Who are "some dems" with this strategy? Fossils, I imagine. The same ones who thought it was a good idea to nominate Joe Biden in 2020, too wrapped in their DC bubble to know the rest of the country was ready for Bernie, or to follow where the public was trying to lead. Hopefully, they will not have the say this time.
Or maybe this is just Axios stirring shit.
After Fox News judgment in favor of Dominion voting systems , a Delaware judge has found in favor of the same company against Newsmax.
Following Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump that November, Trump's allies and supporters took to right-wing media to accuse Dominion Voting Systems of rigging the vote to help Biden.
In his opinion, Judge Eric M. Davis says Dominion "presents clear and convincing evidence" that shows Newsmax broadcast segments with inaccurate information that "would likely cause reasonable viewers to think significantly less favorably about Dominion than if the viewers knew the truth." He also noted that Newsmax's "clarification" posted in mid-December 2020 about a lack of evidence of voter fraud showed that Newsmax "acknowledged the falsity" of several lies regarding Dominion and the election.
NPR
That was under Trump.[Small farmers] were already doing badly, and then came the tariff wars with China and the loss of a major market. There has been Trump's Market Facilitation Program (MFP), which is a bailout for farmers, but according to an analysis, the biggest operators sucked up the bulk of the money, putting small ones ever further behind.
[...]
[T]he top 10% of recipients—"the largest, most profitable industrial-scale farms in the country," according to the EWG—received half of all the dollars spent, in the form of multi-million dollar payments. The top 1% of recipients received 13% of payments. The bottom 80% received an average of $5,136.
[...]
When the owners don't have outside income that helps underwrite the costs, then 76.2% of low-sales farms (less than $150,000 a year) have below critical operating profit margin, according to the USDA ERS. From $150,000 to $349,999 gross income, 55.8% are below critical margins. And so it goes until you reach very large farms ($5 million or more) where only 24.6% are below critical.
In other words, small family farms (90% of all family farms) are in deep trouble normally. These latest shocks are helping to drive up farm bankruptcies and farmer suicides, as Chuck Jones wrote earlier this year at Forbes.com. These are people who badly need help.
[...]
[T]he farming industry is in dire straits and, you could easily argue, is a national security consideration. Having no food or other vital farm-based products is a disaster waiting to happen.
Forbes
Why?Donald Trump often espoused his love for America's farmers during his presidency.
But after a year under President Joe Biden, farmers say they're actually feeling the love.
[...]
While the focus of the Biden administration has been on its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, and more recently the global standoff with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine, the farm sector has fared quite well under the new administration, as farmers ease off of government bailouts and see a boost in commodity prices.
[...]
[I]n 2021, the majority of net farm income came from commodity sales and actual production "off the farm." Whereas in 2019, a "big chunk" of the income was coming from Market Facilitation Program payments, which were at the core of the Trump administration's effort to mitigate losses from its disputes with China and other trading partners.
[...]
Net farm income, a broad measure of profits, is estimated to have increased by $15.7 billion in 2020 relative to 2019, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. The agency also forecast net farm income at $116.8 billion in 2021, the highest level since 2013.
[...]
Vincent Smith, a visiting fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said the Trump administration "severely disadvantaged" farmers with an ill-advised trade policy.
[...]
In 2020, Trump won a number of traditionally Republican farm states including Iowa, Texas, North Carolina and Nebraska.
NBC
What?Days after he claimed he had “every right” to interfere with the 2020 presidential election results, Donald Trump admits that he “lost by a whisker.”
[...]
His interview on [Lex] Fridman’s podcast is his latest in a string of unconfrontational appearances on shows hosted by popular YouTubers, right-wing influencers and streamers who appeal to young men and boys.
Trump recently appeared on streams hosted by Logan Paul, the Nelk Boys and Adin Ross — who gifted Trump a Rolex and a Tesla Cybertruck wrapped in a photograph of his assassination attempt...
UK Independent
I must admit I have never heard of any of these people. I guess because I don't travel in conspiracy or Nazi circles.... — as well as comedian Theo Von.
Yeah, I know Rosie O'Donnell, but I don't know of any famous debate.“So I’ve done a lot of debating, only as a politician. I never debated. My first debate was the Rosie O’Donnell debate, right? The famous Rosie O’Donnell Debate. The answer,” Trump said.
I do remember that disgusting bit.He was apparently referring to the August 2015 presidential primary debate, when moderator Megyn Kelly teed up a question to Trump saying “you called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” (Trump cut her off and said “only Rosie O’Donnell.”)
We have looked. And that's why we're voting for Kamala Harris.“But I’ve done well with debates,” Trump told Fridman. “I became president, and then the second time I got millions more votes than I got the first time. I was told if I got 63 million … you would win. You can’t not win. And I got millions of more votes than that and lost by a whisker but— and look at what happened with the world.”
I guess there was enough backlash that he decided to stop saying "black jobs". Or at least this time.He accused immigrants of “taking seats of people who are citizens of our country.”
Arizona’s Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes on Friday announced that Rudy Giuliani had been served with the notice of his indictment in connection with an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in Arizona.
The announcement came less than two hours after a social media post from Giuliani taunted Mayes for failing to deliver his indictment. The notice was served to Giuliani during a celebration in Palm Beach, Florida, for his 80th birthday.
