USA Politics (redux)

[drogulus]

     Gates is spewing his anti-virus propaganda on CNN. He looks very chipper.

[T. D.]

     Trumpists Believe Bill Gates Is Using Coronavirus to Implant Brain Chips

     First, where can I get one? Second, I didn't find it in a failing op-ed, so does this mean it's true?

That story's been around forever (4/16 dateline on linked story). Haven't checked lately, but months ago polls indicated that a large percentage of Repugs believe the theory.

[Karl Henning]

Well, they'll believe anything.

[drogulus]

     The 10 most important things I've learned about trust over my 100 years
     
     Happy 100th birthday to George P. Schultz.

     

[drogulus]

     Trump Flies Over Stop The Steal Rally Where Supporters Chant 'Destroy The GOP!'

     "Hurry, My Children, Hurry"

     

[Karl Henning]

Historic D.C. Black churches attacked during pro-Trump rallies Saturday

By Allison Klein
Dec. 13, 2020 at 12:49 p.m. EST

A Black Lives Matter banner and sign were torn from historic Black churches in downtown D.C. and destroyed during pro-Trump protests Saturday night.

In one of the incidents, a series of videos posted on Twitter shows a group of people identified as Proud Boys marching with a Black Lives Matter banner held above their heads, then cheering as it is set on fire while chanting "f--- antifa."

The banner was taken from Asbury United Methodist Church, one of the oldest Black churches in the city. Ashbury United has stood at the corner of 11th and K streets NW since 1836.

"Last night demonstrators who were part of the MAGA gatherings tore down our Black Lives Matter sign and literally burned it in the street," senior pastor Rev. Ianther M. Mills said in a statement. "It pained me especially to see our name, Asbury, in flames. For me it was reminiscent of cross burnings."

Another video, posted by @BGOnTheScene, shows a Black Lives Matter sign being torn down from in front of Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church at 15th and M Streets NW.

D.C. police on Sunday morning declined to say whether any arrests were made in the cases, but said they are investigating them as possible hate crimes.

"We take these offenses seriously and we are currently investigating them as a possible hate crimes," police spokeswoman Alaina Gertz said.

Nearly three dozen people were arrested during the protests and overnight, including 10 who police said were charged with misdemeanor assaults, six with assaulting police officers and four with rioting.

The protesters were in the District on Saturday to demonstrate their refusal to accept the results of the presidential election, two days before the electoral college will make President Trump's loss official.

Mills' statement, which was sent Sunday morning, emphasized the history of her church.

"We are a resilient people who have trusted in God through slavery and the Underground Railroad, Jim Crow and the civil rights movement, and now as we face an apparent rise in white supremacy," it said.

The videos of the banner burning shows someone squirting what appears to be an accelerant on the sign as flames consume it. One video was tweeted by a Daily Caller reporter, and it is stamped with the logo of the right-wing media website.

The tweet says the people burning the banner are Proud Boys. "The Proud Boys and Trump supporters burn the BLM banner while chanting and cheering in downtown DC."

D.C. Council member-elect Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) tweeted the video, saying it showed "there are two justice systems in this country."

"Tonight, violent white supremacist stole and burned a Black Lives Matter banner from Asbury United Methodist, the oldest Black Methodist church in DC," she tweeted. "But yet no militarized police force used against them. There are two justice systems in this country, separate and unequal."

Mills statement pointed out that the Proud Boys, a male-chauvinist organization with ties to white nationalism, have not been denounced by the top levels of government. In fact, the group received recognition from Trump himself at a presidential debate in September, when he told them to "stand back and stand by."

"Sadly, we must point out that if this was a marauding group of men of color going through the city, and destroying property, they would have been followed and arrested," Mills' said in her statement. "We are especially alarmed that this violence is not being denounced at the highest levels of our nation and instead the leaders of this movement are being invited to the White House."

But Mills also struck an optimistic tone to fight hate.

"We are a people of faith. As horrible and disturbing as this is for us now — it doesn't compare with the challenges and fears the men and women who started Asbury, 184 years ago, faced. So, we will move forward, undaunted in our assurance that Black Lives Matter and we are obligated to continue to shout that truth without ceasing. We are assured that our church is surrounded by God's grace and mercy."

