfuckno to testify in connection with his second impeachment trial. (wapo).
"If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021,” Raskin warned in his letter, asking for a response by Friday at 5 p.m.

The House managers do not have independent authority to subpoena Trump if he denies the request.
if all goes well, perhaps we'll have actual evidence from actual investigators submitted, like flopsweat lickspittle senator lindsey graham promised. (msn).
posted by 20 year lurk at 11:01 AM on February 4, 2021 [2 favorites]


^raskin's letter at cnn. (sorry, missed edit)
posted by 20 year lurk at 11:17 AM on February 4, 2021 [3 favorites]


The SAG-AFTRA statement on Trump's resignation from the union following their disciplinary charges against him is worth reading.
posted by merriment at 12:56 PM on February 4, 2021 [10 favorites]


Holy crap that resignation letter. I think someone is missing Twitter.
posted by Mitheral at 12:59 PM on February 4, 2021 [5 favorites]


He misspelled nanny nanny boo boo.
posted by Mchelly at 1:08 PM on February 4, 2021 [2 favorites]


He's not familiar with the work of Gabrielle Carteris?

I'm kind of surprised that Donald Trump didn't watch Beverly Hills 90210.
posted by box at 1:09 PM on February 4, 2021 [2 favorites]


I read that SAG resignation letter and - my God, what an utter petulant child.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:12 PM on February 4, 2021 [4 favorites]


It's not really a letter to SAG, he's playing to the bleachers
posted by mbo at 1:18 PM on February 4, 2021 [1 favorite]


i am unfamiliar with your work. here follow my specific complaints about your work.
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:21 PM on February 4, 2021 [4 favorites]


He signed it as President Donald J. Trump. With a slightly altered presidential seal as the letterhead.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 1:28 PM on February 4, 2021 [7 favorites]


Another voting machine company is suing the pants off everyone:

Smartmatic, which provides voting equipment to Los Angeles County and numerous foreign governments, is seeking $2.7 billion in damages from Fox News, Giuliani, Powell and the Fox News commentators Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo.

The main difference from Dominion's case is that this one names Fox itself.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/fox-news-faces-2-7-billion-defamation-case-for-election-disinfo
posted by Horselover Fat at 1:30 PM on February 4, 2021 [7 favorites]


A quick aside, it's always seemed incredibly appropriate that Trump's signature looks like palpitations on a heart monitor.
posted by Riki tiki at 1:48 PM on February 4, 2021 [9 favorites]


That Smartmatic suit starts with:

"The Earth is round."
posted by soundguy99 at 2:34 PM on February 4, 2021 [17 favorites]


Trump's new logo appears to be a mashup of the great seal of the United States and the presidential seal. The shield is shaped like the one in the presidential seal but the thirteen stars are arranged in a star shape inside a circle, like in the great seal. The E pluribus unum banner is divided by the eagle's head like in the great seal and looks similar to the banner there except for one detail, namely the banner in Trump's logo is broken, presumably by the eagle. It's holding on to the e pluribus half and the unum half is floating away. Is this a way sinister boogaloo declaration of war against the union? Or is it just a photoshop error by the talentless bonehead Trump picked to be his acting graphic designer? That's the thing about Trump! Deliberate affront? Or shocking incompetence? It is impossible to say! I don't know what's going on with the bird. Why is its beak black? Why is its eye black? Why was somebody (Eric?) given a bottle of tequila and told to polish it off and then redraw the neckfeathers?
posted by Don Pepino at 2:51 PM on February 4, 2021 [9 favorites]


Good resource to keep an eye on: "In keeping with our tradition of providing primary source documents to the research community and the public at large, [George Washington University's] The Program on Extremism has launched a project to create a central database of court records related to the events of January 6, 2021. This page will be updated as additional individuals are charged with criminal activities and new records are introduced into the criminal justice system."

Here's their demographic overview of those charged (.pdf).
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:52 PM on February 4, 2021 [9 favorites]


He's not familiar with the work of Gabrielle Carteris?

I'm kind of surprised that Donald Trump didn't watch Beverly Hills 90210.


I don't know how much to read into this, but is it worth noting that Carteris is of Jewish descent and played a Jewish character on 90210? Is he specifically attacking her not just because she is a woman but because she is Jewish? I feel like I've seen a lot more of the anti-Semitic rhetoric popping up here (see the rally/lynch mob/insurrection video and others) (but not from users, from sources). Or maybe it's just a coincidence, and a chance for him to get into the spotlight at any chance he can? Thoughts?

Just from wikipedia I can't tell how she identifies in terms of this. Not making assumptions.
posted by Snowishberlin at 2:55 PM on February 4, 2021 [1 favorite]


1. I defy anyone to find a metric by which The Apprentice could reasonably be called 'one of the most successful shows in television history.'

