U.S. Electile Dementia paralytica 2020

[Dr Sardonicus]

Trump aide banned from Justice after trying to get case info

WASHINGTON (AP) — The official serving as President Donald Trump's eyes and ears at the Justice Department has been banned from the building after trying to pressure staffers to give up sensitive information about election fraud and other matters she could relay to the White House, three people familiar with the matter tell The Associated Press.

Heidi Stirrup, an ally of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, was quietly installed at the Justice Department as a White House liaison a few months ago. She was told within the last two weeks to vacate the building after top Justice officials learned of her efforts to collect insider information about ongoing cases and the department's work on election fraud, the people said.
<snip>
Stirrup had also extended job offers to political allies for positions at some of the highest levels of the Justice Department without consulting any senior department officials or the White House counsel's office and also attempted to interfere in the hiring process for career staffers, a violation of the government's human resources policies, one of the people said.

The Justice Department declined to comment. Attempts to reach Stirrup for comment were not immediately successful.

On Thursday, Trump appointed Stirrup to be a member of the board of visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy, according to a White House press release.
<snip>

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

This woman is just crazy, yet many Trump followers believe that much of what she says is factual.

Of course they do. A lot of them are also drinking the Kool-Aid of QAnon, "Hillary Clinton eats dead babies," "vaccinations cause autism," "The Covid pandemic is a hoax," etc etc etc.

I also note the following, concerning a college dean (who later quit). You'd think someone in a position like that would know better...

Facebook post by Virginia Wesleyan dean asks Biden voters to 'unfriend' him, causes an uproar at university

A private Facebook post by a Virginia Wesleyan University dean has gone public, creating a firestorm at the university.

It wasn't so much that Paul Ewell asked all Biden voters to "unfriend" him. After such an emotional election, people on both sides have done plenty of that.

But Ewell, a business professor and dean of the university's Global Campus, called anyone who voted for Biden "ignorant, anti-American and anti-Christian" and accused them of corrupting not only the election but "our youth … our country."

EDIT: Also this:

How a WXYZ wagon sparked false election fraud claims in Detroit

One of the biggest challenges of this election is fighting the spread of misinformation — and it even hit us close to home.

A viral video shows a man wheeling a wagon into the TCF Center in Detroit. The woman recording insinuated there may be a ballot box in the wagon, long after absentee ballots should have arrived. But that man was a WXYZ-TV videographer just doing his job. He was wheeling in equipment to our crew stationed there for coverage.

Related: Video falsely claims possible voter fraud in Detroit. It actually shows a WXYZ photographer loading camera gear.

A conservative "news" site reports catching a man wheeling in "suspicious" equipment to the Detroit convention center, implying it was used to steal ballots.

The "ballot thief" was my photographer. He was bringing down equipment for our 12-hour shift. https://t.co/4UsRdOncZ3

— Ross Jones (@rossjonesWXYZ) November 5, 2020

The video appeared on the website Texas Scorecard, which describes itself as "Relentlessly pro-citizen, unabashedly pro-liberty."

The website said the video was taken by Kellye SoRelle, a Texas lawyer.

It was also played on a YouTube show for Steven Crowder, a Conservative media figure.

"A lot of our social media are really designed to show us the things that we want to see. And so because of that, they create what Cass Sunstein has famously called 'filter bubbles,' which is just an idea that the algorithms behind your Facebook or your Twitter show you the information of people who think like you," said Jonathan Carter, assistant professor of political communication at Eastern Michigan University.
<snip>

[rogue]

A Trump appointee the the Pentagon is suggesting martial law. In the article he "called on Trump to have the military oversee a new election". If that isn't voter intimidation, then I don't know what is. What I'm really curious about is how much traction this has in the White House. I would also like to know if the Senate is going to push the nomination thru without review as they have been doing in this lame duck session.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

A Trump appointee the the Pentagon is suggesting martial law. In the article he "called on Trump to have the military oversee a new election". If that isn't voter intimidation, then I don't know what is. What I'm really curious about is how much traction this has in the White House. I would also like to know if the Senate is going to push the nomination thru without review as they have been doing in this lame duck session.

(CNN) President Donald Trump's nominee to become a senior Pentagon official spread debunked conspiracies on Twitter that called Trump's election loss to Joe Biden a "coup" attempt and shared tweets that suggest Trump should declare martial law.
<snip>
On December 2, he retweeted an account that shared an article that said former national security adviser Michael Flynn had shared a petition that called for martial law. He then retweeted the same account which suggested that Trump should declare martial law.
"I don't know who needs to hear this," the account said, "But calling for martial law is not a bad idea when there is an attempted coup against the president and this country happening right now."
<snip>
CNN's KFile reviewed O'Grady's tweets and media appearances and found that O'Grady shared other debunked election conspiracies and that he also degraded top military and intelligence officials. In a radio interview, he called former President Barack Obama and military generals "sworn socialists," and advocated that the military justice system should bring back treason charges. He retweeted a tweet that called former Defense Secretary James Mattis a "traitor."

