More to ignore, Book 17....

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Omicron’s ride or die Gov. Ron DeSantis appears to be M.I.A. He was last seen nearly two weeks ago
Rebekah Sager

As the worst surge of COVID-19 cases floods Florida, people are asking where in the world Gov. Ron DeSantis is hiding. The ride-or-die for team omicron hasn’t been seen since Dec. 17, when he appeared alongside his equally anti-science dope Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo to promote a monoclonal antibody therapy developed by AstraZeneca.

Cases in the state are at record highs. Christmas Day saw a stunning 32,000 new diagnoses, and just Wednesday, the CDC reported 47,000 new cases in Florida—a new single-day record number.
Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings, who oversees Orlando County, the largest in the state, ripped into DeSantis Tuesday, demanding to know where the governor is and why he isn’t offering any help.

“Our residents, all Florida residents, should be outraged, and they should ask the question, ‘Where is our state? Where is our governor? Where is Ron DeSantis now?’ When is the last time you saw the governor do a press briefing on COVID-19?” Demings said at a press conference.

Miami-Dade has officially hit a 25% positivity rate, meaning one in four tests has returned positive in the last week.

Meanwhile, do-nothing, DeSantis, signed four bills into law in November restricting mask and vaccine mandates, and Floridians are posting videos of mile-long lines at testing sites a month later.

“If we opened five sites, the five sites would be full and have two-hour waiting times,” Dr. Raul Pino told the Orlando Sentinel about opening new testing locations in Orange County.

On Monday, Orange County recorded over 10,000 COVID-19 tests and discovered 2,500 infections.

Tuesday, Demings reinstated a mask mandate for all county employees.

The HIll reports that 80 county employees tested positive for COVID, up from 19 last week.

“To protect our employees and those who use our services, they’ll be wearing masks for the foreseeable future,” Demings said.

Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat running to unseat the currently M.I.A. DeSantis in 2022, told MSNBC host Tiffany Cross she has no idea where the governor is.

“I don’t know where he is,” Fried said, “But to be quite honest, even if he was here, he wouldn’t be doing anything anyhow, and we know that.”

Tuesday, Fried sent a letter to DeSantis’ office begging him to ramp up his response to omicron.

“Governors across the nation are being called upon to meet the urgency of this moment and redouble their efforts to fight this virus, and your fellow governors, both Republican and Democrat, are stepping up to the challenge,” Fried said.

Taking a page from former President Donald Trump’s playbook—lie when you’re called out—DeSantis attempted to appear to be out and about around Florida on Dec. 28, even posting a photo of himself at a local restaurant.

The photo was taken on Dec. 16. Come on, Ronny. Who do you think you’re fooling?

Thursday, Dec 30, 2021 · 1:05:33 PM EST · Rebekah Sager
After publishing this story, Daily Kos learned that Christina Pushaw, DeSantis’ press secretary, claimed the governor was on vacation.

Pushaw additionally tweets DeSantis’ schedule.


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Ted Cruz confused Western Australia with Western Washington and Twitter lost it
Aysha Qamar

It’s a pretty simple concept: "What goes on the internet stays on the internet.” Yet Republicans just can’t seem to get that through their heads. In another failed Republican attempt to blast Democrats, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz went on a stupid rant only to delete his tweet due to its inaccuracy.

But what was so embarrassing that stuck-up Cruz had to admit to himself he made a mistake? It was that Cruz—a U.S. senator—mixed up Western Australia with Washington State. This mishap might even beat his embarrassing haircut from earlier in the pandemic.
"Blue-state Dems are power-drunk authoritarian kill-joys," Cruz wrote on Twitter Wednesday. "Washington State: NO DANCING ALLOWED!!! Any rational & free citizen: Piss off."

While mistakes happen and I’m sure it’s easy to mix up abbreviations if they are the same, one should be smart enough to do their research before attempting to criticize a comment publicly. Cruz might’ve thought he was slick enough to delete his tweet when he realized his mistake, but the internet is ruthless and screenshots were captured.

I mean, did he really think he could wrongly criticize Democrats and get away with it? Twitter users quickly not only pointed out his mistake, but commented on how Americans like him think everything revolves around them.

