2020 General Election

[kalm]

Color me surprised. And pleasantly. Still don’t expect it to go anywhere but we’ll see.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has asked the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack for transcripts of interviews it is conducting behind closed doors, including some with associates of former President Donald J. Trump, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

The move is further evidence of the wide-ranging nature of the department’s criminal inquiry into the events leading up to the assault on the Capitol and the role played by Mr. Trump and his allies as they sought to keep him in office after his defeat in the 2020 election.

The House committee, which has no power to pursue criminal charges, has interviewed more than 1,000 people so far, and the transcripts could be used by the Justice Department as evidence in potential criminal cases, to pursue new leads or as a baseline for new interviews conducted by federal law enforcement officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/p ... ripts.html

[SDHornet]

[kalm]

Prosecute it. But it’s chump change compared to Kushner’s grift.
Prosecute them all.

[kalm]

Nothing to see here. If not as if she has the ear of a SCOTUS judge or anything. Obviously just a concerned and earnest citizen…

[houndawg]

....peanuts compared to Jarvanka alone, let alone the two homunculi he's trying to pass off as sons.

SD/SG

[houndawg]

Nothing to see here. If not as if she has the ear of a SCOTUS judge or anything. Obviously just a concerned and earnest citizen…

No indication of a pulse for 30 years then suddenly the Clarence awakens......I think its pretty clear that the KGB has compromised a lot more of the Republican party than just the NRA ...

[kalm]

Starts with John Eastman’s claims of attorney client privilege which are ridiculous. It then expands to the Thomas’s, Hannity, and a cast of others. One of the conspirators is now the Sec of State for Arizona.

Among the documents he wants to protect are “[t]wo…hand-written notes from former President Trump about information that he thought might be useful for the anticipated litigation,” as well as documents from state legislators, “a party committeewomen” [sic], and someone who was “coordinating information sessions for state legislators.”

The filing tries to assert that these documents are covered by the attorney-client privilege because Eastman was justified in believing the election was fraudulent, even though reams of evidence have proved it was not. But what it has revealed is that there is written evidence that Trump himself was directly involved in the plotting to overturn the election.

Today, Emma Brown of the Washington Post broke the story that Ginni Thomas, who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was even more deeply involved in the attack on the election than we knew. Ginni Thomas sent emails to two Arizona lawmakers on November 9, 2020, urging them to ignore the legitimately elected presidential electors for Democrat Joe Biden and replace them with “a clean slate.” Using a platform that provided prewritten emails, she urged the lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure,” and “to fight back against fraud.”

One of the people to whom she wrote, Shawnna Bolick, is married to Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. The Bolicks are close to Clarence Thomas, who is godfather to one of the Bolicks’ children. Shawnna Bolick responded to Thomas: “I hope you and Clarence are doing great!” In 2021, Bolick introduced a bill to allow the Arizona legislature to choose its own electors, regardless of the will of the voters. She is now running for secretary of state, where she would oversee the state’s elections

.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... mChC3IZe0M

[SDHornet]

....peanuts compared to Jarvanka alone, let alone the two homunculi he's trying to pass off as sons.

SD/SG

Cool story bro, now do Bidens crackheaded son.

[kalm]

....peanuts compared to Jarvanka alone, let alone the two homunculi he's trying to pass off as sons.

SD/SG

Cool story bro, now do Bidens crackheaded son.

Does Greenwald tweet much about Rudy and Manafort’s efforts in UKR? How about how comparisons between the level grift with the Kushners and Hunter?

[SDHornet]

Cool story bro, now do Bidens crackheaded son.

Does Greenwald tweet much about Rudy and Manafort’s efforts in UKR? How about how comparisons between the level grift with the Kushners and Hunter?

They all grift. Throw them all in the clink. I'm just here to point out that you can't accuse one side for doing it when both sides do it.

[kalm]

Does Greenwald tweet much about Rudy and Manafort’s efforts in UKR? How about how comparisons between the level grift with the Kushners and Hunter?

They all grift. Throw them all in the clink. I'm just here to point out that you can't accuse one side for doing it when both sides do it.

Well you can but then it might come off as sounding hypocritical.

[SDHornet]

They all grift. Throw them all in the clink. I'm just here to point out that you can't accuse one side for doing it when both sides do it.

Well you can but then it might come off as sounding hypocritical.

You don't say.

[houndawg]

Does Greenwald tweet much about Rudy and Manafort’s efforts in UKR? How about how comparisons between the level grift with the Kushners and Hunter?

They all grift. Throw them all in the clink. I'm just here to point out that you can't accuse one side for doing it when both sides do it.

Had me fooled there, didn't realize you were trying to teach us by using a counter-example of what you're pushing.

[SDHornet]

They all grift. Throw them all in the clink. I'm just here to point out that you can't accuse one side for doing it when both sides do it.

Had me fooled there, didn't realize you were trying to teach us by using a counter-example of what you're pushing.

I never recall claiming that Trump and his kids in the WH didn't have a grift angle to it.

[houndawg]

Does Greenwald tweet much about Rudy and Manafort’s efforts in UKR? How about how comparisons between the level grift with the Kushners and Hunter?

They all grift. Throw them all in the clink. I'm just here to point out that you can't accuse one side for doing it when both sides do it.