[Karl Henning]

No, It's Not Over Yet

[Karl Henning]

No, It's Not Over Yet

The Wall of Shame still stands. It's worth keeping in mind that 126 Republican members of the House endorsed the absurd lawsuit that was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Let me repeat that: Nearly two-thirds of the House GOP members endorsed the legal clown coup that would have disenfranchised tens of millions of American voters.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

The electors are voting today (if you haven't already heard  ).  You can watch it on CSPAN starting at 10 a.m. EST.  I turned the channel on this morning and listened to a fascinating discussion with Jeffrey Rosen [(who is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center (located in Philly)].  A news anchor was asking him questions about constitutional law and viewers were also encouraged to call in with their questions including what could happen on January 6 and the chances of the popular vote being overturned.

Would be a wonderful place to visit!

https://constitutioncenter.org/about

PD

[milk]

Perfect and predictable examples of left wing principle.

Well I've met people who actually stick to the principle, which is crazier than hypocrisy, if not worse. They actually believe that "believe all women" is reasonable. To me, "believe all x," where "x" is anything you like, is a nonstarter. I got involved in a three way argument where a dude tried to "be an ally" to a zoomer feminist by mansplaining that it really means "taking claims more seriously." Boy did she let him have it. No, it literally means believe ALL women.
Crazy kids!

[Karl Henning]

Russian government hackers are behind a broad espionage campaign that has compromised U.S. agencies, including Treasury and Commerce

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Russian government hackers are behind a broad espionage campaign that has compromised U.S. agencies, including Treasury and Commerce

I saw an article on the BBC's news about 'malicious actors' but haven't read it yet.

A bit further news re the casting of votes today (from the NY Post):

"Will it be broadcast and live-streamed?

A number of news outlets, including CNN, CNN.com and C-Span will carry the votes. Many states will also have livestreams, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, where the results were contested in the courts"

PD

[drogulus]

I saw an article on the BBC's news about 'malicious actors' but haven't read it yet.

A bit further news re the casting of votes today (from the NY Post):

"Will it be broadcast and live-streamed?

A number of news outlets, including CNN, CNN.com and C-Span will carry the votes. Many states will also have livestreams, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, where the results were contested in the courts"

PD

     I watched a little bit of the coverage on CNN. I'll dip back in later.

Well I've met people who actually stick to the principle, which is crazier than hypocrisy, if not worse. They actually believe that "believe all women" is reasonable. To me, "believe all x," where "x" is anything you like, is a nonstarter. I got involved in a three way argument where a dude tried to "be an ally" to a zoomer feminist by mansplaining that it really means "taking claims more seriously." Boy did she let him have it. No, it literally means believe ALL women.
Crazy kids!

     Did she have a good argument? I don't think there is one. My take is that what's at stake is the pervasive disbelief in credible sexual assault claims by women.

[drogulus]

     Trump raises China concerns as reason to veto defense bill

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Trump's declaration that China is the biggest winner in the defense bill is false. Reed also noted the shifting explanations Trump has given for the veto threats.

"President Trump clearly hasn't read the bill, nor does he understand what's in it," Reed said. "There are several bipartisan provisions in here that get tougher on China than the Trump Administration has ever been."

     What is this guy talking about? Trump has read the bill, or had someone read it to him, and he understands the part of it that affects him just fine.

     Congress bans anonymous shell companies after long campaign by anti-corruption groups

A groundbreaking measure to ban anonymous shell companies in the United States cleared Congress on Friday as the Senate joined the House in passing a defense-spending bill with a veto-proof margin.

The Corporate Transparency Act, which was tacked onto the defense bill, would require corporations and limited liability companies established in the United States to disclose their real owners to the Treasury Department, making it harder for criminals to anonymously launder money or evade taxes. The rule applies to future and existing entities alike.

Tolerance of anonymous shell companies has long helped drug- and human- traffickers, organized crime groups and foreign kleptocrats launder their ill-gotten gains through the U.S. financial system, supporters of the legislation say. It took Michael Cohen, President Trump's former lawyer, only a few days to set up and use an anonymous Delaware LLC to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels, in violation of campaign finance laws.

     

[Karl Henning]

Nobody is sure he can read.

[71 dB]

Nobody is sure he can read.

Maybe he can, but is he willing to read?

