More to ignore, Book 85.......

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Maggie Haberman shares photos of torn documents flushed down the toilet by Donald Trump

WH staff had reported that ripped documents had clogged White House toilets and in the toilets of Air Force One, reported Axios, who received the photos from Maggie Haberman. A White House staff source stated the documents in the toilet bowl had Donald Trump's handwriting. The sharpie is a dead giveaway.

From Axios:

Haberman who obtained the photos recently — shared them with us ahead of the Oct. 4 publication of her book, "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America."
  • A Trump White House source tells her the photo on the left shows a commode in the White House.
  • The photo on the right is from an overseas trip, according to the source.
Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich told Axios: "You have to be pretty desperate to sell books if pictures of paper in a toilet bowl is part of your promotional plan."
  • "We know ... there's enough people willing to fabricate stories like this in order to impress the media class — a media class who is willing to run with anything, as long as it anti-Trump."
Between the lines: The new evidence is a reminder that despite the flood of Trump books, Haberman's is hotly anticipated in Trumpworld.


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

Former President Donald J. Trump told his top White House aide that he wished he had generals like the ones who had reported to Adolf Hitler, saying they were “totally loyal” to the leader of the Nazi regime, according to a forthcoming book about the 45th president.

“Why can’t you be like the German generals?” Mr. Trump told John Kelly, his chief of staff, preceding the question with an obscenity, according to an excerpt from “The Divider: Trump in the White House,” by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, published online by The New Yorker on Monday morning. (Mr. Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times; Ms. Glasser is a staff writer for The New Yorker.)

The excerpt depicts Mr. Trump as deeply frustrated by his top military officials, whom he saw as insufficiently loyal or obedient to him. In the conversation with Mr. Kelly, which took place years before the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the authors write, the chief of staff told Mr. Trump that Germany’s generals had “tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off.”

Mr. Trump was dismissive, according to the excerpt, apparently unaware of the World War II history that Mr. Kelly, a retired four-star general, knew all too well.

“‘No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,’ the president replied,” according to the book’s authors. “In his version of history, the generals of the Third Reich had been completely subservient to Hitler; this was the model he wanted for his military. Kelly told Trump that there were no such American generals, but the president was determined to test the proposition.”

Much of the excerpt focuses on Gen. Mark A. Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the country’s top military official, under Mr. Trump. When the president offered him the job, General Milley told him, “I’ll do whatever you ask me to do.” But he quickly soured on the president.

General Milley’s frustration with the president peaked on June 1, 2020, when Black Lives Matter protesters filled Lafayette Square, near the White House. Mr. Trump demanded to send in the military to clear the protesters, but General Milley and other top aides refused. In response, Mr. Trump shouted, “You are all losers!” according to the excerpt. “Turning to Milley, Trump said, ‘Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?’” the authors write.

After the square was cleared by the National Guard and police, General Milley briefly joined the president and other aides in walking through the empty park so Mr. Trump could be photographed in front of a church on the other side. The authors said General Milley later considered his decision to join the president to be a “misjudgment that would haunt him forever, a ‘road-to-Damascus moment,’ as he would later put it.”

A week after that incident, General Milley wrote — but never delivered — a scathing resignation letter, accusing the president he served of politicizing the military, “ruining the international order,” failing to value diversity, and embracing the tyranny, dictatorship and extremism that members of the military had sworn to fight against.

“It is my belief that you were doing great and irreparable harm to my country,” the general wrote in the letter, which has not been revealed before and was published in its entirety by The New Yorker. General Milley wrote that Mr. Trump did not honor those who had fought against fascism and the Nazis during World War II.

“It’s now obvious to me that you don’t understand that world order,” General Milley wrote. “You don’t understand what the war was all about. In fact, you subscribe to many of the principles that we fought against. And I cannot be a party to that.”

Yet General Milley eventually decided to remain in office so he could ensure that the military could serve as a bulwark against an increasingly out-of-control president, according to the authors of the book.

“‘I’ll just fight him,’” General Milley told his staff, according to the New Yorker excerpt. “The challenge, as he saw it, was to stop Trump from doing any more damage, while also acting in a way that was consistent with his obligation to carry out the orders of his commander in chief. ‘If they want to court-martial me, or put me in prison, have at it.’”