In a now-deleted post on X, Giuliani taunted Arizona authorities. “If Arizona authorities can’t find me by tomorrow morning; 1. They must dismiss the indictment; 2. They must concede they can’t count votes,” Giuliani posted Friday night. Accompanying the message was a photo of Giuliani smiling with six others and balloons arranged behind them.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.An hour and 14 minutes later, Mayes responded to Giuliani’s post, writing, “The final defendant was served moments ago. @RudyGiuliani, nobody is above the law.”
Like Clarence Thomas had nothing to do with Ginny's influence in the attempted coup.After the 2020 presidential election, as some Trump supporters falsely claimed that President Biden had stolen the office, many of them displayed a startling symbol outside their homes, on their cars and in online posts: an upside-down American flag.
One of the homes flying an inverted flag during that time was the residence of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in Alexandria, Va., according to photographs and interviews with neighbors.
[...]
Mr. Biden’s inauguration was three days away.
[...]
In coming weeks, the justices will rule on two climactic cases involving the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, including whether Mr. Trump has immunity for his actions. Their decisions will shape how accountable he can be held for trying to overturn the last presidential election and his chances for re-election in the upcoming one.
“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”
NYT
Well, no shit.“It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
I can't believe that needs to be said to a Supreme Court justice.“You always want to be proactive about the appearance of impartiality,” Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge and the director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, said in an interview. “The best practice would be to make sure that nothing like that is in front of your house.”
Sow doubt?Judicial experts said in interviews that the flag was a clear violation of ethics rules, which seek to avoid even the appearance of bias, and could sow doubt about Justice Alito’s impartiality in cases related to the election and the Capitol riot.
Rules are meant only for the peasants.The court has also repeatedly warned its own employees against public displays of partisan views, according to guidelines circulated to the staff and reviewed by The Times. Displaying signs or bumper stickers is not permitted, according to the court’s internal rule book and a 2022 memo reiterating the ban on political activity.
[...]
Asked if these rules also apply to justices, the court declined to respond.
[...]
If Justice Alito were on another court, Mr. Fogel said, the flag could also trigger some sort of review to determine if there was any misconduct. But because the Supreme Court serves as the arbiter of its own behavior, “you don’t really have anywhere to take it,” he said.
When I saw this headline in the New York Times late Thursday, a lot of different things ran through my mind. First, I wondered who had gotten through security to rig the flag at the Justice’s home. Then, as I read the story's opening lines, I figured the photo had to be a deep fake.
[...]
We know it’s true because Justice Alito blamed his wife when asked. As though a sitting Supreme Court Justice, upon pulling up to his home and seeing the flag, wouldn’t immediately take it down and say, “Honey, I understand your feelings, but as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court, I must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and that flag conveys a political sentiment that is an affront to the rule of law I’m sworn to uphold, especially after rioters carrying it swarmed the Capitol a week and a half ago.”
The Times reported that Alito emailed the following statement to them when asked for comment: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”
[...]
My Father-in-Law was a federal judge, my Husband was a state court judge, and I have a number of close friends on the bench. I am certain that none of their spouses or other family members would have even considered placing a political symbol like this in their front yard because they would have understood the rules, just like I did.
At the time the Alitos flew the flag in front of their house, the Court was deciding whether to hear a vote-counting challenge from Pennsylvania. The majority said no, but Justice Alito, joined by Thomas, dissented.
[...]
It’s not complicated. If you’re committed to serving the people and ensuring they have confidence in the fair administration of justice, you just don’t. But Sam Alito did.
[...]
The Times reported that the half-dozen or so neighbors who were aware of it asked to remain anonymous because they “feared reprisal.” Let that sink in as we contemplate what a second Trump term in office might look like.
[...]
[Judges] must hold themselves to a higher standard in service to ensure that American justice holds the high standards of the Founding Fathers to whom Justice Alito frequently pays lip service.
[...]
In a different era, Justice Alito, if not resigning from the Court over such a serious breach of ethics would, at a minimum, recuse himself from two cases that are currently pending before the Court: the presidential immunity case and the case deciding whether the statute that criminalizes interference with an official proceeding applies to January 6. Will there be any consequences in Alito’s case? Doubtful. Will Alito continue to sit on those two cases alongside Clarence Thomas, who has his own ethical issues? Undoubtedly.
Joyce Vance
So, indict the mfer.An Arizona grand jury has indicted 18 allies of Donald Trump for their efforts to subvert the 2020 election — including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorney Rudy Giuliani and former Trump campaign operative Mike Roman.
The indictment, which includes felony counts of conspiracy, fraud and forgery, also describes Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Politico
“Defendants and unindicted coconspirators schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters,” the 58-page indictment reads.
The names of seven of the defendants, including Meadows, Giuliani and Roman, are redacted, but the document makes clear who they are by describing their roles. Ken Chesebro, an attorney who helped devise Trump’s post-election strategy, is described as “unindicted coconspirator 4.
[...]
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, has been helming the aggressive investigation. Though she initially appeared to be focused primarily on the false electors, in recent months she issued a wave of subpoenas to figures in Trump’s national orbit.
Mayes is the fifth prosecutor to bring criminal charges over the sprawling, multi-state bid by Trump and his allies to upend the 2020 results. Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with federal crimes for those efforts. Prosecutors in Georgia have charged Trump and many of his allies for their bid to overturn the results in that state, including the fake electors plot. Prosecutors in Michigan and Nevada have also charged Republicans who posed as fake electors in those states.
