Big Bird may be innocent but who can vouch for Elmo?

[lionheart]

thehill.com/homenews/senate/580426-ted-cruz-labels-big-birds-tweet-about-vaccination-propaganda

www.salon.com/2021/11/07/sesame-streets-big-bird-for-promoting-vaccine-brainwashing-children_partner/

Old thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4305074-To-filibuster-or-not-to-filibuster-Biden-needs-to-get-a-move-on-before-Doofus-Duck-waddles-back-into-the-swamp-Biden-Trump-Thread-128

It now seems that they had actually got in touch with his lawyers and said "we took his passports by accident, could you come and fetch them" or wtte, before he whinged about them having been taken! And two of the three were out of date, not one. He really is incapable of telling the truth even about something as unimportant as that!

Not unexpected, but still disheartening; Liz Cheney lost her bid for nomination in the Wyoming primary in favour of a Trumpinista. Congress has lost a good and ethical member. I didn't agree with many of her positions, but she did live according to her principles. And has paid the price for doing so.

Clarification: WILL lose a good member. She will serve out her current term but will not be on the ballot in the midterms.

That's disappointing, I've watched her during some of the J6 hearings, v impressive

My Washington Post newsletter says Liz Cheney may run for President in order to stymie Trump’s chances:

Running for president is a distinct possibility, says Rep. Liz Cheney. “It is something I’m thinking about, and I’ll make a decision in the coming months,” the Wyoming Republican told NBC’s “Today Show” just hours after badly losing her primary — and her job — for standing up to Donald Trump.

If she took that leap, Cheney wouldn’t be expecting to win. It’s unlikely she would. My colleague Paul Kane reports that Cheney thinks Republicans need a 2024 candidate who will condemn Trump and his supporters’ lies about the 2020 election — and possibly serve as a foil to him getting the nomination.

“Cheney and her crowd want a candidate who would serve merely as a political kamikaze, blowing up his or her candidacy but also taking down Trump,” Paul explains.

To Cheney, that means keeping Trump out of the White House ― and trying to steer the Republican Party back toward more-democratic values. She knows it may be a futile cause, but it’s one she may feel she has to take on, if only for the history books.

Randy Rainbow making everything less sh*t.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=7hk4TGuedxA

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSZRkeQfnk

Love a good 'Randy'!

The terrifying thing is that when you fall down that rabbit-hole and start listening to his songs from two and three years ago, it's really hard to remember which particular horror he is being unmerciful about!

I was so delighted with the breaking news I saw on Twitter yesterday, about Trump representing himself in court against the DOJ, I thought I'd come here to see what you all made of it! Clearly, you are less naive than I - I did a bit of fact-checking before posting, and found this:
www.newsweek.com/fact-check-donald-trump-representing-himself-lawsuit-against-doj-1736230]]
Ah, well, it was a fun fantasy for a while!

His habit of not paying his lawyers may yet mean that he has no choice, because nobody is prepared to represent him.

It wouldn't have surprised me in the least.

Or that he had tried to hire 'Saul Goodman'.

Oh oops, and not paying others. Is it right that Truth Social, having failed for some months to pay its web host, is likely to go under? Pore ol' Devin Nunes.

What's that Aesop's fable about the reflection of a bone?

Interesting article from Guardian about the documents...
According to the affidavit, the government previously found in Trump’s possession 184 documents marked ‘classified’, 67 marked ‘confidential’, 92 marked ‘secret’, and 25 ‘top secret’

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/26/trump-mar-a-lago-affidavit-lloyd-green

Even Kushner is distancing himself

Kushner has been distancing himself quietly for some time, I think, and getting on with his own cons and scams which do not rely on his father-in-law.

But whether the documents are marked "secret" to various degrees is a red herring. The point is that all of them, secret or not, were stolen, and do not belong to Trump, who had no business removing them from the White House in the first place. Classified or not (that is another red herring, and Trump saying airily that he had declassified them anyway is falsehood because in most cases that was never in his power), they belong to the American people as a record of the Trump presidency, and should have been sent for storage in the National Archive.

Kushner has released a book about his time in the WH, don't think the reviews were raving

thehill.com/homenews/house/3616883-i-deserve-to-know-the-truth-capitol-police-officer-harry-dunn-is-ever-present-at-jan-6-hearings/

Good news about yesterday’s Special Election in Alaska.
It’s interesting that they’re using what we call the Alternative Vote system.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/democrat-mary-peltola-defeats-sarah-palin-special-election-become-firs-rcna45756

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/31/alaska-special-election-mary-peltola-wins

I've been out in the wilds of the Rockies and just got back to civilization ie internet. So shit has been happening I see.

Sounds to me as if opinion is divided as to whether or not Doofus will be indicted bo matter what is found based on the 'indicting a former president' bullshit. Teflon Don indeed.

And I did get a huge chuckle over Palin's defeat.

But it's a rematch in November

Perhaps the mood is changing? My Mother Jones News round up gave me this

www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/08/union-support-highest-poll/?utm_source=mj-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-09-02-2022

Not sure if link will work though!

I don't think there is any particular reason not to indict a former president – it was a sitting one that Mueller felt could not be indicted, wasn't it?

It does seem to me that Mueller's report could now profitably be examined for leads to what Trump could also be done for to go along with sedition, treason, obstructing an official proceeding, obstruction of justice, theft, and all the rest of it.

Yes, it was a question of a sitting president when Doofus was in office. But now with all the additional crimes they're uncovering they seem to have moved on as to whether or not one can or should indict a former president.

I assume because we've never been faced with having/having had a criminal as president before.

I think I may be confused about this Special Master of Trump's.

Won't he or she need to have clearance high enough to be allowed sight of documents which include ones so secret in nature that nobody is allowed to see them outside a special room somewhere? It's almost got to be a president; maybe they could ask George W. Bush to do it? The only others available are Joe Biden (a non starter, he's too busy running the country), Donald Trump (a non starter, he's not likely to be impartial), Barack Obama (a non starter, Trump would never accept him), Bill Clinton (a non starter, Trump would never accept him), and Jimmy Carter (yet another Democrat).

Many retired judges, like those who served on special intelligence courts, have very high Federal security clearances. They're also not going to read secret documents beyond what is necessary to determine that there's no legal reason to exclude them from the investigation.