In addition to the revelations about General Milley, the book excerpt reveals new details about Mr. Trump’s interactions with his top military and national security officials, and documents dramatic efforts by the former president’s most senior aides to prevent a domestic or international crisis in the weeks after Mr. Trump lost his re-election bid.

In the summer of 2017, the book excerpt reveals, Mr. Trump returned from viewing the Bastille Day parade in Paris and told Mr. Kelly that he wanted one of his own. But the president told Mr. Kelly: “Look, I don’t want any wounded guys in the parade. This doesn’t look good for me,” the authors write.

“Kelly could not believe what he was hearing,” the excerpt continues. “‘Those are the heroes,’ he told Trump. ‘In our society, there’s only one group of people who are more heroic than they are — and they are buried over in Arlington.’” Mr. Trump answered: “I don’t want them. It doesn’t look good for me,” according to the authors.

The excerpt underscores how many of the president’s senior aides have been trying to burnish their reputations in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack. Like General Milley, who largely refrained from criticizing Mr. Trump publicly, they are now eager to make their disagreements with him clear by cooperating with book authors and other journalists.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who never publicly disputed Mr. Trump’s wild election claims and has rarely criticized him since, was privately dismissive of the assertions of fraud that Mr. Trump and his advisers embraced.

On the evening of Nov. 9, 2020, after the news media called the race for Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Pompeo called General Milley and asked to see him, according to the excerpt. During a conversation at General Milley’s kitchen table, Mr. Pompeo was blunt about what he thought of the people around the president.

“‘The crazies have taken over,’” Mr. Pompeo told General Milley, according to the authors. Behind the scenes, they write, Mr. Pompeo had quickly accepted that the election was over and refused to promote overturning it.

“‘He was totally against it,’ a senior State Department official recalled. Pompeo cynically justified this jarring contrast between what he said in public and in private. ‘It was important for him to not get fired at the end, too, to be there to the bitter end,’ the senior official said,” according to the excerpt.

The authors detail what they call an “extraordinary arrangement” in the weeks after the election between Mr. Pompeo and General Milley to hold daily morning phone calls with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, in an effort to make sure the president did not take dangerous actions.

“Pompeo and Milley soon took to calling them the ‘land the plane’ phone calls,” the authors write. “‘Our job is to land this plane safely and to do a peaceful transfer of power the 20th of January,’ Milley told his staff. ‘This is our obligation to this nation.’ There was a problem, however. ‘Both engines are out, the landing gear are stuck. We’re in an emergency situation.’”

The Jan. 6 hearings on Capitol Hill have revealed that a number of the former president’s top aides pushed back privately against Mr. Trump’s election denials, even as some declined to do so publicly. Several, including Pat A. Cipollone, the former White House counsel, testified that they had attempted — without success — to convince the president that there was no evidence of substantial fraud.

In the excerpt, the authors say that General Milley concluded that Mr. Cipollone was “a force for ‘trying to keep guardrails around the president.’” The general also believed that Mr. Pompeo was “genuinely trying to achieve a peaceful handover of power,” the authors write. But they write that General Milley was “never sure what to make of Meadows. Was the chief of staff trying to land the plane or to hijack it?”

Gen. Milley is not the only top official who considered resignation, the authors write, in response to the president’s actions.

The excerpt details private conversations among the president’s national security team as they discussed what to do in the event the president attempted to take actions they felt they could not abide. The authors report that General Milley consulted with Robert Gates, a former secretary of defense and former head of the C.I.A.

The advice from Mr. Gates was blunt, the authors write: “‘Keep the chiefs on board with you and make it clear to the White House that if you go, they all go, so that the White House knows this isn’t just about firing Mark Milley. This is about the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff quitting in response.’”

The excerpt makes clear that Mr. Trump did not always get the yes-men that he wanted. During one Oval Office exchange, Mr. Trump asked Gen. Paul Selva, an Air Force officer and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what he thought about the president’s desire for a military parade through the nation’s capital on the Fourth of July.