2. Donald Trump is on a short list of people that are proud of their work in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

3. If those are the six highlights of his acting career, what's the seventh thing on that list? While my sentimental pick is Emin: In Another Life, the right answer is probably either Wrestlemania or 54.
posted by box at 3:10 PM on February 4, 2021 [1 favorite]


proud of their work

I'm kind of surprised he didn't think it was himself in The Art of the Deal who did such a good job. Johnny Depp aside. And is anyone actually proud of the work they did in Home Alone?
posted by Snowishberlin at 3:17 PM on February 4, 2021


Catherine O’Hara doesn’t seem NOT proud of her work in Home Alone.
posted by angeline at 3:51 PM on February 4, 2021 [1 favorite]


> If those are the six highlights of his acting career, what's the seventh thing on that list? While my sentimental pick is Emin: In Another Life, the right answer is probably either Wrestlemania or 54.

Playboy Video Centerfold: Playmate 2000 Bernaola Twins (IMDB). For most people, appearing in softcore porn would destroy a political career, but not this guy.
posted by at by at 4:26 PM on February 4, 2021


Or is it just a photoshop error by the talentless bonehead Trump picked to be his acting graphic designer?

I always go with malicious compliance. Probably not true but keeps me sane.

And is anyone actually proud of the work they did in Home Alone?

Not Home Alone. Home Alone 2.
posted by Mitheral at 6:58 PM on February 4, 2021 [3 favorites]


That Smartmatic suit starts with:

"The Earth is round."


Smartmatic shows its hand. Not content merely to conspire with the late President of Venezuela, it seems they've always been a front for Big Globe.
posted by flabdablet at 1:19 AM on February 5, 2021 [5 favorites]




For most people, appearing in softcore porn would destroy a political career, but not this guy.

He and his spouse were the first president and first lady with softcore porn experience.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:37 AM on February 5, 2021 [2 favorites]


That's accurate because Taft's porn career was strictly hardcore.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:24 AM on February 5, 2021 [3 favorites]


Alexandra Petri: Eternal sunshine of the spotless GOP
Someone is removing a statue somewhere, renaming a building? Heavens, no! We’ve got to preserve everything that happened in history, except the events of a month ago which I already forgot. Except everything I said or did over the past four years. My entire memory is stored in statues; I have no private record; I exist, goldfish-like, solely from one moment to the next, in a state of perpetual astonishment.
posted by mumimor at 10:40 AM on February 5, 2021 [17 favorites]


Kamala Harris cast her first tie-breaking vote in the senate at 5:30 AM this morning to advance Democrat's covid relief plan. And thanks to Stacy Abrams for making it possible by electing two senators in Georgia to make it possible.
posted by JackFlash at 10:58 AM on February 5, 2021 [32 favorites]


Regarding Trump rage quitting SAG-AFTRA: is he allowed to work on union productions in the future? EG: if he wanted to spin up Apprentice 2; Electric Bugaloo would he have to rejoin the union? If yes could the union deny his enrollment?
posted by Mitheral at 12:40 PM on February 5, 2021 [1 favorite]


Non-union members can work on union productions. There's usually just a fee that comes off of the performer's pay.
posted by wabbittwax at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2021


Hilariously*, Kamala Harris has already cast more tiebreaking votes in 2 weeks than Joe Biden did in total. Biden’s the only 2-term VP to never break a tie.

* [citation needed]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2021 [3 favorites]


Not Home Alone. Home Alone 2.
posted by y2karl at 2:00 PM on February 5, 2021 [1 favorite]


Catherine O’Hara doesn’t seem NOT proud of her work in Home Alone.

Not Home Alone. Home Alone 2.
posted by Mitheral at 6:58 PM on February 4 [3 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


Not Home Alone. Home Alone 2.
posted by y2karl at 2:00 PM on February 5 [1 favorite −] Favorite added! [!]


Ok, my bad! Home Alone 2. And I do love Catherine O'Hara. I'm sorry Catherine O'Hara. And anyone else who is proud of their work in the original. But only the original.
posted by Snowishberlin at 2:21 PM on February 5, 2021


I think Catherine O'Hara is generally wonderful and has nothing not to be proud of, whatever she's done.
posted by Grangousier at 2:29 PM on February 5, 2021 [1 favorite]


I think Catherine O'Hara is generally wonderful and has nothing not to be proud of, whatever she's done.
posted by y2karl at 2:43 PM on February 5, 2021 [2 favorites]


I'm not sure where to put this, but this seems the most likely spot: Fox abruptly cancels Trump sycophant Lou Dobbs's show (Rolling Stone)

I can't stop laughing. They say it's got nothing to do with the lawsuit. Sure.
posted by kitten kaboodle at 9:19 PM on February 5, 2021 [7 favorites]


