• "Trump's arrival  gave us breathing space. He gave us a pause, a chance to get ready."
• Ex-Trump national security advisor John Bolton says 'Putin saw Trump doing a lot of his work for him,' so he chose not to invade Ukraine
• Lev Parnas: “How My Work For Trump and Giuliani Sought to Make Ukraine Defenseless”
• At least three times now, Trump has interfered with those negotiations by vowing that Russian president Vladimir Putin will release Gershkovich for him and him alone. He said it in last night’s CNN debacle, where he also made a big deal out of the idea that Putin will do it as a favor, without an exchange of money.
  • He said something else last night in his slurry of words that jumped out. Somewhere in his discussion of Putin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine in February 2022, Trump said: “Putin saw that, he said, you know what, I think we’re going to go in and maybe take my—this was his dream. I talked to him about it, his dream.”
    • Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager and then conduit to Russian operatives, in summer 2016 “discussed a plan to resolve the ongoing political problems in Ukraine by creating an autonomous republic in its more industrialized eastern region of Donbas, and having [Viktor] Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President ousted in 2014, elected to head that republic.”
    • Manafort had helped to get the pro-Russian oligarch Yanukovych into office, and when Yanukovych fled to Russia after the Ukrainian people threw him out, Manafort was left unemployed and in debt to other oligarchs. When he went to work for Trump, for free, he promptly wrote to his partner Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee identified in 2020 as a Russian operative, asking how “we” could use the appointment “to get whole,” and made sure that the Russian oligarch to whom he owed the most money knew about his close connection with the Trump campaign (p. 135).
    • “That plan, Manafort later acknowledged, constituted a ‘backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine” (p. 140). The region that Putin wanted was the country’s industrial heartland. He was offering a “peace” plan that carved off much of Ukraine and made it subservient to him. This was the dead opposite of U.S. policy for a free and united Ukraine, and there was no chance that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who was running for the presidency against Trump, would stand for it. But if only Trump were elected….
    • Manafort’s partner and Russian operative Kilimnick wrote that "[a]ll that is required to start the process is a very minor 'wink' (or slight push) from D[onald] T[rump] saying 'he wants peace in Ukraine and Donbass back in Ukraine' and a decision to be a 'special representative' and manage this process." Following that, Kilimnik suggested that Manafort ‘could start the process and within 10 days visit Russia ([Yanukovych] guarantees your reception at the very top level, cutting through all the bullsh*t and getting down to business), Ukraine, and key EU capitals.’ The email also suggested that once then–Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko understood this ‘message’ from the United States, the process ‘will go very fast and DT could have peace in Ukraine basically within a few months after inauguration’” (p. 99). The men continued to work on what they called the “Mariupol Plan” at least until 2018.
  • After Russia invaded Ukraine again in 2022, Jim Rutenberg published a terrific and thorough review of this history in the New York Times Magazine, pointing out that Putin’s attack on Ukraine looked different with this history behind it. Once Biden took office in 2021, the many efforts of the people around Trump, including most obviously Rudy Giuliani, to influence Ukrainian politics through their ties to the White House were over.
    • “Thirteen months later,” Rutenberg wrote, “Russian tanks crossed the Ukrainian frontier.” Once his troops were there, Putin claimed he had annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, two of which were specifically named in the Mariupol Plan, and instituted martial law in them, claiming that the people there had voted to join Russia.

Adhering to your rationale, noted war and Russia hawk, George Bush, was actually weak on Russia, since they invaded Georgia during his tenure. And Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, must've been tougher on Russia than Oleksandr Turchynov, Petro Poroshenko, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy each. Does that about sum up your position?

Those failsuits were cynical attempts to procure power, which they would've employed regardless of political opponent and their morals.

Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham can simultaneously believe that Biden is a "good man" and Trump a lesser one who's "personally responsible" for the attack on the Capitol, among other things, and still prefer Trump for President because of shared ends, regardless of means.

A number of Trump's prophets, like Franklin Graham and Tony Perkins, have no trouble branding Trump as a "modern-day Cyrus".

in their attempt to follow the procedures laid out by the judge in Hawaii 1960 elector case

The Michigan AG addressed this flawed comparison in her statement:

The 2020 Presidential Election had concluded 41 days prior and the election results had been officially certified. Every serious challenge had been denied, dismissed, or otherwise rejected by the time the False Electors convened. The Trump campaign never appealed for a recount at any time or on any scale, despite the clear ability and legal authority to do so.