General Selva’s response, which has not been reported before, was blunt, and not what the president wanted to hear, according to the book’s authors.

“‘I didn’t grow up in the United States, I actually grew up in Portugal,’ General Selva said. “‘Portugal was a dictatorship — and parades were about showing the people who had the guns. And in this country, we don’t do that.’ He added, ‘It’s not who we are.’”
Last edited:

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Michigan Republican attorney general nominee linked to 2021 election security breach

Matthew DePerno is the Republican nominee for attorney general in Michigan. He won that position for one reason and one reason only: He was a fervent promoter of election conspiracy theories in the state, one who filed a doomed lawsuit claiming, without evidence, that Joe Biden's victory in the state wasn't valid because something something fraudulent vote counting.

It looks like he's also a soon-to-be-indicted criminal, because Reuters now reports conclusive evidence that DePerno's "Antrim County Election Lawsuit and Investigation Team" obtained unauthorized physical access to a Richfield county vote tabulation machine during their "investigation." That's a crime. It's a very significant crime, and Reuters reports that they were able to match a serial number shown in a photograph of a tabulation "summary tape" submitted by DePerno for his lawsuit to a Richfield county machine that had previously been reported as part of an election security breach in that county.

"There's no doubt in my mind" that the photograph shows DePerno's team "had physical hands-on access" to the breached machine, an election security specialist told Reuters. We don't know how that happened, but we do now know that the Richfield county breach, conclusively, is tied to DePerno's failed "investigation."

As we have had to explain repeatedly of late, despite it seldom coming up in conversation at any point prior to Republicanism's descent into widespread criminality, gaining unauthorized access to tightly restricted election machines is a big deal with big consequences. In order to prevent tampering, every machine used during the voting process is secured with strict chain-of-custody protocols to ensure nobody other than the machine's authorized users can so much as touch it. Any machine that falls out of that chain of custody must be taken out of service, because election officials can't prove it wasn't tampered with.

That may mean rebuilding the machine from scratch, or it may mean destroying it and buying a new one. Vote tabulation equipment isn't cheap, and a breach in the security chain can therefore be a budget-breaking screw-up on the part of whatever election official allowed it to happen. That's why gaining unauthorized access to those machines is a felony; merely touching them effectively destroys them, even if no tampering was done.

For the rest of us, explanations of election security protocols have long been useful mostly as tools for irritating those around you at parties. That was until the recent election cycle, when Republican officials who believed and promoted the Republican Party's thoroughly seditious election conspiracies started willingly breaching that security themselves in nationwide attempts to prove that people who were not them had, uh, been doing it first.

So now we've got a whole slew of Republican candidates and elected officials being investigated or indicted for giving unauthorized Republican partisans physical access to election machines so that data can be copied or the machines can be disassembled to look for God-knows-what. Chips with bamboo in them, probably.

It was all based on a hoax promoted by a malignant narcissist who is simply mentally incapable of acknowledging that every individual bad thing that might happen to him is not a worldwide conspiracy to make him look bad, but it quickly descended into a Republican Party crime spree. Well, when your party immunizes a sitting president twice for gobsmacking corruption that would normally have resulted in removing the crook from office, it does tend to send a message to the party's ground troops. Crime is good now, so long as you do it for Republicanism.

The obvious question now is what level of legal trouble Michigan Republican attorney general nominee Matthew DePerno now finds himself in, and the answer is: a lot. Reuters reports that the current Michigan attorney general's office, headed by Democrat Dana Nessel has been investigating the Richfield data breach at the request of the Michigan secretary of state. Now that Reuters has conclusive evidence tying the DePerno's "investigation" of voting machines in Antrim County to a previously unexplained security breach in Richfield County, the attorney general's investigation now lands squarely on the Republican nominee to take over that investigation.

It seems likely that a special prosecutor will be appointed, rather than having the incumbent Michigan attorney general head an investigation into her own possibly-felonious challenger. It also seems likely that this is going to happen very quickly, because we can be certain that if Matthew DePerno actually wins in November, he'll announce that the investigation into the Richfield County security breach is over and everybody around him is innocent.