The more we know, the more I wonder if they really thought they could pull this off?
I mean, on the 6th, I was really, really scared the mob would kill members of Congress and spike a second civil war. But I never imagined the Democrats would step down and throw up their hands and give the presidency to Donald Trump. That would be absurd on so many levels.
I was scared that parts of the military and police would support Trump, hence my fear of a civil war, but there were so many clear indications that the DoD would not, that I didn't imagine a full-scale military coup.
Until today, I've generally thought the whole scheme was just a huge, disgusting, cop-killing grift. And that's still my main hypothesis. But the 77 days article and many of the other articles linked in this thread could point to a different understanding.
And noting that Trump is at the very least inspired by Putin's trajectory of power, what was attempted in the US during this election was once possible in Russia.
posted by mumimor at 3:14 AM on February 6, 2021 [1 favorite]


WaPo: Biden says Trump should not receive intelligence briefings
President Biden said Friday that former president Donald Trump should not have access to classified information in the form of the briefings usually given to ex-presidents, citing Trump’s “erratic behavior” and the risk that he might recklessly reveal sensitive information.
Biden stopped short of announcing that he had officially decided to prevent his predecessor from receiving the briefings, which are traditionally given before former presidents travel abroad, particularly in an official capacity. But Biden has the unilateral authority to deny intelligence access to anyone he chooses, and his remarks amounted to a statement that Trump — who for four years controlled the entire U.S. security apparatus — was himself a security risk.
Denying the briefings to a former president would be an unprecedented action, and Biden’s remarks, made during an appearance on “CBS Evening News” with Norah O’Donnell, emphasized the president’s concern, and that of other officials, that Trump poses a risk to national security because of what he might disclose.
posted by mumimor at 3:17 AM on February 6, 2021 [14 favorites]


Moot point, surely? It's not like turnip ever paid attention to what anybody attempting to brief him on anything has ever said ever.
posted by flabdablet at 3:35 AM on February 6, 2021 [1 favorite]


I think it's pretty good that Biden seems willing to stop doing things that were previously done that way because they were always done that way.
#45 did not feel bound to such traditions. It's fitting if he doesn't get to benefit from them now.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:45 AM on February 6, 2021 [9 favorites]


The guy who sat at Pelosi's desk, stole a letter, and left a note with his name on it, as documented by newspapers and media outlets around the world, pleaded not guilty.
posted by box at 7:11 AM on February 6, 2021 [4 favorites]


“I just think that there is no need for him to have the intelligence briefings,” Mr. Biden said. “What value is giving him an intelligence briefing?” Mr. Biden added. “What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?”

Nice shade there, Joe.
posted by JackFlash at 7:59 AM on February 6, 2021 [16 favorites]


Moot point, surely?

He'd pay attention if instructed to by his handlers.
posted by Mitheral at 8:26 AM on February 6, 2021 [4 favorites]


It's not like turnip ever paid attention to what anybody attempting to brief him on anything has ever said ever.

Except this time: "In 2017, he disclosed highly classified information to Russia's foreign minister about an Islamic State operation in what was seen as a breach of trust by many in the US intelligence community." Yahoo News 2/6/2021
posted by Snowishberlin at 8:28 AM on February 6, 2021 [7 favorites]


“I just think that there is no need for him to have the intelligence briefings,” Mr. Biden said. “What value is giving him an intelligence briefing?” Mr. Biden added. “What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?”

Nice shade there, Joe.
I don't think it's shade, I think it's true. There's an important difference there.
posted by mazola at 8:28 AM on February 6, 2021 [7 favorites]


Moot point, surely? It's not like turnip ever paid attention to what anybody attempting to brief him on anything has ever said ever.
If I were Biden, I would be enormously tempted to send him a comprehensive list of utterly fake briefings.
posted by rongorongo at 8:57 AM on February 6, 2021 [15 favorites]


If I were Biden, I would be enormously tempted to send him a comprehensive list of utterly fake briefings.

Just print off the homepage of cnn.com and mail it to him. He won't know the difference.
posted by mikelieman at 3:40 PM on February 6, 2021 [3 favorites]


This NYTimes portrait of Mike Flynn has many interesting details.
I can't help but feel it is a bit sad when someone who has a brilliant career goes off the rails as Flynn has. Not that I feel sorry for him, in spite of his apparent insanity, he is responsible for his own conduct. It's more that we all loose when somebody looses it, and I wonder if it is in any way preventable.
His islamophobia is too me yet another example of how conservatives are generally driven by fear. In his case to the point of self-destruction.

That said, this bit is interesting:
Whether the president was serious about either idea is an open question. But Mr. Flynn shot them down, saying he needed to focus on paying off millions of dollars in legal debts he had amassed fighting off the Russia investigation.

