Scrutable

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:01 pm

Sasse likes being invited on things like NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me as a reasonable Republican who's capable of self-depreciation.

Knowing nothing at all about Sasse*, this reminds me of what a fair few people thought about a certain Johnson around ten years ago. Sasse 2024?

*but a hell of a lot about sass, girrrrrrrlfriendddddddd

The case against Donald J Trump (PDF):

https://t.co/i3mLeFcCS8?amp=1

The answer from Donald J Trump (PDF):

https://t.co/IY0RUmz8EM?amp=1

While I appreciate Rudy’s homage to Joe Pesci as the eponymous My Cousin Vinny, I’m not sure the scriptwriters can keep up the courtroom farce for a full season.

I’m hoping after a few episodes it’ll segue into “Orange is the New Orange” and end with Trump crawling through 500 yards of sh.t smelling foulness just to find he’s took a wrong turn and emerges back in his own cell, sort of a Shitehawk Re-detention.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:10 pm

The answer from Donald J Trump (PDF):

https://t.co/IY0RUmz8EM?amp=1

And in true to form Trump lawyer style and panache, they even manage to misspell the *name of the f.cking country*

Not really impeachment but...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... dApp_Other

A debate about asking for an Unexplained Wealth Order for Trump's Scottish golf courses could be amusing.

And the irony of Eric Trump calling anyone outside his family "a disgrace to their country"

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:27 pm

Not really impeachment but...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... dApp_Other

A debate about asking for an Unexplained Wealth Order for Trump's Scottish golf courses could be amusing.

And the irony of Eric Trump calling anyone outside his family "a disgrace to their country"

A money launderer wrote:If Harvie and the rest of the Scottish government continue to treat money launderers like this, it will deter money launderers from laundering money in Scotland,

TBF they have a point.

In the words of Arnold J Rimmer "Is that a small sewage plant you are carrying in your trousers, Eric?"

I am going to laugh quite heartily if Scottish law can extract information about Trump's finances, after watching US politicians, journalists, and prosecutors get almost nowhere in four years of very concerted trying.

Squeak wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:54 pm

I am going to laugh quite heartily if Scottish law can extract information about Trump's finances, after watching US politicians, journalists, and prosecutors get almost nowhere in four years of very concerted trying.

LPM convinced me years ago that finances were where Trump will fall. And he stopped a lot of investigations, but now both here and in the US, they can start, and attention has been brought to bear on him.

Of course he can just not contest the Unexplained Wealth Order, which would be amusing in itself.

Trumps lawyers cite an article in the far right conspiracy blog Gateway Pundit to claim that ANTIFA were behind the Capitol attack

They are going to have a fun time explaining this in Congress.

It'll be fine. Everyone knows if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's Antifa pretending to be a duck.

From the number of Lionel Hutz and Maurice LaMarche memes legal twitter is posting, it seems like Trump's defense is going well.

Without an independent judiciary it's kind of a show trial, though. Has Trump had himself decorated yet?

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:10 am

Without an independent judiciary it's kind of a show trial, though. Has Trump had himself decorated yet?

It is defintely a show trial, with the verdict pre determined. I actually think I preferred the Soviet type.

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:19 am

It is defintely a show trial, with the verdict pre determined. I actually think I preferred the Soviet type.

Because the defendant was taken out at the end and shot?

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:08 am

The Republicans to pressure are the following, with state and year they're next up for election. Asterisks for those I think likely.

Usual suspects:

Romney (UT 2024)*
Murkowski (AK 2022)*
Collins (ME 2026)*
Sasse (NE 2026)*

Not running again:

Toomey (PA 2022)*
Burr (NC 2022)
Grassley (IA 2022, not said if he's running again but he'll be 89 at the 2022 election)

Other possibles:

Thune (SD 2022)
Sullivan (AK 2026)
Lee (UT 2022)
Ernst (IA 2026)

That only makes 11 possible, of which I think they'd get 5. I can't think of anyone else who'd make a stand.

Of course, if Moscow Mitch McConnell joined the rebellion against Trump then it would be transformed. He won't. But if he did. It would quicker to count Trump's safe votes (the 8 insurrectionists) plus likely votes (another 12). Conviction would be straightforward.