He tweeted that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a star witness during the Trump impeachment hearings, should be charged "for insurrection because he is a biased liberal political operative" and said on a radio show that it was "disgusting" for Vindman to testify against Trump. He also spread a baseless claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment saga dated the daughter of House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff.
<snip>

And remember, regarding the idea of a "military solution," you heard it here first...

[rogue]

According to this article:

ormer national security adviser Michael Flynn of Middletown, RI retweeted a press release Tuesday calling on President Donald Trump to temporarily suspend the U.S. Constitution, declare martial law and order the military to oversee a national re-vote for the 2020 presidential election.

The release cited President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War as precedent, adding: “Then, as now, a President with courage and determination was needed to preserve the Union.”

If the president doesn’t declare martial law, the statement retweeted by Flynn warns, “we will also have no other choice but to take matters into our own hands and defend our rights on our own.”

“Freedom never kneels except for God,” Flynn tweeted.

The release said Trump must be prepared to act as former President Abraham Lincoln did at the onset of the Civil War in the early 1860s, including:

• Ordering “hundreds of Northern newspapers that spoke against him to be shut down and their owners and editors arrested.”
• Ordering the arrest of an Ohio congressman “for the crime of speaking out against him.”
• Signing an arrest warrant for the then-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who ruled that Lincoln had illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
• Ordering the arrest of thousands of Maryland citizens “for the crime of ‘suspected Southern sympathies,”‘ some of whom were held in military prisons without trial for years.

“Many will object to these actions, as they did in Lincoln’s day, but we assure you that We the People understand that no less action will suffice to prevent the loss of our Constitutional right to vote and preserve our Republic,” the letter stated.

The release warns, “Without a fair vote, we fear, with good reason, the threat of a shooting civil war is imminent. Gun sales are at an all time high and 40% are first time gun owners looking to defend themselves, their property, and their rights. Therefore, Mr. President you must act now before there is no peaceful way left to preserve our Union.”

Flynn received a presidential pardon last week for his conviction for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia in 2017

Another article on the subject defines a fair vote as follows:

a fair election can be held under circumstances such as paper ballots, no computers, hand-counted with both parties watching every vote and only registered voters

This implies that Trump should enact various voter restrictions (aka voter suppression) which would run afoul of state Constitutions. For example, no mail-in ballots because nobody is watching people voting that way, unless one or more military have to sign as the witness.

If Trump enacted martial law and suspended the Constitution, there would be zero reason for him to end martial law. He would have power to do anything he wanted with zero repercussions.

Fortunately I have read nothing from Fox News or the White House that implies they are thinking along these lines, but as Trump gets more desperate due to the courts not supporting the allegations of fraud, one can only wonder what is going on inside his head.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

<snip>
Another article on the subject defines a fair vote as follows:

IMO the "definition" at work here is indicated by the following:

Ladies and gentleman, I want to make a major announcement today. I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election,... if I win.

-- Republican candidate for US president, October 20, 2016, at the Delaware County Fair in Ohio

The only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged.

-- Same guy, Monday, August 17, 2020 in Oshkosh, WI

EDIT:

Originally Posted by rogue

If Trump enacted martial law and suspended the Constitution, there would be zero reason for him to end martial law. He would have power to do anything he wanted with zero repercussions.

This sort of thing has happened before in other countries. Alfredo Stroessner acted as dictator of Paraguay from 1954, when he led a successful military coup, to 1989, when another military coup overthrew him. He declared a "state of siege" that lasted 35 years. Curfews were suspended on Election Day. Eligible voters were required to go to the polls. After they closed, party loyalists took away the ballot boxes, and stuffed them to assure Stroessner would win by the predetermined percentage.

[Dr Sardonicus]

GOP leaders — once again — say they can't overturn election results, but send letter disputing results to Congress

Repeating a point they have made for the past month, Pennsylvania's Republican legislative leadership released a letter Thursday affirming that the General Assembly cannot overturn the results of the 2020 election in the Keystone State.

But, just 24 hours later, the top two House Republicans turned around and signed a letter calling for Congress to reject Pennsylvania's electors sent to the state's 18 representatives and two U.S. senators.