His plan for paying those bills appears to rely on leveraging his public persona into cold, hard cash. There are the T-shirts and other merchandise, which he is selling through a company called Shirt Show USA. The website features shirts emblazoned with #FightLikeAFlynn and camo trucker hats with the emblem “WWG1WGA,” a reference to a popular QAnon motto, “Where we go one, we go all.”

Then there is his new media venture, Digital Soldiers, which will publish reader-submitted stories. Mr. Flynn is building it with UncoverDC, a website that has pushed QAnon and conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic and President Biden.
And of course, as in every cult, they are now realigning the foundational myth:
Among QAnon faithful, who believe that Mr. Trump and others use public statements to send secret signals, Mr. Flynn’s speech is considered something of a foundational text. And now, in naming his new media outlet Digital Soldiers, many believe he is sending them a message to carry on, even though Mr. Trump left office before the predicted apocalyptic showdown with his enemies — know as “the storm” — could come to pass.

As one QAnon devotee noted in an IRC channel, a relatively dated online chat room technology favored by those particularly suspicious of possible surveillance, “If they kill or capture Trump, Flynn can still carry out the mission.”
posted by mumimor at 2:56 AM on February 7, 2021 [4 favorites]


trial memorandum of impeachment defendant filed by counsel feb. 8.
posted by 20 year lurk at 8:55 AM on February 8, 2021


Wow third line in italics admits he is no longer president. Think he reviewed the draft?
posted by Cocodrillo at 9:09 AM on February 8, 2021


That memorandum claims that impeachment was not about justice, and then cites a Hugh Hewitt op-ed? And accuses the House impeachment managers of including details about the rioting of trying to 'further glorify violence'? And says that media reports aren't facts, then goes on to cite The Intercept and Gateway Pundit in footnotes? And refers to Stacey Abrams as a 'rising Democratic darling,' and spells Ayanna Pressley's name wrong twice? And bases a bolded-type allegation on something Alan Dershowitz wrote in an op-ed for The Hill? And refers to a letter from Ilhan Omar as 'crocodile-tear-stained'?
House leadership simply cannot have it both ways. Either the President incited the riots, like the Article claims, or the riots were pre-planned by a small group of criminals who deserve punishment to the fullest extent of the law.
That's... one argument. How do you say '¿por que no los dos?' in Latin?
A future House could impeach former Vice President Biden for his obstruction of justice in setting up the Russia hoax in 2016.
More saying the quiet part loud.
Repeated references to Brandenberg v. Ohio
Comparing your client to a Klan leader, it's a look.
Indeed there had never been violence before and so there was thus no reason to expect that Mr. Trump's statements would lead to any injury to the officers or protesters.
Um, Charlottesville was a thing.

Let's see, then there's some stuff about how Democrats also say things about fighting, with quotes from Pelosi and Pressley that were used once in this thing already. Makes an argument about no due process in the House that Trump's lawyers also used in the first impeachment.

Bruce Castor was Pennsylvania's attorney general. David Schoen has practiced for thirty years. I'm no lawyer, but some of this stuff would've gotten laughed out of my junior-high speech and debate club.
posted by box at 10:41 AM on February 8, 2021 [9 favorites]


How do you say '¿por que no los dos?' in Latin?

Cur non utrumque. Secundum Google Translate.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:47 AM on February 8, 2021 [4 favorites]


Heh. The best people literally screwed up in the first sentence:
During the past four years, Democrat members of the United States House of Representatives have filed at least nine resolutions to impeach Donald J. Trump each containing charges more outlandish than the next.
Emphasis added. I assume they meant to conclude that with "last", because as currently phrased they're saying the current impeachment charges are the least outlandish.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:54 AM on February 8, 2021 [9 favorites]


Repeated references to Brandenberg v. Ohio

The interesting thing (to non-lawer me) is that Brandenburg specifically mentions the person who "falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre." It seems that could backfire, since crying falsely that the election has been stolen is pretty much shouting fire.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:44 PM on February 8, 2021




house impeachment managers' replication of the united states house of representatives to the answer of ...," filed february 8.
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:40 PM on February 8, 2021 [1 favorite]


crying falsely that the election has been stolen is pretty much shouting fire

Good point. Trump's speech was basically the real-world equivalent of the cartoon old lady screaming "Thief, thief! Somebody stop him!" while pointing at Pence, and then the old lady turns out to be Bluto in disguise.
posted by Riki tiki at 2:39 PM on February 8, 2021


trial memorandum of impeachment defendant filed by counsel feb. 8.

I feel sorry for the House Impeachment Managers, seeing this complete piece of shit and knowing that it's enough cover for people who are voting out of fear of what Trump's violent gang of thugs will do to their family, rather than his guilt.
posted by mikelieman at 2:59 PM on February 8, 2021 [3 favorites]


« Older Unsurprisingly, Great Babylon had lots of dirty...   |   Black History Matters Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments