Where are the Dems demanding that any SCOTUS justice appointed by Trump recuse themselves for any election based case?
Dammit. They really don't know how to fight.
what good would such a promise do? When the time comes the justice would simply renege on that promise to recuse. Do you really expect Republicans to honor a promise?
Where are the Dems demanding that any SCOTUS justice appointed by Trump recuse themselves for any election based case?
Dammit. They really don't know how to fight.
They could demand but what could they threaten? Not to approve the pick which they won't do anyway. I'd ask if there was precedence but even if there was, they would just throw it out the window.
As for Dems fighting, I keep going over in my mind ways to effectively boycott. The blue states often have the consumers, there must be a way to organize targeted boycotts.
Once I floated the idea of pressuring Kentucky to vote out McConnell. I couldn't come up with anything more elaborate than lobbying liquor stores, bars and restaurants in NYC and beyond to boycott Kentucky bourbons. I'm sure others with a grasp of the tax and job benefits of particular companies in certain states could refine a very old tactic.
It's used in grass roots politics. Many years ago animal rights groups such as those that I belonged to would pick a company, Revlon was one, and send letters endlessly about animal testing, and gather signatures. Were they the only ones testing, no. At that time everybody was, but they were huge and public and after years of standing on the street outside of Bloomingdales, spreading the words with graphic pictures, Revlon announced they would no longer test and then over the years their competitors started to give in. And now congress has set goals and limitations to testing.
Crazy little example but even Martin Luther King used boycotts.
You guys don't get it. Regarding demanding recusals - you don't get anywhere until you vocalize it first. There's no harm in demanding recusals right now - not just for whoever is the nominee, but for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh too.
Instead we have clowns like Cory Booker saying this. AYFKM?
Sen. Booker on Justice Ginsburg replacement: “I think Democrats are gonna continue to appeal to the sense of honor that when someone gives their word, as Lindsey Graham did, that they can’t just break it.”https://t.co/UVX4WBpeeB
You guys don't get it. Regarding demanding recusals - you don't get anywhere until you vocalize it first. There's no harm in demanding recusals right now - not just for whoever is the nominee, but for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh too.
Instead we have clowns like Cory Booker saying this. AYFKM?
to be fair, isn't what you're demanding is that the nominee commits to a sense of decency? how is what Booker is suggesting is different from what you are?
You guys don't get it. Regarding demanding recusals - you don't get anywhere until you vocalize it first. There's no harm in demanding recusals right now - not just for whoever is the nominee, but for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh too.
Instead we have clowns like Cory Booker saying this. AYFKM?
to be fair, isn't what you're demanding is that the nominee commits to a sense of decency? how is what Booker is suggesting is different from what you are?
so, what, are you saying the Dems shouldn't even bother?
You guys don't get it. Regarding demanding recusals - you don't get anywhere until you vocalize it first. There's no harm in demanding recusals right now - not just for whoever is the nominee, but for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh too.
Instead we have clowns like Cory Booker saying this. AYFKM?
to be fair, isn't what you're demanding is that the nominee commits to a sense of decency? how is what Booker is suggesting is different from what you are?
so, what, are you saying the Dems shouldn't even bother?
no. I'm saying you shouldn't be slamming Booker for asking for the same thing you are.
Justice Dept. statement on mail-in ballot investigation appalls election law experts
A voter cast her mail-in ballot at in a drop box in Pennsylvania. (Matt Rourke/AP)By Devlin BarrettSeptember 24, 2020 at 7:15 p.m. EDTAdd to list
The Justice Department alarmed voting-law experts Thursday by announcing an investigation into nine discarded ballots found in northeastern Pennsylvania, a case immediately seized upon by the Trump campaign as evidence of a dark Democratic conspiracy to tamper with the presidential election.
President Trump also appeared to cite the case, telling reporters at the White House that ballots had been found “in a wastepaper basket in some location. . . . We want to make sure that the election is honest, and I’m not sure that it can be.”
The president’s comments marked his latest attempt to stoke uncertainty and alarm about the legitimacy of the upcoming election.
Trump appeared to be referring to a statement issued by David J. Freed, the U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, saying that he was overseeing an investigation into nine discarded military mail-in ballots in Wilkes-Barre area.
Freed said the Luzerne County district attorney requested an FBI investigation into reports of problems with a small number of mail-in ballots.
