White House poker. Biden trumps Trump. (Trump thread #115)

[TheNorthWestPawsage]

Here it is.
Thanks @BruceandNosh for the title.

And still we persist.

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4084369-Figures-Don-t-Lie-But-Liars-Do-Figure-Trump-thread-114?msgid=102240605#102240605

Across - added to the safe harbour deadline today this news is making me rest a bit better.

Scrotus has been likening the US to a third world country 😮
No point in becoming pc on your way out the door 😂

Bruce - OMG! This is just so they can keep the begging bowl going.

Supreme Court order in full

@DuncinToffee

Supreme Court order in full

Someone pointed out that it's short enough to fit in Twitter's 140 character limit!

Although she hasn't confirmed it, Rudy Guiliani has said on radio that Jenna Ellis has tested +ve for Coronavirus. She was at a White House party over the weekend...

Someone pointed out that it's short enough to fit in Twitter's 140 character limit!
Perfect for Trump

I hope Trump kept the receipt when he bought Coney Barrett

The Guardian hays the same about Jenna Ellis. Also that White House staff are furious at being put at even more risk because of Trump's Christmas parties.

I took a look at the transcript of Trump's vaccine get together today. He predicted that "the numbers [of cases] will skyrocket downwards"

@TheSilveryPussycat

The Guardian hays the same about Jenna Ellis. Also that White House staff are furious at being put at even more risk because of Trump's Christmas parties.

I took a look at the transcript of Trump's vaccine get together today. He predicted that "the numbers [of cases] will skyrocket downwards"

I'm sure Boris meant it figuratively, but saying the the vaccine was was "a shot in the arm for the entire country" wasn't the best choice of words

"Skyrocket downwards". Snerk! A skyrocket going downwards is actually NOT a good thing.

And in other news, the NDAA passed the house with a veto proof majority.

www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics/defense-bill-house-vote-trump-veto-threat/index.html

So, on to the Senate. It would be wonderful if they got a veto proof majority there, too. But I'm not holding my breath.

Rep. Katie Porter lays out what McConnell is about. She is great, usually carries a whiteboard at hearings, I'm always keen to watch her.

Rep. Katie Porter
@RepKatiePorter
When I came to Congress, I knew I had a responsibility to pull back the curtain for the American people and expose corruption in real time. So, I’m filling you in on Senator McConnell’s attempts over the last 8 days to tank a bipartisan COVID relief bill.

You may have heard that Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon spending $900 billion to fund another round of small business loans, support hospitals and essential workers, and help the 10 million people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. (2/5)

Everyone at the negotiating table—including Senate Rs—has agreed to a compromise. Except one. Mitch McConnell is refusing to bring it to the floor unless it wipes away all COVID-related lawsuits filed that “allege injury or death” due to corporate negligence. (3/5)

These lawsuits represent the worst of the worst examples of disregard for human life—cases filed on behalf of nursing home patients and grocery store workers who died because the company in charge of keeping them safe prioritized cutting costs over protecting them. (4/5)

The same McConnell who said that President Trump is “100% within his rights” to pursue baseless lawsuits alleging election fraud is now refusing to pass urgently-needed relief unless it strips those same rights from the most vulnerable among us. This must be exposed. (5/5)

How on earth did McConnell get voted in again? He represents the worst of politics

Nevada Supreme Court also rejected Trump's law suit

Breaking: The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled unanimously to dismiss an appeal filed by Trump's campaign seeking to overturn the state's presidential election results. thenevadaindependent.com/article/nv-supreme-court-denies-trump-campaign-lawsuit-seeking-overturn-of-presidential-election

@titchy

6 Republican judges and no dissent

Nice.

"No dissent" is an interesting phrase, since it's not "unanimous". I can't see a breakdown so I'm wondering if it means some justices recused themselves ?

Also note that Flynn has had a 3-year criminal case thrown out, following Trumps pardon. However, something caught my eye, which suggests that pardon or not, we are in for an interesting future:

edition.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics/michael-flynn/index.html

(CNN)Judge Emmet Sullivan of the DC District Court on Tuesday dismissed Michael Flynn's criminal case as moot, following Flynn's pardon by President Donald Trump, ending a tortured three-year-long proceeding.

In his 43-page opinion, Sullivan critiqued Trump's pardon of Flynn, however, calling it "extraordinarily broad." He noted that the pardon does not make Flynn innocent. Flynn had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in early 2017.

"[A] pardon does not necessarily render 'innocent' a defendant of any alleged violation of the law," Sullivan wrote. "Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the acceptance of a pardon implies a 'confession' of guilt."

...