His rant followed a post from Western Australia’s government—a state in Australia that’s abbreviated “WA”—in which COVID-19 regulations were noted, including the prohibition of dancing on New Year’s Eve. In a comment thread on Facebook, the WA government responded to a question by saying: "Dancing is strictly not permitted."

Cruz quickly took the opportunity to blast Democrats since Washington State shares the same state abbreviation.

The tweet attempting to ridicule Democrats quickly went viral, but of course, not for the reason that Cruz hoped for.

Here are some reactions:

“Hey Ted, WA is Western Australia. But cool tweet,“ Congressman Eric Swalwell

Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis tweeted: “Me, like Ted Cruz, I’m upset that I can’t dance in Western Australia because I wanted to go clubbing in Perth. “

But of course, Republicans seem to have each other's back even in such stupid situations.

“What should scare you is the fact that it seems plausible that a state like Washington would ban dancing on New Years Day, and if it did, there would be journalists defending it,” conservative candidate for Congress Robby Starbuck from Tennessee said.

Sure, it’s easy to confuse which WA is being spoken about in conversation, but a simple Google search or click on the Facebook page of the posting account could have solved that problem. So Cruz really was careless to post his tweet.

I mean, a quick Google search of “WA COVID-19 regulations” yields a link with the regulations from the government of Western Australia.

"Certain high-risk music events are not permitted as dancing is banned and seated food and beverage consumption requirements are in place as part of public health and social measures.
Any gathering of more than 500 patrons (whether in public of private) that involves the playing of recorded music or live performances involving singing or dancing for the purposes of entertainment is not permitted. In addition, certain specific music events are not permitted."

Let’s take this as a lesson to always do your homework. Remember, assumptions make an ass out of you.


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

The congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to deny a request by former President Donald Trump to shield some of his White House records.

In a written brief, the committee asked the high court to leave in place a lower court ruling that cleared the way for investigators to see telephone records, visitor logs and other documents for the closing weeks of Trump's presidency.

"Although the facts are unprecedented, this case is not a difficult one," lawyers for the House of Representatives committee said in their brief.

The committee has said it needs the requested materials to understand the role Trump may have played in fomenting the riot......


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Unpacking a few lies in Trump's grift against Jan. 6 probe
Brandi Buchman

As Donald Trump awaits a decision from the Supreme Court on whether his presidential records related to the Capitol attack should remain confidential or free for the Jan. 6 Committee to review, the twice-impeached former president is pumping out disinformation on all cylinders.

On Wednesday, after news broke that the select committee was narrowing a portion of its records request—a decision that was mutually reached with the Biden White House—Trump issued a public statement replete with lies and distortions.

“The Unselect Committee of Radical Left Democrats and two failed Republicans has just dropped a large portion of their request for my records and documents—a very big story even though the New York Times refused to put it on the front page,” Trump said in a Dec. 29 statement. “The reason that they dropped the records request is that they don’t want this horror show to happen to Biden and Hunter in three years. This also changes the entire complexion of their request, not that there are any documents that would be incriminating or a problem for me—but the Witch Hunt continues!”

The infantile attempts at insults aside, it takes little to no effort to unpack the falsehoods in this missive.

Let’s do that now.

  • The New York Times did run a story about the deferral agreement. It wasn’t on the print version’s front page on Dec. 28 because the news organization apparently thought it wiser to run a story about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s revised isolation guidance for those infected with Covid-19. That is a story that impacts millions of people across the nation right now, which, in news, is sort of the point. Also, there’s still a pandemic on. So as much as the former president might like to see his face plastered all over every magazine, newspaper, website, or television, his whining about his “very big story” missing in action is just that – whining. Not to mention that quite literally every other major news outlet and hundreds of smaller ones tracking the investigation into Jan. 6 reported on this development. I know I did.