Glad you clarified that, from the outside it looks like you're just here to suck Russian dick.

[UNI88]

They all grift. Throw them all in the clink. I'm just here to point out that you can't accuse one side for doing it when both sides do it.

Glad you clarified that, from the outside it looks like you're just here to suck Russian dick. Let me know if you want some pointers, I've been sucking Chinese dick for more than a decade.

FYP

[houndawg]

Let me know if you want some pointers, I've been sucking Chinese dick for more than a decade.

Thanks! Good to know that help is available

[kalm]

Doubt he has much of a shot but powerful ad none the less.

[Winterborn]

Doubt he has much of a shot but powerful ad none the less.

He paid good money to have that ad made. I particularly like the use of imaginary and the emotional pull it tries to make, along with the message it tries to evoke. Great usage of most of the more powerful marketing tools to sway peoples thoughts. The juxtaposition that if you are not for him, you are for all the evil things he mentions in his ad. I give him props.

That said, based on his platform, he would fit right in with the rest of the current Democratic party. His odds of being elected are more due to that message than a slick marketing ad. His website is long on rhetoric and short on what he stands for. In short, his website is like that ad. Appeals to the emotional heartstrings, but short on facts.

[kalm]

Doubt he has much of a shot but powerful ad none the less.

He paid good money to have that ad made. I particularly like the use of imaginary and the emotional pull it tries to make, along with the message it tries to evoke. Great usage of most of the more powerful marketing tools to sway peoples thoughts. The juxtaposition that if you are not for him, you are for all the evil things he mentions in his ad. I give him props.

That said, based on his platform, he would fit right in with the rest of the current Democratic party. His odds of being elected are more due to that message than a slick marketing ad. His website is long on rhetoric and short on what he stands for. In short, his website is like that ad. Appeals to the emotional heartstrings, but short on facts.

You went further than I did. I just checked the RCP campaign snapshot.

Yes, clever marketing that appeals to the “why?” can be effective. Almost never effective enough to overcome legalized bribery led incumbency. Oh well.

[Winterborn]

He paid good money to have that ad made. I particularly like the use of imaginary and the emotional pull it tries to make, along with the message it tries to evoke. Great usage of most of the more powerful marketing tools to sway peoples thoughts. The juxtaposition that if you are not for him, you are for all the evil things he mentions in his ad. I give him props.

That said, based on his platform, he would fit right in with the rest of the current Democratic party. His odds of being elected are more due to that message than a slick marketing ad. His website is long on rhetoric and short on what he stands for. In short, his website is like that ad. Appeals to the emotional heartstrings, but short on facts.

You went further than I did. I just checked the RCP campaign snapshot.

Yes, clever marketing that appeals to the “why?” can be effective. Almost never effective enough to overcome legalized bribery led incumbency. Oh well.

I do my best to dig.

It is effective to certain types of people. Which is why a marketing campaign needs a variety of different methods.

And interesting tactic/thought process you use in your last sentence. You allegedly state that the only reason he could lose is due to bribery. While that may be true or a part of the issue, there is also a multitude of other reasons/factors he can lose by. The main one is his platform and where he is running.

Not everything is due to corruption. Sometimes people lose because their beliefs do not fit their constituents.

[kalm]

You went further than I did. I just checked the RCP campaign snapshot.

Yes, clever marketing that appeals to the “why?” can be effective. Almost never effective enough to overcome legalized bribery led incumbency. Oh well.

I do my best to dig.

It is effective to certain types of people. Which is why a marketing campaign needs a variety of different methods.

And interesting tactic/thought process you use in your last sentence. You allegedly state that the only reason he could lose is due to bribery. While that may be true or a part of the issue, there is also a multitude of other reasons/factors he can lose by. The main one is his platform and where he is running.

Not everything is due to corruption. Sometimes people lose because their beliefs do not fit their constituents.

90% incumbency rate and dark money disagree. So do political outcomes versus polling. It’s a broken and corrupt system. Political theater and money decide elections rather than ideas.

Paul is one example among many.

[Winterborn]

I do my best to dig.

It is effective to certain types of people. Which is why a marketing campaign needs a variety of different methods.

And interesting tactic/thought process you use in your last sentence. You allegedly state that the only reason he could lose is due to bribery. While that may be true or a part of the issue, there is also a multitude of other reasons/factors he can lose by. The main one is his platform and where he is running.

Not everything is due to corruption. Sometimes people lose because their beliefs do not fit their constituents.

90% incumbency rate and dark money disagree. So do political outcomes versus polling. It’s a broken and corrupt system. Political theater and money decide elections rather than ideas.

Paul is one example among many.

90% incumbency also has to do with apathetic voters. To quote a person that I respect, it is a complex system in which many things interact and affect the outcome.

[kalm]

90% incumbency rate and dark money disagree. So do political outcomes versus polling. It’s a broken and corrupt system. Political theater and money decide elections rather than ideas.

Paul is one example among many.

90% incumbency also has to do with apathetic voters. To quote a person that I respect, it is a complex system in which many things interact and affect the outcome.

This is VERY true.

[kalm]

Turns out, literally admitting in a book and on TV and podcasts that you planned an insurrection might actually land you in hot water.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/03/former- ... &fs=e&s=cl