[MusicTurner]

Concerning the attention angle of the next 2-4 years, etc. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/14/trump-2024-possible-run-444460

[T. D.]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-14/wisconsin-supreme-court-rejects-trump-bid-to-invalidate-votes

It was only a 4-3 decision, though, and there were dissenting opinions!

Wisconsin's highest court rejected President Donald Trump's lawsuit seeking to throw out thousands of mail-in and absentee ballots in two big Democratic-leaning counties over alleged irregularities, ruling that he and his campaign waited too long to sue.

Trump, along with Vice President Mike Pence, should have brought their claims much sooner instead of waiting weeks after the Nov. 3 election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said in a 4-3 decision Monday.

[JBS]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-14/wisconsin-supreme-court-rejects-trump-bid-to-invalidate-votes

It was only a 4-3 decision, though, and there were dissenting opinions!

Wisconsin's highest court rejected President Donald Trump's lawsuit seeking to throw out thousands of mail-in and absentee ballots in two big Democratic-leaning counties over alleged irregularities, ruling that he and his campaign waited too long to sue.

Trump, along with Vice President Mike Pence, should have brought their claims much sooner instead of waiting weeks after the Nov. 3 election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said in a 4-3 decision Monday.

Lawsplain
The suit was dismissed on the grounds of laches (basically, the idea that if you wait too long to sue, you've given up the right to sue) because these claims could have been litigated months ago. Apparently the three dissenters disagreed with that, and thought some absentee ballots should not have been counted, but not enough to alter the result.

So even they wouldn't have given Wisconsin's votes to Trump. Which it was too late to do anyway.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Lawsplain
The suit was dismissed on the grounds of laches (basically, the idea that if you wait too long to sue, you've given up the right to sue) because these claims could have been litigated months ago. Apparently the three dissenters disagreed with that, and thought some absentee ballots should not have been counted, but not enough to alter the result.

So even they wouldn't have given Wisconsin's votes to Trump. Which it was too late to do anyway.

JBS,

I'm curious as to what you think about these two judges' comments (in bold):

Wisconsin Supreme Court Tosses Trump Bid to Invalidate Votes
By Erik Larson
December 14, 2020, 12:23 PM EST Updated on December 14, 2020, 2:12 PM EST

Wisconsin's highest court rejected President Donald Trump's lawsuit seeking to throw out thousands of mail-in and absentee ballots in two big Democratic-leaning counties over alleged irregularities, ruling that he and his campaign waited too long to sue.

Trump, along with Vice President Mike Pence, should have brought their claims much sooner instead of waiting weeks after the Nov. 3 election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said in a 4-3 decision Monday.

"The campaign's delay in raising these issues was unreasonable in the extreme" and it was seeking a remedy that would be unfair to election officials, other candidates and voters of the affected counties, the majority said.

The state's high court compared the timing to waiting until after the last play of the last game to start "challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began." The court had rejected the case once before, ruling Trump needed to start the case first before a trial judge, which the president then did.

The ruling comes as President-elect Joe Biden's victory is close to being affirmed by the Electoral College, which votes Monday.

Other lawsuits by the campaign have failed in battleground states across the country, as have several cases brought by GOP allies and a former campaign lawyer who alleged a vast Democratic conspiracy. The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected a Hail Mary suit brought by Texas to flip the election to Trump.

In the Wisconsin ruling, a dissenting judge, Patience Roggensack, blasted the majority for cutting the case short when "a significant portion of the public does not believe" the election was conducted fairly. Roggensack pointed to evidence that a decision by Milwaukee's canvassing board to fix defective witness addresses on some ballots was based on "erroneous advice" that could lead to similar problems being "repeated again and again."

"Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast," Roggensack said. "The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it."

Justice Annette Ziegler, in a separate dissent, said the majority was playing a game of "gotcha" by claiming Trump and Pence had waited too long.

"The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier," Ziegler wrote. "That has never been the law, and it should not be today."

In the first-mentioned one, do you think that the case should have been heard?  Perhaps so that the people who don't believe that the election was fair would get to see how hard everyone fought to have a fair election (and overall succeeded there)?  And perhaps what problems can occur when their is miscommunication and misunderstanding by even the best-intentioned of poll workers?  And possibly bringing to light problems that could be then addressed in the future?

Just curious here.... 

PD