  • The Jan. 6 Committee has interviewed over 300 people and pored over thousands of documents. It has been chipping away at this massive undertaking of an investigation for nearly a year and doing so in the face of steep political stakes—how would you like to subpoena a hostile co-worker?—and criticism from just about every angle. So, when Trump says the committee dropped its request out of fear that the same tactics could be used against them in the future? Well, that’s a fun exercise to consider and sure, it could be that, all things being equal. But the evidence would also overwhelmingly suggest it’s a bit more nuanced than that. The committee members, like Trump, swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. The committee members, unlike Trump, have demonstrated a willingness to uphold that oath. More importantly, they have also publicly made the committee’s position known, explicitly, from press conferences to TV appearances to statements made under penalty of perjury in a court of law. The committee was formed so that lawmakers could try to find answers to questions about how the attack was organized, financed, and coordinated. The committee was formed so lawmakers could assess how they could amend, revise, or craft laws that would stop a megalomaniac president from trying to subvert the will of millions of voters. People died. Hundreds were injured. Post-traumatic stress from the attack is still very much alive for people who were on the front lines. Fellow sitting U.S. lawmakers may have been involved in the putsch and the Vice President himself could have ended Jan. 6 swinging from freshly erected gallows near the Capitol steps had it not been for the police that protected him and everyone else inside. So, despite Trump’s increasingly tiresome protests of the committee’s impropriety, the committee members have defined it for him ad nauseum: the primary function of the panel is to investigate and legislate. As legislators in a legislative body, that’s all they can do, and they know it. Their actions have shown it. When they held Trump’s ex-strategist Steve Bannon and Trump’s ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of congress, that was their right. They debated with other lawmakers about the decision, revised resolutions, and took it to a vote. You know, like how democracy works, with you know, like checks and balances. Plus, when the committee referred Bannon and Meadows to the Department of Justice to weigh an indictment, that too, was a perfectly normal part of their legislative process. Like committee chair Bennie Thompson recently said, if the probe turns up evidence of crimes, then they will weigh whether they, as the people reviewing that evidence, should recommend that the Justice Department do its thing and enforce the law.

  • So, let’s get down, then, to the reason the committee and the Biden White House agreed to defer the request. For the last several weeks, White House counsel Dana Remus has been in talks with the select committee. Remus and the probe members have been trying to sort out what documents are relevant, sensitive or as the Times put it, “potentially compromising to the long-term prerogatives of the presidency.” Trump, members of the GOP, and many of the people in the former president’s circle that have been targeted by the committee have complained at length about the panel’s disregard of presidential privileges. This mutual decision to withdraw or defer a portion of requests that “do not appear to directly bear on” Jan. 6 or on efforts to overturn the election makes a pretty strong case that the committee is agreeing to pay deference to the separation of powers. Prominent courts have already rejected suggestions that the committee is unconstitutional or that its members are guilty of overreach into the Executive Branch. Now, there is, without question, some novelty in Trump’s dispute over who will have the final say over access to presidential records, the incumbent or the former. But precedent would suggest Trump is fighting an uphill battle. Trump also claims that the entire “complexion” of the committee’s request has now changed. That is also false. The agreement to shelve some documents hasn’t changed the committee’s purpose or function. What it has done, according to the committee’s spokesman Tim Mulvey, is help clear the decks for other records if they are needed. A White House official also told the Times that the agreement was not a reflection of disarray or dissatisfaction, but rather, as discussed above, an indicator that no one is interested in widening the probe.

  • Lastly, let’s consider that very last part of Trump’s statement. The “not that there are any documents that would be incriminating or a problem for me” part. Now, it’s very easy to say, well, if you have nothing to hide, then confessing should be easy and you shouldn’t be worried about the punishment. But that’s also a touch narrow-minded because it excludes a lot of people in a lot of situations including those scenarios that we may not yet be able to anticipate or see. Silence, legally speaking, does not indicate guilt. Silence, legally speaking, is an option. It is a right. And even when we don’t want one person to exercise it, there may come a day that we wish to or we may wish it available for someone else. That’s a debate that will likely be dragged around in the comments, and I welcome you to have it. Everyone else is. But questions over the implications of silence aside, Trump’s last sentence in the Dec. 29 statement is more about Trump being Trump. The same Trump he has always been. Come and get me. I could give it to you, I just don’t want to, and you can’t make me. That’s it, in a nutshell. And at the end of the day, it means very little because the former president has a real problem telling the truth and takes pride in using hyperbole as a negotiating technique. So instead of saying, hey, if you’re not guilty, then confess! Maybe we should just go with hey, put up or shut up.