I didn't even have Bill Cassidy (LA 2026) on my list. I presume he reverts back to being a Trump puppet for the final vote, although he can't get primaried in 2026 because Louisiana has one of those systems where you can have several candidates on the November ballot, and if nobody gets over 50% it's followed by a top 2 play off in December.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:51 pm

From the number of Lionel Hutz and Maurice LaMarche memes legal twitter is posting, it seems like Trump's defense is going well.

This is brill

includes such gems as...

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman said a Trump adviser had defended [Castor his] performance as a “deliberative strategy” meant to distract from Raskin’s emotional presentation – though critics pointed out that a master strategist wouldn’t need to put out a background statement explaining their strategy.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:53 am

I didn't even have Bill Cassidy (LA 2026) on my list. I presume he reverts back to being a Trump puppet for the final vote, although he can't get primaried in 2026 because Louisiana has one of those systems where you can have several candidates on the November ballot, and if nobody gets over 50% it's followed by a top 2 play off in December.

I think the game the Senate Republican leadership are playing is trying to keep the Trump base enthusiasm and also keeping the soft right supporters, while keeping swing voters in play. The immediate aim is to avoid short term pain of ejecting the extremists and having to build a party that actually appeals to a majority.

Becoming identified with extremism loses them the swing voters and a chunk of the soft right voters, leaving them with ~35% of the electorate, many of whom are unreliable voters. Rejecting extremism loses them the unreliable extremist voters and chunk of the hard right - particularly if Trump etc. try to set up a splinter party. Either way, they are out of power for a very long time, with either 35% of unreliable voters vs a reliable 55%, or with 35% reliable but swingy voters vs 45%, and an extremist movement to their right.

The strategy so far has been to try to avoid having to make a choice: delaying the trial until Trump is out of power in a hope that the trial will be less important; trying to dismiss the trial as unconstitutional. The next tactic is to try and avoid having witnesses (which is where they won in the first impeachment trial).

So far that hasn't worked, and once witnesses start getting called, they may have to switch to doing the hard work of ejecting the Trumpists. They are prepared to sail very close to the risk of a widespread Trumpist terror movement/insurrection/civil war to avoid doing that hard work and accepting the short term pain is being out of power for half a decade. Whether they can turn away is the question, but drawing out the trial longer makes the attempt more likely as the investigation into Jan 6th proceeds, and the Dems do popular stuff while they are obstructing.

All of us have watched many of these elements already, but this is the video package the House managers presented on yesterday's show. A good summary that can be played to school children in future history lessons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivVOPWrFfW4

dyqik wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:44 pm

So far that hasn't worked, and once witnesses start getting called, they may have to switch to doing the hard work of ejecting the Trumpists. They are prepared to sail very close to the risk of a widespread Trumpist terror movement/insurrection/civil war to avoid doing that hard work and accepting the short term pain is being out of power for half a decade. Whether they can turn away is the question, but drawing out the trial longer makes the attempt more likely as the investigation into Jan 6th proceeds, and the Dems do popular stuff while they are obstructing.

They won't eject the Trumpists because the Trumpists control the party. Don't count them out. It is an illiberal, anti-democratic , Trumpist, party far into the foreseeable future. And it just might work.

I'm out and about working so won't be able to watch today's, but there's supposed to be unseen footage to come from internal security cameras.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:10 am

Without an independent judiciary it's kind of a show trial, though. Has Trump had himself decorated yet?

It also has a very unusual feature - the senators judging the case were personally involved on the day. Some of them may be influenced by their experiences.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:27 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:10 am

Without an independent judiciary it's kind of a show trial, though. Has Trump had himself decorated yet?

It also has a very unusual feature - the senators judging the case were personally involved on the day. Some of them may be influenced by their experiences.

I'm half expecting Trump's defence to say that Democrat Senators should disqualify themselves as they cannot be impartial as Trump's actions put them at risk of being lynched

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:34 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:27 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:10 am

Without an independent judiciary it's kind of a show trial, though. Has Trump had himself decorated yet?

It also has a very unusual feature - the senators judging the case were personally involved on the day. Some of them may be influenced by their experiences.

I'm half expecting Trump's defence to say that Democrat Senators should disqualify themselves as they cannot be impartial as Trump's actions put them at risk of being lynched

And the Repubs can't be impartial cos of the risk to them of their losing their job.

That he’s going to be acquitted by his craven senators is almost a criminal act in itself.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics ... index.html