What, you think a man willing to commit or assist in felony election systems tampering is going to not commit the further crime of quashing the criminal probe into his own acts if he's in a position to do so? There's a guy sitting in the attorney general's office in Texas who will prove you wrong any day of the week.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Ukraine Update: As Ukraine hits Kherson bridges, a surprise missile makes its exciting combat debut

The noose continues to tighten around Kherson:

With Ukraine’s relentless trumpeting of a forthcoming offensive in Kherson, Russia has taken the bait and rushed around 60% of its total forces to the region.

Russia has around 120 BTGs in the country (individual size and strength varies by BTG). There are an estimated 22 around Kherson, 27 between the east bank of the Dnipro river and Melitopol, and 17 south of Zaporizhzhia and southern Donbas. That is 66 deployed to the south, or over half the total. Def Mon has an unconfirmed report claiming that Russia’s current strength in or around Ukraine is 175,000 troops, 1,461 tanks, 3,295 armored personnel carriers, 1,488 barrel artillery, 710 rocket artillery, and 80 missile launchers. About 25% of those are in combat reserves (refitting, rotated out), with another 10% severely undermanned and in a second reserve.

For context, Russia invaded Ukraine with around 190,000 troops, plus another 34,000 from its Donbas proxies. Before the invasion, Russia supposedly had 2,800 active tanks, plus around 10,000 in reserve. The Oryx list of visually confirmed Russian losses stands at 931, while Ukraine claims 1,800 destroyed. If DefMon’s report is real and accurate, that means only around 123,000 Russians are left in combat-capable units. And remember that only about 15-30% of troops are actually in combat roles. It takes a lot of support troops (like all those mean loading and unloading supply trucks) to make an army work.

Russia is using four ferries to move military equipment, two by the Antonovsky bridge, and another two hidden in a river nearby. The OSINT (open source intelligence) guys have ferreted out those latter two. Here’s one of them in action:

It almost behooves Ukraine to allow Russia to continue flooding vehicles into the Kherson region before fully closing the trap. Even as is, it’s perplexing Russia would reinforce without an easy way to supply those forces. On paper, 22 BTGs would means 220 tanks, 880 armored personnel carriers, several hundred artillery and rocket guns, and around 20,000 men. How are they supposed to feed all of that (men and guns) with four freakin’ ferries? Perhaps Russia has other surreptitious means of resupply, and they can certainly fly goods in via helicopter. But that’s an inefficient way to support the Russian way of war—leveling the opposition with thousands of artillery shells per day. Heck, it’s not even about efficiency, but capability. It might actually be impossible

Ukraine is working the major bridges, preventing Russia from repairing them. The barges will be harder to hit, especially if they move around enough, but they are nevertheless vulnerable. Ukraine is working hard to degrade Russian air defenses in the region, which would allow TB2 Bayraktar drones and the Ukrainian Air Force to operate closer to river and any barges moving equipment and supplies. As such, this was an interesting find:

This AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missile, reported by Russian sources, is of American origin, yet was curiously never announced by the Pentagon in any of its aid packages. Anti-radar missiles are exactly what they sound like—missiles that hone in on radar signatures, usually employed by air defense batteries scouring the skies for enemy aircraft.

These are quarter-million dollar missiles, incredibly valuable in establishing air superiority. Their appearance was particularly surprising because they are designed to be launched from NATO-standard aircraft. They simply aren’t compatible with the targeting systems in Ukraine’s Soviet-era aircraft. So it’s a mystery how they were launched.

HARM has a range of around 150 kilometers when launched from the air. Any ground-launched modification won’t get that kind of range without a Mach 2 assist, at altitude. Still, it should meet or exceed HIMARS range, meaning Russia’s rear-area air defenses are all vulnerable.

Ukraine has recently claimed the destruction of a great number of Russian S-300 anti-air systems, including four yesterday. It’s been assumed such kills were a result of HIMARS rocket artillery strikes. But this new information, if confirmed, would indicate Ukraine has an even better weapon to reclaim its skies. AGM-88 HARMs might not have the flashy impact of HIMARS, but they are incredibly important to any Ukrainian effort to isolate and cut off Russian forces around Kherson.

