Awwwwww...SNAP!

UPDATE 11/03/2024:

There's an ad for Harris

That's why you have to be careful what you say on camera during a campaign.

You deceptive snakes.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 08:37 am:

I don't know...do military tribunals have jurisdiction over civilians?

Here's something you don't see every day

No surprise

The mob he incites leads him

Trump also reposted a post calling for the imprisonment of Democratic and Republican party leaders, including President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Vice President Mike Pence.

  MSN

How's Mitch feeling now?

Understatement of the year

The only problem - and it's not much of one - is that Trump/MGAG GOP supporters won't listen to anything from Liz Cheney.

Oh my

Will his head explode yet?

Go for it, Liz

Not that I want another Cheney in the White House, but she might pull some votes off Trump.  On the other hand, what if she pulled votes off the Democratic nominee?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Trumpy liars, one and all

Liz Cheney has released her concession call to Harriet Hageman, after the Trump-backed Republican who won the Wyoming US House primary on Tuesday told Fox News her rival had not made “any kind of concession or anything else”.

[...]

Hageman discussed the concession call with the Fox News host Sean Hannity. She said: “I haven’t had any other contact with Liz Cheney. She made the one effort and all she said was ‘Hello, Harriet.’ And then that was the end of it.”

[...]

Cheney gave a recording of the call to Politico. In it, she said: “Hi, Harriet, it is Liz Cheney calling. It is about 8.13 [pm] on Tuesday the 16th. I’m calling to concede the election and congratulate you on the win. Thanks.”

[...]

Cheney told Politico she called Hageman three times, leaving the voicemail before going out to speak.

[...]

Hageman, an attorney, once opposed Trump herself but came round to win his endorsement. She has repeated Trump’s lie about the 2020 election, which Trump lost conclusively to Joe Biden, being rigged.

She will be heavily favoured to win Wyoming’s sole seat in the US House in November, against the Democrat Lynette Grey Bull.

[...]

In her concession speech, delivered in Jackson against the backdrop of a setting sun and the Teton mountains, Cheney outlined plans to oppose Trump from outside the House.

  Guardian

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Sad news for Wyoming

Rep. Liz Cheney, former President Donald Trump's most prominent Republican critic, said she's considering a presidential run, hours after her stinging defeat in her GOP primary in Wyoming.

A 2024 campaign "is something I’m thinking about and I’ll make a decision in the coming months," Cheney told NBC's "Today" on Wednesday morning.

In the meantime, the three-term House lawmaker and vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, said she is focused on "doing whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office," she said.

  Yahoo

And we wish her the very best in that endeavor.

Both true and disturbing.

UPDATE:

Liz Cheney on Fox News

Worth listening to that whole clip.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

House GOP and Nazis

All 208 House Republicans thumbed their noses at an amendment to a bill that would order the government to investigate white supremacist and neo-Nazi activity in the military and federal law enforcement.

But due to the current Democratic majority in the House, the amendment—which was wrapped into the annual defense spending bill—still passed strictly along party lines.

[...]

[I]t would mandate the chiefs of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Defense to produce a report assessing the extent of white supremacist or neo-Nazi activity in their ranks and how they plan to address it. They’d have 180 days from the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act to compile that report.

[...]

There’s no question that white supremacists have infiltrated the ranks of the armed forces. In recent years, violent neo-Nazis and preppy white supremacists alike have been exposed as active-duty members of the military. A Pentagon report last year, obtained by Roll Call, described the inroads that white supremacists were building into the military in an effort to recruit “highly prized” active-duty personnel.

[...]

Once the House passes the full spending bill, titled the National Defense Authorization Act, it will head to the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.

  Vice

Not really. It has to get past president Manchin.

Last month, the House also passed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which, if it clears the Senate, would establish dedicated domestic terrorism departments in the FBI, DOJ, and Homeland Security to monitor, analyze, investigate and prosecute those crimes.

That bill garnered just one Republican vote, from Rep. Adam Kinzinger. Four other Republicans did not vote at all.