There simply are no historically analogous situations. Unlike the 1960 presidential recount in Hawaii, there was no pretense of a necessary ‘back-up’ slate or document. There was no constitutional crisis looming. There was no legitimate legal avenue nor any plausible use of such a document or an alternative slate of electors. No state or federal court had provided credence to even a single claim that could have impugned the authority of the rightful slate of Biden electors. The United States Supreme Court itself, the highest court in all of America, had issued an order 3 days earlier declining to hear a challenge to the certification of Michigan’s presidential election. There remained no question of the outcome of this election and no reason to necessitate the creation of a back-up slate of electors, other than to unlawfully overturn the election. That the effort failed, and democracy prevailed does not erase the crimes of those who enacted the False Electors plot to overturn the election and circumvent the will of Michigan voters.

And I'll add that the 1960 Presidential election in Hawaii was actually close, with the unofficial count seeing JFK up by 92 votes, while the official - which had been identified as being legitimately subject to tabulation errors - had Nixon up by 141, thus presenting a valid reason for a second slate of electors being formed pre-certification, pending the outcome of a recount, with full permission from the Governor. To the contrary, as the Michigan AG noted, the election had already been decided and certified without any demonstrable issues, and by 154,000 votes.

Moreover, these weren't the set slate of party-chosen electors to start with. And they surreptitiously created these false slates (without permission from their Governor, often with forged seals and signatures), and enacted a plan to hide in State Capitols so they could later claim they actually met in the Senate chambers to submit them, after having been turned away from the State Capitol. But still claimed they were certified, sent them to the U.S. Congress, and then asked Pence to count the votes on Jan 6 even though by that time Trump's legal challenges had petered out.

All legal battles to contest the election had been exhausted, and all states had certified their results. Even John Eastman, admitted their plan was "crazy" and illegal.

“Pence had a choice between his constitutional duty and his political future, and he did the right thing,” said John Yoo

"He has no power to ‘change the outcome’ or to ‘overturn the election,’" said Michael McConnell, a former Republican-appointed federal judge and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. "Once the electors chosen by the states met and voted on Dec. 14, 2020, the election was over."

---

94) Also on January 4, when Co-Conspirator 2 acknowledged to the Defendant's Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2, "[Y]ou're going to cause riots in the streets." Co-Conspirator 2 responded that there had previously been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was "not going to work."
“Just two months earlier, on October 11, Co-Conspirator 2 had taken the opposite position, writing that neither the Constitution nor the ECA provided the Vice President discretion in the counting of electoral votes, or permitted him to “make the determination on his own.””

---

“we would just be sending in "fake" electoral votes  to Pence so that "someone" in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the "fake" votes should be counted.”

---

Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark  that if Trump remained in office despite the absence of any evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, riots would break out in U.S. cities, Clark responded, “That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”

---

• Ex-Trump attorney Jenna Ellis pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case
  • Lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell entered guilty pleas last week just before their trial was set to begin.

"There was no discretion ever given to the vice president in history, nor should there ever be," Pence told "Face the Nation." "I had no right to overturn the election and Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024."... "He endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol. The American people deserve to know that on that day President Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution."

Trump: “Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!”

What's wrong with voting down (including 6 Republicans voting against) an extreme candidate like Bork, who opposed civil rights, endorsed poll taxes, believed that the executive branch should have excessive powers, and participated in the Saturday Night Massacre?

Comparatively, Republican leadership praised the FedSoc donor and speaker, Garland, for the USSC... before Obama ever said his name.

"Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election."

But once Obama did, knowing Garland would easily secure enough votes from all but the most conservative wing of the GOP, McConnell declared that no nominations shall be considered until after the election.

Yes, drone striking persons who engaged in or promoted political violence i.e. terrorists. Hmm, which individual has repeatedly expressed a desire to shoot protesters, migrants, and his political opponents, and sicced a mob on Congress - a mob which he continues to fundraise for while glorifying as "patriots" and "warriors"?

Aggregate polling has Biden within the +/-3% MOE versus Trump. If that's a sure thing for the leading candidate, then Mondale became President in '84, Clinton lost in '92, Kerry won in '04, Romney in '12, and Hillary in '16.