A Dec 04, 2020 Morning Call story added one additional detail:

At least one of the letter's recipients, Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, already had his mind made up Friday afternoon after seeing the letter. "Senator Toomey will not be objecting to Pennsylvania's slate of electors," a Toomey spokesman, Steve Kelly, said.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Former Brown County GOP leader claims Sen. Johnson admits Biden won election

GREEN BAY, Wis. (WLUK) -- The former head of the Republican Party of Brown County says U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, isn't being honest with the public about the integrity of the election.

However, Johnson is denying that accusation, saying he has been consistent with his comments.
<snip>
Becker says he had a 30-minute phone conversation with Johnson 10 days after the election. Becker wrote about it in a column for The Bulwark, a website founded by former conservative radio talk show host Charlie Sykes.

In the column, Becker claims Johnson told him it would be political suicide to oppose Trump and he won't publicly admit Biden's victory because the institutions of our democracy are strong enough to withstand Trump's election claims.
<snip>
"When I see the things that he has been doing and see the things he's been saying and it's completely the opposite to what he said to me to what he knows to be true, I felt that I had to say something," said Becker.

FOX 11 requested an interview with Johnson, but instead his office sent us a statement.

"I have been very consistent in both public and private statements that I believe there are way too many irregularities and suspect issues that need to be fully investigated and publicly vetted before a final result is determined and a peaceful transition of power takes place," said Johnson. "The article should be viewed as the political hit piece it is, and simply ignored."

"He said it was a hit piece and it should be ignored, but what he didn't say was that I lied about it because I don't think he can," said Becker. "He can't say I lied about it."
<snip>

He doesn't even have the courage to comment himself.

"The article should be viewed as the political hit piece it is, and simply ignored." A classic example of the "non-denial denial."

[Dr Sardonicus]

I quote the following NEWS RELEASE in its entirety:

Friday, December 4, 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Speaker Bowers Addresses Calls for the Legislature to Overturn 2020 Certified Election Results

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers today made the following statement:

This week, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and others representing President Donald Trump came to Arizona with a breathtaking request: that the Arizona Legislature overturn the certified results of last month's election and deliver the state's electoral college votes to President Trump. The rule of law forbids us to do that.

Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Ellis made their case here at least twice—on Monday, at an unofficial public gathering hosted by a small group of legislators; and again on Tuesday, during a closed-door meeting at the State Capitol with Republican leaders from both chambers of the Legislature. Both times, the Trump team made claims that the election was tainted by fraud but presented only theories, not proof. U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr said on Tuesday that he, too, has "not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome of the election."

Even if such evidence existed, the Arizona Legislature simply couldn't do what is being asked. Under our state's constitution, the Legislature can act only when it is in session, and the Legislature could call itself into a special session only with the support of a bipartisan supermajority of its members.

That won't materialize, but even if did, the Legislature couldn't provide the recourse the President's team seeks. The U.S. Constitution authorizes each state to appoint presidential electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." For decades, Arizona law has required that the voters elect the state's electors on Election Day—this year, on November 3rd. And under a law the Republican-led Legislature passed just three years ago, the state's electors are required to cast their votes for the candidates who received the most votes in the official statewide election canvass. Enacted after the 2016 presidential election, in which President Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, the law was aimed at ensuring that Arizona's electors would remain faithful to the vote of the people.

Our state's canvass was completed on Monday, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris received the most votes, so those are the candidates whom the state's presidential electors must vote for. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court even suggests that the Arizona Legislature could retroactively appoint different electors who would cast their ballots for different candidates. The Trump legal team has cited McPherson v. Blacker (1892), to claim that the legislature can "resume the power [to appoint electors] at any time." And it is true that the Arizona Legislature could alter the method of appointing electors prospectively. But it cannot undo the election of electors whom the voters already voted for. As the Supreme Court made clear in Bush v. Gore (2000), "[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental."

No election is perfect, and if there were evidence of illegal votes or an improper count, then Arizona law provides a process to contest the election: a lawsuit under state law. But the law does not authorize the Legislature to reverse the results of an election.

As a conservative Republican, I don't like the results of the presidential election. I voted for President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.

I and my fellow legislators swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. It would violate that oath, the basic principles of republican government, and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people's vote based on unsupported theories of fraud. Under the laws that we wrote and voted upon, Arizona voters choose who wins, and our system requires that their choice be respected.

Forty years ago next month, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that while the "orderly transfer of authority" is a "commonplace occurrence" for Americans, "[i]n the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle." Now, Americans are being reminded once again never to take for granted what President Reagan correctly described as "the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic."

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I quote the following NEWS RELEASE in its entirety:

[Nick]

"There was nothing unusual in her speech but the fact of her saying it.
Six months ago it would not have been said."
(from "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh).