I just note the irony that Trump is asking Georgia to do what he is accusing (and suing) other states for that went Biden’s way. I hope that Georgia’s elected Republican officials’ response to Trump is just the beginning of the party’s repudiation of Trump and all of the Trumpanistas. I wouldn’t mind if that wing of the party decided to harumph and split off or maybe wholesale become members of the Constitution Party which seems tailor-made for them.
He was impeached on January 16, 2020. Not even a year ago.
It only feels like four years ago.
Have you read any of the Trump-friendly reddits? Even these guys were up in arms over how badly Mitch had screwed them in this case. When those guys are starting to come to their senses, anything is possible.
If he tries to pull that one would hope he spends his last days in office under psychiatric observation at Walter Reed. Insanity might be his only defense.
What Biden and his AG should do is not involve themselves either way; leave everything in the hands of career DoJ officials or an independent counsel.
If you have any interest, this article shows the type of issue that is going on all over the state.
In Shelby, the Supes said:
the formula for determining whether changes to a state’s voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question.
To which Georgia immediately responded:
Hold my beer!
The Proud Boys are coming on the 6th. DC residents are being told to stay home tomorrow and Wednesday.
If political capital didn’t exist, we’d have the $2000 stimulus checks. You can’t not have political capital in a world were compromises have to be struck. And they’re not just between the two parties, either–you have to get the various groups in your own party to go with it. It’s why Biden will have a limit to what he is actually able to do, and will have to prioritize.
But even if they do have the capital to pull it off, you didn’t refute the rest of my post. Impeachment is not required by the Constitution, and it is not the only form of consequences Trump can face. And your analogy about prosecutors actually means they shouldn’t impeach, as a prosecutor won’t prosecute if they can’t get a conviction.
As for Nixon: he may have said it, but who thinks he didn’t do anything wrong? He’s widely known as the Watergate guy who resigned in disgrace. And, if someone is willing to deny the facts already discovered in the Watergate investigation, why would an impeachment (with or without conviction) convince them otherwise? I mean, I’m all for saying he should have faced criminal charges, but impeaching him would have done nothing that resigning didn’t also do, as everyone knew why he had to resign.
Finally, @robby, of course I know that impeachment isn’t always about criminal behavior. But then removal is sufficient to stop said behavior (in as far as we have the right to stop it). Plus we are currently talking about an illegal act that Trump committed—one that’s against state law, even, so Trump can’t pardon himself out of it.
The only thing I can see an impeachment accomplishing would be the investigation portion, but is there any reason to investigate any further on this one? It’s rather cut and dried.
Of course you are correct, so thank you for clarifying. I must have read something else about another protest around Inauguration Day. It really wouldn’t be a surprise.
Proud boy leader just arrested today on a weapons charge. He may not be around to play on the 6th.
I would not be at all surprised to see more arrests made, as I suspect the Proud Boy leader is currently singing his head off to avoid jail time.
Another thing that I find amusing? interesting? suspicious? expected? (pick your own adjective)
Is the conjuction of his repeated claims along this line…
With what he said back in September
So assuming of course that all of the claims aren’t completely made up (the most likely scenario) it sounds like the Trump voters were doing exactly what Trump told them to and then are upset to discover that the system worked like it was supposed to.
That’s right. He made the calculation many have made: that there’s no percentage in doing crimes for a mob boss who’s about to lose all his power.
Kemp and Raffensperger, like a lot of Republican officials nationwide, are done with Trump.
But they are not done with the Republican project of disenfranchising the ‘wrong’ voters.
\
Even with the timey-wimey distortion field, I can still hear the voices of Republican Senators saying that the question of whether Trump stays President should be up to the voters, not up to Congress:
And you believe this implication is false. Do you really think that a demand to “find” another 11,800 votes is anything else? I guess you do.
I think that’s just it. The plan was to commit voter fraud, and then complain about the voter fraud, and use that to overturn the election.
It does make me wonder if the people that support what he is doing now are a lost cause. I don’t hold any happiness that they have fallen into the cult, and a cult is what it is.
I will read tomorrow how we came back to a united country after the Civil War.
If they DO EXIST and have been counted, why do they need to find them? A most unusual use of the word find.
And you believe that this is what Trump meant when he said
And there’s nothing wrong with say saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.
Not to mention his repeated demand to “find” 11,780 votes. I have to consider this a troll. This is an official warning, the second you’ve received in this thread.
Need any nails? The thing is, as Neil said, you can never hammer in the last one.
< snerk >
My goodness, ma’am. If you look up Dunning-Krueger you might increase your effectiveness tenfold and then the liberals will really be in trouble!
The complaints ARE completely made up because that is factually wrong. Trump is completely misrepresenting the nature of provisional ballots.
If you got to your polling place on Election Day and discovered your ballot had already been voted- you would not be told to cast a provisional ballot. It wouldn’t count under any circumstance if your vote has already been recorded as received.
I imagine you’d need to prove your ID and file some sort of complaint or challenge. And there’d be a record of it at the time the incident occurred, something more than statements made to a partisan fraud hotline weeks after the election. It would be a big deal. I heard of ONE such allegation p, in AZ - I woman who told officials, when she went to vote in person, that she hadn’t cast her absentee ballot that had been received. When she was asked by election officials to sign a legally binding affidavit she declined, although she continued to run her mouth,
There are several reasons for provisional ballots. I’m guessing that most of them were from voters who received an absentee ballot but decided to vote in person and failed to bring the ballot they ordered with them.
As there are systems in place to make sure each registered voter only receives one ballot - they couldn’t get another one without turning in the first one to be “spoiled”. So they cast the provisional ballot and once all the other votes are scanned and it’s confirmed their first ballot wasn’t used, their votes count.
It’s really incredibly secure, more secure than ever. While Republicans love to dig up old quotes about the fraud potential of absentee voting, those are old quotes. Our technologies are better than ever and geared to managing large numbers of secure documents it’s just not possible for a voter to get more than one ballot.
The fact that virtually no one ever gets to to the polls to find that their ballot has been voted is a testament to just how secure it is.
Republicans just hate mail-in because it makes voting easy for everyone, as it should be.