Wednesday, April 6, 2022

Kate Upton's Uncle Is Out, Ivanka Trump Is Up

And some other news. First, by way of the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 04.05.22, Ted Noel at Am Think thinks Democrats Have Painted Themselves into a Corner with any number of issues. 

Democrats seem unable to understand that they are the problem. Instead, we get blather about “We aren’t getting our message out” or something equally incomprehensible. The great majority of Americans have heard the Dems loud and clear and don’t like it. Why else would MSNBC report that 71% of Americans think we’re on the wrong track?

Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll "shows that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove. The latest figures include 24% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 46% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. From Da Caller, Reporter Asks Psaki Point Blank If Biden Blames Her For Disastrous Polling Numbers. Shooting the messenger? Stacey Lennox at PJ Media sees  Democrats Are in Big Trouble With Their Dedicated Base According to New Focus Group Data. Spin, Strangeness and Charm is Looking around: D retirement wave as red wave looms; Elon Musk now owns largest share in Tw*tter. CNN Business admits Deutsche Bank is the first big bank to forecast a US recession and Nate Silver@NateSilver538, "Real wages are declining and real disposable income has declined for 7 months in a row. The idea among some folks on here that voters are silly to be concerned about inflation and that Actually The Economy Is Great But The Media Won't Tell You is ridiculous." Welcome back, Carter. Athena Thorne at PJ Media reports States Sue to Halt Biden's 'Imminent, Man-made, Self-Inflicted Calamity'. Which one? There are so many. But she means immigration. 

Paul Bedard at WaEx has a poll, Kamala Harris unpopular and unqualified: Rasmussen. In his Insanity Wrap VodkaPundit at PJ Media thinks  We Need to Talk About Kamala Harris. We need to do more than talk. 

Fred Upton's niece, Kate
The talk is all about Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton, who voted to impeach Trump, announces retirement (Fox). But, hey, he's Kate Upton's uncle, and any excuse to include a picture of Kate Upton is a good one. Dave Drucker at WaEx, GOP Rep. Fred Upton retiring after decades long House career and beef with Trump. AllahPundit at Haut Hair sighs And then there were six: Another House Republican who voted to impeach Trump retires, while sundance at CTH crows Fred Upton Quits – Four Down, Six to Go. Upton himself blames redistricting, but as Suzy Crabtree at Reds State notes House GOP Poised for Late Redistricting Rebound, as courts find various Democrat gerrymanders egregious and illegal. 

At WaEx, Paul Bedard touts Rigged: Documentary details Zuckerberg’s $400 million vote juicing for Biden. Natalia Mittelstadt at JTN reports Bossie releases 'Zuckerbucks' film, as over 40k shown to have bypassed Wisc. voter ID rules in 2020, "A total of 40,856 voters registered as "indefinitely confined" for the 2020 election in Wisconsin and did not provide photo ID. Ahead of Tuesday's local elections in the state, that number was 32,857." Just one of President*** Joe Biden's several asterisks. From the Neon Nettle, Obama-Tied Dark Money Group Used Zuckerberg’s Cash to Help Biden Win, Doc Reveals, "Big Tech’s role in the last two elections exposed." At Breitbart, Revealed: New Doc Shows How an Obama-Tied Dark Money Group Used Zuckerberg’s Cash to Swing Election. Althouse embeds the trailer, and has a link to the documentary at "[Trump] seemed particularly ebullient before watching the film, saying he was looking forward to its screening more than 'Citizen Kane,' 'Titanic' and 'Gone with the Wind.'", linking to a WaPoo article. And Margot Cleveland at Da Fed has some bad news for Zuckerbucks, Court Reinstates Louisiana AG’s Lawsuit Against Zuckerberg’s Election-Meddling Group "Zuckbucks were used to achieve targeted disenfranchisement, with rural Louisianans treated less favorably than fellow citizens in cities."

Via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 04.05.22,  Michelle Malkin warns of a new election threat Beware The “Paper Shortage” Election Ruse.

