I’m really hoping trump’s and Javanka’s security clearances will all be pulled after this. They will no longer have any need for it and it only endangers the US while they have it. No future president is ever gonna ask trump, Jared, or Ivanka for their opinion on some future top secret problem (at least I hope not).
I like how in that press conference, after getting frustrated for being asked whether or not he will concede after the electoral college vote he cuts off the reporter and calls on someone else, who then proceeds to ask him the exact same question.
Ex-presidents can traditionally be provided with intelligence briefings, but (a) we all know he doesn’t read the ones he gets now, and (b) since it’s a tradition and not a law, I think it’s probable that Biden can forbid those being provided. In the end, the President is the ultimate security clearance decider.
I wonder if it would be feasible for whoever gets to punish Trump to turn the top floor of his DC hotel into his prison. When I worked in the building, 31 years ago, the GSA used that floor for storage and it was accessible only from the floor below, either by staircase or a very slow hydraulic elevator. Being so close to the White House – only five blocks away – would have to be a huge blow to his ego.
I guess there is nothing to say the ex president gets to see the same intelligence briefing as the current president. May be dumb it down and add in a few watermarks on non consequential or decoy intel and see what gets acted on by who, and then throw trump in jail.
I guess at least, as ex-president, he would no longer have the authority to declassify intel, so if he did share or tweet it, he’d actually be in legal jeopardy.
It is almost getting routine, but yet another court (this time the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals) slaps down the idiocy of Asshole in Chief’s election lawsuits. My favorite parts of the opinion include:
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
“Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to
the procedural challenges raised.”
And my favorite part is that the Court assessed costs against the campaign, so they have to pay whatever expenses the appeal cost the State of Pennsylvania. Finally, a court hitting the campaign in the only way they give a crap about, money.