Here's a refutation of all the GOP's Burisma talking points, including the quid pro quo differences  between Presidents. Might be useful to Destiny.

As I recall, Hillary couldn't get away with even one comment identifying a subset of a subset of Republicans as racist i.e. a portion of Trump supporters, even though the shoe fits. 

Robert E. Lee has a 61/10 favorability rating with Trump voters but just a 17/40 spread with Clinton voters. Trump voters say they would rather have Jefferson Davis as President than Barack Obama 45/20.

Founder of the National Review, William F. Buckley Jr:

Up until now , Democrats could say that after all, in their state the Democratic Party encompassed a conservative like Thurmond, a middle-of-the-roader like Russell, and a liberal like Olin Johnston. Now that it is no longer possible to say that, the Republican Party emerges as the natural home for conservative Southern voters… As matters now stand, the South has lost its effective veto within the Democratic Party. The egalitarians have moved in, and there is not much left of states rights.

---

one suspects  that there are a number of voters who express themselves other than as Republicans not because they lie somewhere in between the Republicans and the Democrats -- or to the left of the Democrats -- but because they lie to the right of the Republicans. To use the label loosely, they are the so-called Wallace vote… The point is to woo the Wallace vote over to the Republican Party, where it belongs: leaving only the dregs to rally around the national third parties.

Definitely not racist, George Wallace:

We will not be intimidated by the vultures of the liberal left-wing press. We will not be deceived by their lies and distortions of truth. We will not be swayed by their brutal attacks upon the character and reputation of any honest citizen who dares stand up and fight for liberty.

Federal courts will not convict a "demonstrator" destroying private property. But the courts rule you cannot say a simple "God is good, we thank Thee for our food," in schools supported by public funds.

I am a conservative. I intend to give Americans a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child.

Americans have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government.

We must not be misled by left-wing incompetent news media that day after day feed us a diet of fantasy telling us we are bigots, racists and hate-mongers to oppose the destruction of the constitution and our nation.

A left-wing monster has risen up in this nation. It has invaded the government. It has invaded the news media. It has invaded the leadership of many of our churches. It has invaded every phase and aspect of the life of freedom-loving people.

Prominent Trump influencer turned DeSantis influencer, Pedro Gonzalez:

The truth is that white racial anxiety has been an animating force of right-wing politics for decades, and it will continue to be so for as long as there are white people who aren’t prepared to go gently into that good night, heads hanging low under the weight of undue guilt and shame… These themes or variations of them would recur again and again, and draw Middle Americans to the presidential campaigns of George Wallace, Ross Perot, Patrick Buchanan, and Donald Trump. It turns out that extinction anxiety is a powerful motivator.

At least some of you  are still capable of intellectual honesty.

• Trump: "We’ve been  waging an all out war on American democracy"
• "Anybody that doesn’t think there wasn’t massive Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election is either very stupid, or very corrupt!"
• "We're going to take over Washington, D.C.. We're going to federalize. We're going to have very powerful crime."
• "You can't have an election  in the middle of a political season"
• "We'll bring crime back to law and order"
• Trump: “The GOP growth is  plunging by more than 50%.”
• "Right now, a number of state laws allow a baby to be born from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month. It is wrong. It has to change"

Dafuq?

Black unemployment  has been consistently lower under Biden, while real (inflation-adjusted) wages have only grown, and are the highest on record.

Additionally:

Pay in America is becoming more equal along race, age, and education lines as well. The wage gap between Black and white Americans has shrunk to its lowest point since at least the 1980s. Pay for workers younger than 25 has increased twice as fast as older workers’ pay. And the so-called college wage premium—the pay gap between those with and without a college degree—has shrunk to its lowest measure in 15 years.

A) The President > FBI
B) The first 3 Trump-directed instances I listed came through formal requests (not on twitter) to Twitter.
C) Again, only 13 percent of requests have led to Twitter finding a terms of service violation worthy of removal. 13 percent hardly seems coercive.

The standard is:

'In fact, they are explicit in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”'

Government officials are allowed to meet with media companies, and even ask them to do stuff, which said companies are free to ignore, just like they do 87 percent of the time already, regardless if it was President Trump asking for the removal of posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch", or Biden asking for the removal of covid disinfo.