Morgan Ortagus
At Wa Free Bee, Biden’s FEC Nominee Sued Georgia Over Stacey Abrams Election Loss, Blamed ‘Unreliable’ Voting Machines, "Dara Lindenbaum represented Abrams's nonprofit, Raphael Warnock's church in suit that questioned 'unconstitutional' 2018 election." Another insurrectionist election denier revealed. In the interesting case of Morgan Ortagus run for the House from Tennessee, Da Caller  sees how the Tennessee Legislature Takes Aim At Former Trump Official’s House Run. Are Their Actions Legal?

Qualifications for congressional candidates are set by the Constitution, which only mandates that House candidates be 25 years old, a U.S. citizen for seven years, and a resident of the state that they seek to represent. The Supreme Court ruled in the case U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that states can not “add to the qualification set forth in the text of the Constitution.”

Ace, Elon Musk Now on Twitter's Board of Directors; Twitter's Muzzling of the Babylon Bee Might Have Been the Last Censorship Straw for Musk. Sundance, Twitter Announces Elon Musk Appointed to Board of Directors. At NYPo, Twitter users urge Elon Musk to reinstate Donald Trump’s account

In Jan. 6 news, The Peacock screams FBI has names of hundreds more Jan. 6 rioters. DOJ needs more lawyers to prosecute them "Citizen sleuths armed with the internet say they've identified dozens of additional rioters who haven’t been arrested." More people to charge with trespassing. At HE, Proud Boys’ Tarrio Pleads Not Guilty to Jan. 6 Conspiracy Charges. Will fellow proud boy Ray Epps testify at his trial? 
As previously reported by Human Events News, though Tarrio was not present on the day of the attack, he was arrested on January 4th and ordered to stay away from Washington D.C. after allegedly burning a stolen flag from an African American church the month before. 

At Am Spec, Don Elliott says  The Real Threat to Democracy: Biden Reportedly Wants to Put His Political Opponents in Jail, "The result would be mutually assured destruction."

Under a 1969 Supreme Court precedent, Brandenburg v. Ohio, “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

It is hard to imagine that a fair, unanimous jury would convict the former president beyond a reasonable doubt of advocating “the use of force,” or advocating a “law violation,” for a speech in which he specifically urged his supporters to “march[] over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

It is even harder to satisfy the second branch of the constitutional test that his actions must have been “directed,” i.e., intended, to produce “imminent lawless action.” His most inflammatory words were “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” But those words too are very unlikely to satisfy the Supreme Court’s test that words have to be a clear and unequivocal call to imminent lawless acts or they are protected by the First Amendment.

The legal implications of Biden’s move to imprison his predecessor go even deeper than merely violating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. Putting your political opponents in jail is a really bad idea if you want to preserve a functioning democracy. Among other reasons, it is almost certain to lead to retaliation in kind.

WXYZ Detroit,  Ivanka Trump to reportedly meet with Jan. 6 committee

The committee sent a letter to the former president's daughter in January 2022— requesting that she voluntarily cooperate with the investigation.

The committee says it has evidence Ivanka was in the Oval Office when her father told Vice President Mike Pence that he should participate in his plan to stop the Electoral College count from being certified.

Ivanka will likely be asked about what other conversations she may have witnessed about the president's plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

I eagerly await  Hunter Biden's questioning at multiple committees once the Republicans take the House. And fresh from Althouse, If Ivanka wasn't garrulous, why bring up the concept of garrulousness?

I'm reading "Ivanka Trump Testifies to House Panel Investigating Jan. 6 Attack" in The New York Times. Key sentence:
It was not immediately clear how revelatory her testimony was for the committee, but those familiar with the interview said Ms. Trump did not seek to invoke any privilege — such as executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment, as other witnesses have done — and broadly, if not garrulously, answered the panel’s questions.
And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"? It sounds like she testified simply and straightforwardly, but there was nothing interesting. Why act like later something might be revealed? It's such lame titillation. What was unclear?

No comments:

Post a Comment