The plans to keep Trump in the White House

(Sorry, catching up with backlog.)

This isn't easy because Trump didn't win enough states to win the Electoral College. So there have been other schemes. Lots of lawsuits trying to change the election results in states where the vote was close. Appeals to states where the GOP is the majority of the legislature to stop the usual procedures for appointing electors and substituting Trump-loyal electors instead. Trump calling the governor of Arizona as he's signing the certification (to threaten or plead????). Telling the governor of one state to call a special session of the legislature. States suing other states for how they ran their elections. Other states, Trump, and over 100 members of Congress signing on to the suit ( ...which was denied by the Supreme Court). Oh, did I forget to say disenfranchisement on a colossal scale? Some rallies, but not that many or anything really huge. 

Since it's after Dec. 14, the electors of the Electoral College have met and given Biden 306 votes versus 232 to Trump. The attempt to get Trump-loyal electors in place, or prevent Biden electors from being certified failed. Biden made it to 270. 

The last chance is an objection to the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. If a member of the House and Senate both object, each chamber has to listen to the objection and vote whether or not to accept the objection. Some loyal folks think this will work and Trump is pushing on senators to get in line. In preparation for some states being overturned one way or another, self-appointed electors for Trump have formed delegations. Is martial law being considered? There are numerous reports of it, and Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are pushing it. But there are also denials. Trump himself isn't keeping a cool head, but is turning on everyone. 

And there's yet another legal-route attempt, this time by Louie Gohmert and others. He opines that the VP (as president of the Senare) has the power to dismiss electors and choose other electors. Really? That sounds very dictatorial to me. I don't think that was the intention of any of the laws. Mike Pence didn't sign on to this thinking either, even though Gohmert gave him the opportunity. 

Image: nbcnewyork.com

Extras. Trump gave his 'most important speech ever' trying to tell how the election was stolen. Too bad the same claims didn't work in court. But for his followers, he's a beacon of hope and ....truth. That's sad. 

Most embarrassing document ever created by a White House staffer. The article also has some good stats on the election. And another superlative: the dumbest lawsuit filed about the election. 

Ron Johnson, senator from Wisconsin, had a somewhat heated but very ineffective hearing about election fraud. Claims of fraud just don't seem to have any traction after they've been rejected by a dozen judges. They need something fresh, new, powerful, and true, but none of that is happening. Too bad Johnson didn't have this GOP leader from PA testify. She said that her house would be bombed if she publicly refused to do Trump's bidding, so she's keeping it quiet rather than pointing out how unconstitutional his demands are. 

Trump is so busy trying to overturn the election that he didn't pay attention to the looming government shutdown if spending bills weren't passed. Same with any covid relief bill. The House and Senate finally managed to do it, and Trump belittles it. What was he doing all that time? Then he ended up signing the bill after days of acting like he wasn't going to. 

Trump tried a hail-Mary pass at strong-arming the Secretary of State of Georgia. It didn't work, but it was recorded and leaked. A couple days later, a top GA elections official debunked many of Trump's claims of fraud. 

Column on the big picture. The details about Trump are ludicrous or chilling. But the big picture is of a person who should never have been president, but was. Even more reported: Trump tried to get DOJ officials to declare the election 'corrupt,' and then Trump would execute some unnamed maneuver. 

There are examples of people taking responsibility. Here's one--the official in charge of vaccine distribution incorrectly interpreted the amount of vaccine that would be available for use, and had to tell the states that were getting less. 

Grilling the FBI agent

Peter Strzok is the reviled FBI agent to wrote all sorts of nasty texts about Trump using his official FBI phone. The texts were sent to an FBI colleague with whom he was having an affair, an interesting bit of spice but oh-so-common among Congressman, presidents, and assorted Washington folk.

Supposedly Strzok may have been in deep with the deep state that concocted the Russian interference hoax as part of a planned coup. That's according to the far-right conspiracy theorists, who really seem to believe this. (Sources 1, 2, 3.) And Fox News got heavily involved, showing that it isn't much different from the far-right conspiracy theorists. Everyone is now Alex Jones school-shootings-are-staged crazy.

This past Thursday, members of the House grilled Peter Strzok. It was a circus, with too many insane moments for complete discussion here. I'll pull out a couple bits I found significant.

Trey Gowdy, a one-man Jekyll-and-Hyde combo who can't decide whether to go full honest or full partisan, decided to grill Strzok about this text complaining about what an idiot Trump is. For some reason, Gowdy wants to take these off-hand texts as completely serious. (Scroll down here for the testimony.) Absurdly, he questions Strzok on what he meant when Strzok wrote the Clinton should win 100 million to zero. He refused to accept the answer that it was hyperbole, despite that it obviously was hyperbole. How does that make sense? How is that constructive at all as questioning?