Ukrainian air superiority over Kherson would be a legitimate game changer.


Hunter wrote about this bullshit yesterday.
As mentioned, Russia is throwing a great deal of bodies (including lots of Wagner mercenaries) at the area around Bakhmut. Here’s where that is, as a reminder:


Ukraine is deeply entrenched from Toretsk, to Bakhmut, to Sivers’k. Indeed, Russia hasn’t budged from Lysychansk since taking that city a few weeks ago. That entire northeastern corner is currently quiet. Russia’s biggest effort is in this Bakhmut direction.

The big question, of course, is why. Why are they wasting effort, manpower, and equipment on a town that has marginal strategic value. Say Bakhmut falls. I don’t think it will, but let’s give Russia Bakhmut. Then what? It doesn’t cut any supply lines. Toretsk and Sivers’k would remain well supplied.

Bakhmut used to be important because it supplied Lysychansk. That’s no longer the case, obviously. So the road connecting the two is irrelevant. Will Russia push to Kostyantynivka? Good luck maintaining those supply lines. North to Sivers’k? Those flanks will be juice targets. Maybe they’d push south to connect with previously-occupied Donetsk territory (the purple on the map). That would cut of a slice of Ukrainian-held territory, but … so what? This war isn’t being lost or won based on territory held, but on attrition, and Ukraine would be thrilled to trade that little chunk of Donbas for several thousand Russian soldiers and dozens of tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Once again, Russia is advancing for the sake of advancing, lacking any ultimate strategic aim or focus. And even when they conquer anything of value, they are so spent they remain stuck. Here’s the furthest they’ve advanced from key cities:

: (captured April 1)
15 kilometers south (to Dovhen’ke)

: (captured May 7)
22 kilometers north (to Lysychansk)
24 kilometers south (closed a small salient)
18 kilometers west (toward Bakhmut)

Lysychansk: (captured July 3)
<10 kilometers west (toward Sivers’k)

This isn’t playing for strategic victory, it’s tactical scraps. And the fact that only around 13-15 BTGs are left around Bakhmut, while Russia floods forces to the south, makes this advance particularly bizarre. It means that even if they take Bakhmut, there won’t be anything left to press any advantage. So once again … why.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
'You don't deserve a light sentence:' All three sentences handed down in Ahmaud Arbery murder
Lauren Sue

The white father-son duo already sentenced to life in prison in the death of Ahmaud Arbery were handed down additional life sentences on Monday for federal hate-crime convictions in Arbery’s death. Former prosecutorial investigator Gregory McMichael got life plus seven years, and his son Travis, who fired the gun who killed Arbery, got life plus 10 years, according to WSB Radio. William "Roddie" Bryan, who filmed moments of the murder and helped the McMichaels corner Arbery, was also sentenced in federal court to more than 37 years in prison. With time-served being counted toward his sentence, it translates to 35 more years in prison. That’s in addition to the life sentence Bryan was handed down in the state case against him.

"By the time you've served your federal sentence, you will be close to 90 years old, but Mr. Ahmaud Arbery never got the chance to be 26," U.S. District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood reportedly told Bryan. "You didn't brandish a gun; you preserved what ended up being the crucial video of the trial."

Wood also told Bryan he was “not a model of citizenship even after this happened,” but the one thing that he did “was explain you had that crucial evidence.”

“The sentence is lengthy and one that has been earned," the judge told Bryan.

Her ruling means Bryan, a white man, is the only murderer who could be eligible for parole. Wood, however, said the sentence she delivered him isn’t a light sentence “because you don't deserve a light sentence."

Gregory and Travis armed themselves with guns, got into a truck, and chased 25-year-old Arbery on Feb. 23, 2020 through the Satilla Shores neighborhood in South Georgia after accusing Arbery of breaking into a home under construction in the community, according to a federal indictment. Bryan used his truck to block Arbery’s path.

Assistant U.S. District Attorney Tara Lyons said Bryan's perceptions of Black people "absolutely influenced his decisions on the day he chased Ahmaud Arbery.”