“At this point we can confirm that a small number of military ballots were discarded. . . . Of the nine ballots that were discarded and then recovered, 7 were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump. Two of the discarded ballots had been resealed inside their appropriate envelopes by Luzerne elections staff prior to recovery by the FBI and the contents of those 2 ballots are unknown.”
When Freed first announced the case, he had said that all nine were cast for Trump. He said agents are still investigating the circumstances.
Before the U.S. attorney’s statement, White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that there would be an announcement about the case. “I can confirm for you that Trump ballots, ballots for the president, were found in Pennsylvania and I believe you should be getting more information on that shortly,” she said.
A statement issued by the local district attorney earlier in the week expressed confidence that the investigation would be “successfully resolved so it will not have an impact on the integrity of the election process,” a degree of assurance absent from the U.S. attorney’s announcement.
A spokesperson for Freed did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Election law experts were stunned at the nature of the Justice Department statement.
“It’s wildly improper, and it’s truly unconscionable,” said Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department official who is now a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Levitt said that the investigation itself is worthwhile but that it was a baldly political move to announce the probe with partial facts — which officials then had to scramble to correct — while describing which candidate was selected on the ballots.
“That is the tell, and it says this was not an act of law enforcement, this was a campaign act, and it should mean the end of the career of whoever approved the statement,” said Levitt.
Richard L. Hasen, an election law professor at University of California at Irvine, said he could not recall ever seeing such an announcement.
“The Justice Department should not be a political tool, and this is a story that is going to be manipulated by the president to say his votes are being thrown out,” Hasen said.
Soon after the U.S. attorney’s statement was issued, the Trump campaign cited the case as evidence “Democrats are trying to steal the election.”
Earlier in the day, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray tried to reassure a Senate committee that although there are occasional instances of small-scale, local ballot fraud, the United States has not experienced an instance of widespread voter fraud by mail.
“We have not seen historically any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise” Wray said, though he added that fraud has been detected “at the local level from time to time.”
Changing the outcome of a federal election “would be a major challenge for an adversary,” he said, adding that the FBI “would investigate seriously” if it saw indications of such an effort.
Senator Booker is not being a clown. Everyone can't go for the Jim Jordan nasty threatening name calling interrupting style of politics. I'm sure that works for some constituents but I like Cory Booker's style and approach.
It's one of the things that contrasts Biden with Trump. Sometimes being soft spoken and courteous works. It gets my vote.
A call for decency makes the Dems look reasonable and the GOP look like brutes.
It's part of the reason that many women are turned off by Trump, Jordan, and a host of others. If a message is delivered in a calm, well mannered way, I'll listen, whether it is from a D or an R. There are a host of Republicans that I am willing to listen to.
I've often wished we had Town Halls without the politicians. Just people arguing the issue in a reasonable way and coming to a compromise. I know that word has become a sign of surrender but I can't expect someone from another world to completely buy my point of view. But I might move them on a few issues and make some good changes.
You guys don't get it. Regarding demanding recusals - you don't get anywhere until you vocalize it first. There's no harm in demanding recusals right now - not just for whoever is the nominee, but for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh too.
Instead we have clowns like Cory Booker saying this. AYFKM?
to be fair, isn't what you're demanding is that the nominee commits to a sense of decency? how is what Booker is suggesting is different from what you are?
so, what, are you saying the Dems shouldn't even bother?
no. I'm saying you shouldn't be slamming Booker for asking for the same thing you are.
he's not asking for the same thing. Requesting that 3 justices recuse themselves is nothing like relying on the good graces of Lindsay Graham to be honorable. The justices will either say yes or no - but they won't do either unless they're forced to.
Hell, if they say no, that might even be grounds for impeachment next year. (I know. Never happen.)
I just want to see some fight from the Dems. Cory is not fighting - worse than that, his statement was embarrassing at this stage of the game.
I think he merely sets up Republicans to be further embarrassed. No matter what, Trump will get his pick on the bench and no matter what I think Dems will take both houses. We can keep our powder dry for now and impeach (abort?) the new justice in February 2021.
I think he merely sets up Republicans to be further embarrassed. No matter what, Trump will get his pick on the bench and no matter what I think Dems will take both houses. We can keep our powder dry for now and impeach (abort?) the new justice in February 2021.