Fearful Trump Lies About January 6th Committee 'Witch Hunt' in Pathetic Attempt to Hide His Crimes
News Corpse

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Kevin ‘Who the F— Do You Think You Are Talking To’ McCarthy may be next on Jan. 6 request list
Brandi Buchman

When rioters were ransacking the Capitol and Rep. Kevin McCarthy was presumably somewhere hiding from the mob former President Donald Trump incited, he and Trump had a rather tense chat.

Full transparency on the content, timing, and length of that discussion is information that would be undeniably vital to the Jan. 6 committee’s probe of the assault.

In an interview Wednesday with ABC News, the chair of the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said that while McCarthy has not yet received a formal request from the panel asking for his voluntary compliance—which is different than a subpoena—an informal invitation still stands.
“If he has information he wants to share with us, and is willing to voluntarily come in, I’m not taking the invitation off the table,” Thompson said. Thompson also emphasized: “If Leader McCarthy has nothing to hide, he can voluntarily come before the committee.”

If McCarthy won’t, then things could start to get a bit more official.

So far, the committee has issued formal requests for voluntary compliance to two lawmakers: Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Both have said they would not comply with the request. The next move goes to the committee.

Perry, investigators say, may have been involved directly with a scheme to install a Trump ally, Jeffrey Clark, at the Department of Justice. As for Jordan, it was his contact with Trump and, potentially, members of Trump’s inner circle on Jan. 6 that piqued the committee’s interest.

A representative for McCarthy’s office did not return a request for comment Thursday.

Back in April, however, the Republican congressman told Fox News: “I was the first person to contact [Trump] when the riots were going on. He didn’t see it. What he ended the call with saying was telling me he’ll put something out to make sure to stop this.”

Guardedly, McCarthy also said at the time: "My conversations with the president are my conversations with the president."

McCarthy’s claim that Trump “didn’t see” the riot is not yet supported by any public evidence.

In any event, one of those conversations with Trump was a key feature cited in Trump’s second impeachment this January.

Sometime in the middle of the afternoon of Jan. 6—the exact timing is not entirely clear— according to a public statement made by fellow Republican Rep. Jamie Beutler-Herrera, McCarthy called Trump to report on the violence playing out at the Capitol.

McCarthy was also calling to ask Trump for help—namely demanding that the president release a public statement immediately to quell the riot.

McCarthy said he asked Trump to “publicly and forcefully” call off his supporters, but his request fell on deaf ears.

Despite the sea of Trump flags fluttering in the wind just outside, the spray of “Trump for 2020” T-shirts, banners, hats, bumper stickers, posters, signs, and other ephemera in bright blue, red, or white display, Trump insisted it wasn’t his supporters mobbing the building and viciously beating police amid calls for the head of his second-in-command, then-Vice President Mike Pence.

Trump told McCarthy it was “antifa.”

McCarthy, according to Beutler-Herrera’s official statement, then went on to reject the president’s assertion, urging Trump to accept that, no, it was his supporters scaling the walls.

“Well, Kevin,” Trump said. “I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

That reportedly set off a powder keg. McCarthy, the House GOP leader, exploded at Trump, the president of the United States.

“Who the **** do you think you are talking to?” McCarthy said.

Several Republican members confirmed the conversation to reporters at various outlets in February. McCarthy has also publicly discussed the exchange.

Though McCarthy has long taken a position against the current investigation of the attack, a week after the assault from the House floor, he laid the blame squarely on Trump.

“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters,” McCarthy said. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump."

McCarthy called the attack “criminal” and “undemocratic,” and openly proclaimed that the suggestion it was “antifa” at the gates on Jan. 6 was false.

Despite this, he would not vote to impeach Trump for his conduct. That would be too divisive, he argued.

Public hearings hosted by the House select committee on the issue will begin in the new year. Lawmakers will hear testimony and parse evidence openly about the Trump administration’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They will likely also call on state and local election officials to testify about the president’s pressure campaign to overturn electoral results.