“This never, ever, ever would've happened if Ahmaud had been white,” Lyons said and WSB Radio journalist Veronica Waters captured.

Bryan did take an opportunity to speak during the sentencing and apologized to Arbery’s family and friends, Waters reported.

“I would like to say to Mr. Ahmaud Arbery's family and friends how sorry I am for what happened to him on that day,” Bryan said. “I never intended any harm to him, and never would've played any role if I knew then what I know now."

Marcus Arbery, Ahmaud’s father, scoffed at the killers asking for mercy and said “it was hard to look at” the three murderers “everyday as a father.”

“And they show no remorse for how they took his life,” Marcus Arbery said. “That’s the thing that really bothers me real bad, and then they ask for mercy. They didn’t give him no mercy that day.”

Arbery was shot with a shotgun three times, twice in the chest and once in a wrist, according to autopsy results.

“They didn’t even give him a chance to finish his run,” Marcus Arbery said.

The McMichaels must serve their sentences in state prison—a request Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones advocated for when the McMichaels pleaded guilty to the federal count against them in February— according to WSB Radio. “Granting these men their preferred conditions of confinement will defeat me,” Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, told Wood at the time. “It gives them one last chance to spit in my face after murdering my son.”

Amy Lee Copeland, Travis McMichael’s attorney, said in federal court that his client already has received hundreds of threats and a state prison would mean “an effective back-door death penalty.”

Cooper-Jones said during a news conference that whether he served in federal or state prison, it wasn’t going to bring Ahmaud home, “and that’s a pain that we live with everyday.”

She said she’s proud to say “we finally got justice for Ahmaud on the federal level” but that she was waiting for "just a simple I'm sorry” from Travis.

“But evidently he wasn't sorry," the mother said.

Cooper-Jones also mentioned the fact that although her son’s murderers were sentenced, the alleged corruption that shielded them from accountability for months has not been addressed fully.

It took 74 days after Arbery’s death for charges to be filed against the McMichaels. Former Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson was indicted on counts of obstruction and violating her oath of office. Johnson, the applicable prosecutor at the time, recused herself from the case because Gregory McMichael used to work as an investigator in her office, but she also involved Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill to act in her place. His son worked in the same office. Barnhill wrote in his eventual recusal letter that the Arbery family “are not strangers to the local criminal justice system,” according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“So the journey is not over,” Cooper-Jones said. “We still have some more people to deal with.”


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Minnesota secretary of state candidate questioned whether disabled people 'should be voting'

The Republican Party's plan to find all the worst people in America and run them for office just keeps on going. This time it's Kim Crockett, who has a good shot at becoming the party's nominee for Minnesota secretary of state on Tuesday. Crockett wants to be in charge of Minnesota elections. Crockett has some extremely peculiar ideas about which Americans even ought to be allowed to vote to begin with.

In a 2020 radio interview resurfaced by The Huffington Post, Crockett mused on a state Supreme Court ruling allowing voters to ask for help in casting their vote if they have a disability or don't feel confident in their ability to read English. And by "mused," we mean:

"So, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that indeed you can help an unlimited number of people vote if they are disabled or can’t read or speak English, which raises the question, should they be voting? We can talk about that another time."

Ohhh yes, I think we will. Crockett is now furiously (and very dubiously) backtracking, but her question was a straightforward one. If you don't speak English or if you can't, say, physically make it up the steps outside your assigned voting location, "should they be voting?"

Well, neither of those things is a requirement for being an American citizen, so unless we're going to start classifying wheelchair use or poor vision or dyslexia or not speaking English as a felony, those people do get to vote. It's not, uh, controversial. Unless you're a Nazi, of course.

This is the sort of eugenics-adjacent
ick that most people wouldn't think to even say in private, much less on the radio, but saying such things on the radio is how your state Republican Party decides they want to endorse you as their candidate for office. But Crockett has much more on her resume. She's a promoter of election conspiracy hoaxes, which is why she was grousing about the state Supreme Court letting disabled people vote to begin with. She's anti-immigrant, which is why she was grousing about the "can't speak English" part.