Or whether it's Trump demanding 'Y' company fire 'X' individual, and/or alter their content to his liking, ultimately costing this hypothetical company say, $787.5 million.

They functionally ruled on the merits too:

The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous. The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.” Missouri v. Biden, 680 F. Supp. 3d 630, 715 (WD La. 2023). But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance, the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship requests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests. Ibid., n. 662 (internal quotation marks omitted). The record it cites says nothing about “censorship requests.” See App. 639–642. Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. Ibid. This has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation. The court also found that “[a] drastic increase in censorship . . . directly coincided with Defendants’ public calls for censorship and private demands for censorship.” 680 F. Supp. 3d, at 715. As to the “calls for censorship,” the court’s proof included statements from Members of Congress, who are not parties to this suit. Ibid., and n. 658. Some of the evidence of the “increase in censorship” reveals that Facebook worked with the CDC to update its list of removable false claims, but these examples do not suggest that the agency “demand[ed]” that it do so. Ibid. Finally, the court, echoing the plaintiffs’ proposed statement of facts, erroneously stated that Facebook agreed to censor content that did not violate its policies. Id., at 714, n. 655. Instead, on several occasions, Facebook explained that certain content did not qualify for removal under its policies but did qualify for other forms of moderation.

How bad is your memory? Trump - along with a bunch of GOP Congressmen - called for ending 230, issued an EO intended to defang it, and threatened to shut down twitter on multiple occasions. And nowadays he's explicitly saying he'll investigate and punish media outlets like MSNBC.

Trump couldn't invoke executive privilege, as none of the above - including Trump - were executives when the subpoenas were issued and contempt votes held.

But sure, Trump can play pretend at still being President, as he heads upstairs to deal with "the Afghanistan".

No, they didn't.

Trump already did what they're claiming Biden did, as he demanded social media remove posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch".

Know what they did if said posts didn't violate their terms of service? They ignored them, just like they've done under the Biden admin. About only 13 percent of requests have led to Twitter finding a terms of service violation worthy of removal. 13 percent hardly seems coercive.

Also, Trump was far more coercive, in that he repeatedly called for Twitter to be shut down, and they still ignored him successfully.

You realize practically every admin - including the Trump admin - has invoked executive privilege to protect confidential communications, right? Bannon is not an executive.

Guess what bucko, the SCOTUS also ruled in favor of big tech censoring speech. Yikes. You likely see no problem with that.

TIL it's "censorship" to determine how my private property is used. I suppose you won't mind the homeless squatting in your residence, as long as they're speaking - on something, anything?

Twitter can just decline to remove posts, just like they do 87 percent of the time already, regardless if it was President Trump asking for the removal of posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch", or Biden asking for the removal of covid disinfo.

'In fact, they are explicit in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”'

The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did. Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them?

Trump already did what they're claiming Biden did, as he demanded social media remove posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch".

Know what they did if said posts didn't violate their terms of service? They ignored them, just like they've done under the Biden admin. About only 13 percent of requests have led to Twitter finding a terms of service violation worthy of removal. 13 percent hardly seems coercive.

Also, Trump was far more coercive, in that he repeatedly called for Twitter to be shut down, and they still ignored him successfully.

Weird then that they said "no" 87% of the time, eh?

The USSC has displayed the ability to rule expeditiously on pressing matters, like the Pentagon papers: 4 days, Watergate tapes: 16 days, Trump CO ballot status: 25 days, and yet it's been 200 days since Trump's absurd immunity case was asked to be resolved by them, pushing the federal election interference trial beyond the election, effectively giving him the immunity he's asking for, provided he wins the election.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-siren-has-sounded-scientists-pinpoint-covid-s-origin-20220802-p5b6gb.html

Twitter can just decline to remove posts, just like they do 87 percent of the time already, regardless if it was Trump asking for the removal of posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch", or Biden asking for the removal of covid disinfo.

'In fact, they are explicit in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”'

The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did. Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them?

Trump already did what they're claiming Biden did, as he demanded social media remove posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch".

Know what they did if said posts didn't violate their terms of service? They ignored them, just like they've done under the Biden admin. About only 13 percent of requests have led to Twitter finding a terms of service violation worthy of removal. 13 percent hardly seems coercive.

Also, Trump was far more coercive, in that he repeatedly called for Twitter to be shut down, and they still ignored him successfully.