Now I'm no lawyer - but I can read. And imagine (incidentally anyone agree with me that imagination is a function of intelligence ?). And that comment reminds me that regardless of a criminal pardon, the fact that Flynn (and others) have not been found innocent opens the door for a lot of very frank reporting and biography. Because accepting a pardon means loosing the chance to be declared innocent.

Oops.

I look forward to the TV series "The Trump Years" with some very frank depictions of what some people may have gotten up to.

So if the Electoral College vote faithfully for Biden and it goes to Congress on 6 January, is there any way Congress can overturn the vote?

Cotefolie - unlikely I think given the Dems majority in the house and the slight lead by the Reps in the senate. Even if they win the 2 Georgia seats I think there would be enough "decent" Reps that wouldn't sink that low 🤔

@maggiethecat Thanks. I wasn't sure what happened in Congress.

I have heard that if the EC doesn't make a determination, there is a GOP majority because it's a state rather than numbers vote in the House. But not what happens when they are ratifying the EC vote.

It's weird I knew zilch about the US political process 4 years ago. Thanks to these threads and US media for my expanded awareness.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uae-weapons-sale-yemen-libya_n_5fd00aa7c5b68ce17183473f?ri18n=true

Also, several prominent Republicans in the Senate have publicly endorsed Biden, including George W. Bush (also an ex President so very influential) and Matt Romney. So there will be enough of them to ensure that Biden will be endorsed as the President elect.

Thankfully, Trump can't threaten to sack them.

@maggiethecat
@CoteFolie

If neither candidate gets a majority of the 538 electoral votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Since states have more than one Representative, each state would have to caucus to decide which candidate gets that state's vote. States with majority Dem Reps would likely cast their one vote for a Dem candidate and vice versa. The 'snag' is that right now there are 26 states with majority GOP Reps. The Dems have 21, Independents 3 (who normally caucus with the Dems). So the Dem lead in House overall numbers doesn't really 'count' when it comes to having to select a president.

Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote. A majority of Senators (51) is needed to win. Control of the Senate effective 1 Jan will be GOP 50 and Dem 48 pending the GA runoff 5 Jan. IF a Senate vote for VP was needed it would presumably happen no sooner than 6 Jan.

As far as Congress directly 'interfering' in an election, when the EC results are read out (state by state) to the joint session of Congress on 6 Jan to certify the EC results any member of the House or Senate has the right to object to a particular state's submission. The chambers then adjourn to separately consider the objection. If it is upheld by both chambers, that state's EC vote is tossed out and the count continues without those votes. The tossed out votes are not awarded to the other candidate.

My understanding is that some of the 'Trumpier' members of Congress are threatening to object to some of the states EC votes (I assume the ones in which lawsuits were tossed out). But it is widely believed that the objections will be voted down by the other Senate and House members during the separate chamber 'considerations' sessions and that no EC votes will be tossed out.

Thank you so much @AcrossthePond55. That's really interesting.

I was staggered by Trump's blatant assertion at the Vaccine summit that he had won and it will all be sorted out by Inauguration Day. I know it's wishful thinking on his part but he seems to have lied and manoeuvred his way out of Mueller and his impeachment and I'm not entirely confident he won't prevail.

AcrossThePond55 - thanks for the clarity. Is there something about the proportion of votes needed in each chamber, if there is an objection to a state's result on 6 Jan, in order for the objection to hold? seem to think I read 2/3 needed but my foggy brain could be inventing that

CoteFolie - exactly my feeling about the slimebag!

@CoteFolie

No problem. I love US History and I really enjoy researching the Constitution.

I think Trump thinks his 'path to victory' (now that the Safe Harbour date is passed) is that enough EC votes will be 'tossed out' during the joint session on 6 Jan to reduce Biden's EC votes to below 270. This would indeed throw the selections of POTUS and VP to the House and Senate, in which he would expect to receive the majority of votes based on the Dem/GOP ratios I mentioned above.

Not gonna happen.

DH and I have realized that we no longer use (pardon me) mother fucker or cock sucker when we want to insult someone or describe them in the most negative term we can think of. We realized that we now say 'Trump supporter'. We realized it yesterday when someone cut DH off in traffic and he shouted "You fucking Trump supporter!!!" and when, during that same drive, I heard someone being ignorant on the radio and muttered to DH "Trump Supporter" in a derogatory tone of voice.

We see no need to change our new selection of slur.😆

AcrossThePond55 - 🤣🤣

But c'mon now - you'll have to learn to bite your tongue to do your part in helping your country to heal! 🤬

It is possible that a Trump supporter may also be a decent human being in every other respect, I suppose (in a Quakerish way, since there is that of God in every man).

Enough influential Republicans have repudiated Trump's claims now, as have Trump supporters in the FBI and Republican governors. They know that if the US allows democracy to be subverted, their international reputation will be in shreds.