There will be assessments on the state of national security and intelligence gathering failures in the runup to the assault. Thompson has also stressed that the role of extremist organizations like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers will come into focus.

The committee will use the information it gleans to inform a variety of legislative decisions, including those they make about possible amendments or revisions to the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The committee also has not ruled out the possibility of issuing criminal referrals, if necessary.

Only 24 hours ago, Trump filed a motion with the Supreme Court resisting the idea of the committee weighing criminal referrals. He’s currently in a tug of war with Thompson over a trove of presidential records that investigators requested from the National Archives back in August. Trump tried to shield the records, citing executive privilege, but President Joe Biden overrode him, saying that the documents were more vital to the public interest than Trump’s.

A lower court and an appeals court have ruled against Trump, and now it will be the Supreme Court that decides whether it will even hear Trump’s appeal. The Jan. 6 committee recently narrowed its request on some of the records, underlining that it only needs documents that are relevant to its probe.

The investigation was never designed to be a catch-all of Trump’s entire presidential archive, and the decision to narrow the request was strategic as it might very well chip away at Trump’s claims of abuse of the executive branch by members of Congress.

Thompson told ABC News on Wednesday that the committee’s focus would not be deterred as the anniversary of the attack looms.

“What we will do in our hearings is put the pieces of the puzzle together so the average man and woman on the street will understand how close we came to losing our democracy,” he said.

What Was The Security Plan for January 6th? McCarthy knows.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests it’s ‘wise’ to ban Democrats who move to red states from voting
Rebekah Sager

As someone who recently moved from California to Georgia, I’m horrified but not in the least bit shocked by recent comments from Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Her latest comes via Twitter, which seems to be the only place she really has a voice after being barred from most of her congressional committees. She suggests that Democrat voters, who she calls “brainwashed people,” who move to Republican-leaning states should have a “cooling off” period before they can be allowed to vote.

"After Democrat voters and big donors ruin a state like California, you would think it wise to stop them from doing it to another great state like Florida," she wrote in a retweet of a thread by a Twitter user who criticized Democrats seeking to move to red states.
The user Greene responded to advised "actively discriminating against transplants like this through legislation" and that they should "pay a tax for their sins."

The pandemic caused a shift, and domestic migration away from states such as California and New York was at an all-time high. In 2020, 367,299 people left California and 352,185 migrated from New York, the highest out of any state in the U.S.

Greene’s tweet also included the concept of a “national divorce” between Democratic and Republican states.

This isn’t the first time she’s made this ridiculous suggestion. In October, the notoriously racist anti-vaxxer conducted a poll on Twitter asking her followers if they supported splitting red and blue states—43% of the 84,487 respondents said they would like to split. In the GOP world of the “big lie,” that’s like 100%.

The last time I checked, talk of splitting the country was on par with the seditious talk of a civil war. But then again, she’s a proud defender of the terrorist attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, calling the committee investigating the insurrection a “witch hunt” of “innocent people that had nothing to do with a random 3-hour riot.”

Like her MAGA hero former President Donald Trump, Greene has been sanctioned by Twitter several times for spreading misinformation.

I’ll say for the record that nothing made me more proud than doing my small part to help turn Georgia blue in 2020. But the process to vote here wasn’t easy. It took my husband and myself a good bit of research to figure out how to register. We had to get driver’s licenses in Georgia, and then finding our polling place was also a challenge. In short, it’s not a straightforward process here.

Greene’s tweets about voting are all the more reason it’s vital we get the passage of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act ASAP.

Georgia Republicans are back to their old tricks, doing everything in their power to take control back from Black and Democratic voters—including a repeat of suppressive Jim Crow-era voting practices.

Thanks to the passage of S.B. 202, which allows the Republican-controlled State Election Board to control county boards it judges to be failing, for months Republicans have been stealthy in reorganizing boards to remove Black board members and replace them with white, conservative, Trump-supporting men.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s family—Martin Luther King III, his wife Arndrea Waters King, and their daughter Yolanda Renee King—are mobilizing on MLK weekend to pressure President Joe Biden and Congress to deliver on the promise to pass these bills in the same way they got the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed.


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014


Latest posts