I heard in passing on Chris Cuomo's show that the PA ballots I posted about earlier were actually primary ballots, which makes the DOJ action even worse.
if you’re wondering where Senate Democrats are on the question of exercising power: in Michael Bennet’s big fiery floor speech against McConnell tonight, he not only didn’t threaten any court or procedural reforms, he begged forgiveness for the caucus’s previous norm-breaking pic.twitter.com/t1ZXKC3tP3
I heard in passing on Chris Cuomo's show that the PA ballots I posted about earlier were actually primary ballots, which makes the DOJ action even worse.
That would be a lot less "controversial", since Pennsylvania has a deadline for receiving mail-in ballots at county election offices. If they were primary ballots that arrived late, there's no story.
By the way, all this last minute stuff Trump is doing (healthcare executive orders, undermining belief in fair election, prematurely announcing vaccine, etc.) is stuff you would do if you think you are going to lose the election. He is afraid, and he is also weak. We need to end this nightmare in November and send him home in a landslide. But we can only succeed if we also take the Senate, and that will not be easy, and is going to be super close either way.
EXCLUSIVE: Channel 4 News investigation reveals a huge Trump campaign data leak, exposing how 3.5 million Black Americans were listed as ‘Deterrence’ - to try to stop them voting in 2016.#DeterringDemocracypic.twitter.com/wkxKfbynu6
I never could figure out why Trump was always behaving so strange towards Putin. I figured Putin had compromising materials on him. But it finally dawned on me: he needs $400 million in cash to pay off his debts in the next few years, and he wants Putin to be his sugar daddy, so he is just looking for any favor he can do him. It is all so obvious now.
"But while the official poll watchers are being schooled in legal procedures, Mr. Trump and some of his closest surrogates, including his longtime confidant Roger J. Stone Jr. and his son Donald Trump Jr., have recently floated conspiracy theories that also sound like calls to arms.
During a recent appearance on “The Alex Jones Show,” a far-right radio program that peddles conspiracy theories, Mr. Stone said that ballots in Nevada should be seized by federal marshals, claiming that “they are already corrupted” and that Mr. Trump should consider nationalizing the state police. Mr. Stone, a felon whose sentence was commuted this year by the president, has ties to the Proud Boys.
In a video imploring Trump supporters to join a poll-watching brigade called “Army for Trump,” Donald Trump Jr. made similarly evidence-free claims of fraud.
“The radical left are laying the groundwork to steal this election from my father, President Donald Trump,” the younger Mr. Trump says on the video, posted on Twitter."
I clicked on it and tried to sign up, but it goes to a website where you can sign up for pretty normal activities, like get out the vote, bundle donations, etc. Nothing sinister. Nothing especially powerful either. I went to sign up as a "Digital Activist" and it just shows you a web page on how to sign up for Facebook and then it tells you to "like Trumps FB page and send many messages to friends saying Trump is great". They didn't even ask me for my email.
I am also super curious about Biden (and Democrat) fundraising numbers for September. We already know McConnell's SCOTUS decision gave it a big boost, but I also suspect the first debate triggered donations, because we have all seen clear and present danger to our country now on live national TV.
I am also super curious about Biden (and Democrat) fundraising numbers for September. We already know McConnell's SCOTUS decision gave it a big boost, but I also suspect the first debate triggered donations, because we have all seen clear and present danger to our country now on live national TV.
"Joe Biden's campaign hauled in nearly $10 million during the first presidential debate Tuesday night — smashing its own single-hour fundraising record, as small-dollar donors continue to fuel the former vice president's mounting money advantage.
Biden's campaign raised $3.8 million during the 10 to 11 p.m. hour Tuesday night, as Biden and President Donald Trump clashed in a insult-laden debate. From 9 p.m. to midnight, the Biden campaign brought in nearly $10 million from 215,000 donors, including more than 60,000 new contributors to the campaign, according to a Biden campaign official. Nearly 100,000 signed up to volunteer for the Biden campaign during the debate, as well."
btw - Trump is in NJ today for a fundraiser in Bedminster. I was turning onto Columbia Tpk. from Park Ave in Florham Park and saw his helicopter taking off from Morristown airport. Big whoop.
what good would such a promise do? When the time comes the justice would simply renege on that promise to recuse. Do you really expect Republicans to honor a promise?