Gowdy seems to have a special hatred for Strzok. Does Gowdy not know how people talk about Trump, and how Strzok is fairly representative? On the other hand, Gowdy can be realistic, like supporting the Mueller investigation and pointing out that there is no rationale for impeaching Rosenstein. This is a head-scratcher, but that's how Gowdy has been for a long time.

Stranger still...

Much more puzzling was Louie Gohmert's questioning. Gohmert appeared to be reading notes about the Inspector General for the intelligence community (ICIG) sending an investigator to verbally tell Strzok that Clinton's server had been hacked, something strange (an anomaly) installed, and emails copied and sent to a foreign account. Strzok remembered meeting with the investigator, but nothing else. Gohmert in incensed. How could such a finding be ignored by the FBI? Well, that's a good question. No one other than Gohmert seems to have information about this accusation. I have to wonder, was there a written report? Who was it sent to? Why didn't Horowitz, the Inspector General for the DOJ, mention it? And wasn't Hillary's server stored in some facility and wiped? How would an investigator find 'an anomaly' on it if that's true?

Gohmert seems to be the only person telling this story, which is a bit bizarre. I have to wonder if Gohmert got punked with a fabricated story using a few actual details, like the name of the IC Inspector General. So far, no reporters have followed up. But it can't be hard to call up the IC Inspector General and ask him about the server. I hope I get to read about it. It would be delicious if my theory was confirmed. I'll have to eat dirt if I'm completely wrong and there is an inspector's report to that effect.

Strzok's look of defiance

Image: 4videogames.com

Will we see a battle for the GOP's soul?

Is the GOP the party of the white working class traditionalists, or a modern business-friendly party? Is it for crony capitalism where everyone gets a piece, or for small government?

This has been a big question ever since Reagan pretended that he was for small government, but never followed through. So many Republicans since then have winked and lied to the electorate about being for small guvmint, and the lie has taken root with conservative talk radio and the non-elites who think they are now the heart of the GOP.

First contender - Louie Gohmert

Maybe we will see the answer to this question in the next few years. Some of the Tea Party types are again hopeful that they can overthrow the business/establishment GOP leaders, as Louie Gohmert challenges John Boehner for leadership in the House.

To most people, Louie Gohmert is the embarrassing fool who talks about the dangers of letting gays (with their strength-sapping sex-same massage techniques) in the military. He probably denies evolution, and doesn't think that we should have freedom of religion for non-Judeochristians. I don't know that Gohmert espouses these religious views, but it would be all of the same piece if he did.

However, to some people, Louie Gohmert "is a good conservative- he’s been on Hannity a number of times." Wow, to some people, Louie Gohmert isn't a laughingstock! Who would have thunk it?

Nonetheless, it's highly unlikely that Gohmert will prevail as he tries to win the speakership. The true conservatives will probably be thwarted by the establishment yet again.

Weightier contender - Jeb Bush

The bigger contest will be for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Jeb Bush looks like he's going to run, and he isn't going to pretend to be more conservative than he is. He's sitting out an anti-immigrant conference (or at least that's the spin from the liberal MSM).

If Jeb Bush can blatantly run as a moderately conservative Republican and win the nomination, that will say a lot about the GOP. It will be a repudiation of the trope of 'true conservatism,' meaning the conservatism that desires to roll back almost everything since the 1960's. It would be a boon to rationality for this kind of conservatism to be defeated because this conservatism is chock-full of contradictions. They can't decide whether they are for or against Medicare, for or against Social Security. Many lie to themselves about how the government actually spends our tax dollars. They imagine that they are taxed heavily and benefit lightly while deadbeats make out like bandits. They refuse to see how they (or Granny) are actually the huge beneficiaries of taxation.

It would be great if Jeb Bush would run as a conservative who looks at the budget and tells the truth about it. It's good whenever any politician in any party does that. I don't know that Jeb Bush will do this, and I'm not counting on it, but maybe he'll get closer to this than any other GOP politician. And it could be that his wing of the party, including business people who regularly look at balance sheets, will be ready to hear that kind of message.

I keenly hope for this, but not because I believe in Jeb Bush or because I'm tired of the Dems. I hope for a heavyweight in either party who will run a campaign based on hard numbers instead of inflated hopes and vaguely sketched proposals. What would Americans do if someone confronted them with the truth? That would be a telling experience!

Image: rackjite.com

Extra. Another bozo running against Boehner: Ted Yoho.

Update 1/7/15. I have to chuckle about how the conservative media caters to (or lies to) their audience. These guys don't have the numbers, but their media outlets never tell them that hard truth. Here's just one example:

"I am tired of all this big talk from all these people who keep losing. And losing. And losing. They talk this big game, but they still haven’t defunded Obamacare. They still haven’t gutted the Environmental Protection Agency or shut down the Education Department. Call me a bad loser, but it is well past time for these people to shut up all their talk and start winning." 

Even in his rant against big talk, the author still doesn't acknowledge that the policies don't have the support at the ballot box.