HuffPost notes a 2019 New York Times story quoting Crockett as saying America was "at the breaking point," in terms of immigration, because "These aren't people coming from Norway, let's put it that way. These people are very visible." She's also a promoter of antisemitic rhetoric, thinks Biden's win was "illegitimate," and is in general just an absolute garbage fire of a human being.

Again: She won the Minnesota Republican Party's endorsement just last May, as Republican state parties become functionally indistinguishable from early Naziism. Is suggesting that disabled people shouldn't vote or presenting, to the party convention, a video depicting the Jewish incumbent of the office you're running for is a "puppet" of George Soros—is that the "Minnesota nice" we keep hearing about?

Or just the burps of midwest fascists?

There is a whole lot of extremely-adjacent-to-Nazism rhetoric coming out of state Republican candidates this cycle, and it's stuff that the party would be extremely unlikely to stomach a decade ago. That's ancient history. This time around, high-profile Republican candidates are using rhetoric plucked right from Klan rallies.

Yeeeesh. And in the meantime, fascist cells promoting the notion that democracy itself must take a back seat to hard-right goals are getting gauzy profiles from a press still unwilling to pick sides between fascism and not-fascism.

Republican campaigners are no longer self-filtering. They'll tell you exactly what they think, and they think that whole segments of Americans shouldn't be voting and that "Marxists" are infiltrating schools to promote "LGBTQ degeneracy." These people are
not good. These people are hateful, bigoted, racist, paranoid, cruel, paranoid, compulsively lying, paranoid, and paranoid people. This is a whole party that's made a game of finding the people in America most willing to work themselves up into an absolutely batshit froth, then put Republicanism's official backing behind the lot of them.

I don't know how you find someone like Kim Crockett. That takes some doing. I'm also stunned the Republican Party found her before Fox News signed her to host her own evening show.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Could the Amtrak bar car be enough to get Rudy Giuliani to testify in Fulton County?
April Siese

The Fulton County District Attorney’s office is calling bullshit on Rudy Giuliani’s claims that a recent medical procedure prevents him from traveling to Georgia and testifying before a special grand jury about his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Giuliani’s legal team claims he can’t respond to a subpoena because a “recent invasive procedure” following a “complex artery diagnosis” means getting on a plane would be medically inadvisable. Yet District Attorney Fani Williams found multiple instances of Giuliani seeing the world despite his legal team’s assertions.

According to Williams’ response, Giuliani “purchased multiple airline tickets with cash, including tickets to Rome, Italy and Zurich Switzerland, for travel dates ranging between July 22, 2022 and July 29, 2022. All of these dates were after [his] medical procedure.” It’s anyone’s guess how Williams’ office obtained that information, but even more puzzling is Giuliani potentially forking over thousands in cash for plane tickets if not for the sake of the purchase going undetected by the likes of Williams.

Williams suggested getting Giuliani to Georgia by bus, which sounds like the stereotypical hell one would experience on a Greyhound. More appealingly, she suggested Giuliani could also make it to Fulton County by train. Not only would Giuliani being reducing his carbon footprint on this trip but Amtrak may actually be enticing enough to compel Giuliani to take Williams’ office up on a fully paid for ticket. After all, the passenger train does include a bar car.
Giuliani is not only an outspoken Trump ally who’s fully bought into election fraud theories and pushed Trump’s lies to a degree few can rival, but he’s also a prolific booze hound. Giuliani’s drunkenness was recently highlighted during a Jan. 6 committee hearing in which members of the Trump campaign detailed Giuliani’s 2020 election night drunkenness culminating in the former New York City mayor pushing for Trump to declare the presidential election stolen from the then-president. He’s denied being drunk during a speech commemorating the Sept. 11 attacks that, well, sounded like he’d made his remarks while intoxicated. He’s also said he’s pretty sure he’s never done an interview drunk before, but who can say?

To Giuliani, I say: Take Williams up on the ticket. And maybe set a new personal record for yourself and participate in the Fulton County investigation while completely shit-hammered. Not many people can say they’ve stood before a grand jury slurring their words while also trying to avoid incrimination. If anyone can do it, though, it’s America’s Mayor.

Latest posts