Yes, Liz Cheney voted against it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Hello, Wyoming

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

2022 calls for strategic voting

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

She inherited balls of steel

I don't think the Republican Party is salvageable

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Cue RNC censure of Lisa Murkowski.

UPDATE:  When you've lost the National Review...

Lindsey gets brave

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that former President Trump’s suggestion that he would pardon Jan. 6, 2021, rioters if reelected is “inappropriate.”

During Graham's appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” host Margaret Brennan played a clip of Trump speaking Saturday at a Texas rally, where he said he would treat the Capitol rioters "fairly."

“If I run and I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly,” Trump told the crowd. “We will treat them fairly, and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.”

[...]

"I don't want to do anything from raising bail to pardoning people who take the law into their own hands because it will make more violence more likely," he said. "I want to deter people who did what on Jan. 6. And those who did it, I hope they go to jail and get the book thrown at them because they deserve it."

  The Hill

How long before he backtracks?

To our country's everlasting shame, this poor excuse for a human being is able to speak, write, and publish as "President of the United States of America".

UPDATE:

But will it matter?

What are the odds anything will come of it?

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Sunday said the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is looking into whether then-President Trump acted criminally in connection to the Capitol riots.

Asked by co-anchor Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” if the congressional panel is examining whether Trump violated a criminal statute with regard to Jan. 6, Kinzinger said “yes, we’re looking.”

He would not, however, say if he believes the former president committed a crime.

“I'm not ready to go there yet. But I sure tell you I have a lot of questions about what the president was up to,” Kinzinger said.

[...]

"And I think we will, by the end of our investigation and by the time our report is out, have a pretty good idea,” Kinzinger said.

[...]

In his question, Tapper referenced a clip of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the panel and the second Republican member of the group, who appeared to reference the language of a criminal statute.

“Whoever corruptly obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined or imprisoned, not more than 20 years, or both,” Cheney said in the clip.

[...]

“Nobody, Jake, is above the law. Nobody, not the president. He's not a king. Not former presidents. They aren't former kings. Nobody is above the law. And if the president knowingly allowed what happened on January 6 to happen, and, in fact, was giddy about it, and that violates a criminal statute, he needs to be held accountable for that,” [Kinzinger] said.

  The Hill

This country has never held a president accountable for anything.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Mark Meadows referred to House for DOJ referral

Liz Cheney read out texts Meadows has already handed over but now refuses to testify about.  Read them here.   Even Junior was begging to have Trump call off the capital coup.  Surely he also contacted Daddy directly.  But who knows?

Cheney says:

These non-privileged texts are further evidence of President Trump's supreme dereliction of duty during those 187 minutes. And Mr. Meadows testimony will bear on another key question before this Committee: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress's official proceeding to count electoral votes? Mark Meadows testimony will inform our legislative judgments.

  NPR

And we all know the answer to that anyway.

Also, now the GOP - and Trump's - line is that this was only a protest by patriots. They obvioiusly didn't think so at the time.

President Trump's appointees at the Justice Department informed him repeatedly that the President's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence, and that the election was not, in fact, stolen. President Trump intended to appoint Jeffrey Clark as Attorney General, in part so that Mr. Clark could alter the Department of Justice's conclusions regarding the election. Mr. Clark has now informed the Committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his 5th Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination. As Mr. Meadows non-privileged texts reveal, Meadows communicated multiple times with a member of Congress who was working with Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. He is in contempt.

And I want to know who that "member" of Congress is. Mike Lee? One of the more radical assholes? But it does sound like the committee already knows.

The Court of Appeals here in Washington has ruled, quickly, in our favor regarding the Select Committee's work to uncover relevant information. And day by day, we're getting a clearer picture of what happened, who was involved, who paid for it, and where that money went.

So I'm pleased to report we're making swift progress. And before too long, our findings will be out in the open. We will have public hearings. We will tell this story to the American people. But we won't do it piecemeal. We'll do it when we can tell the story all at once, start to finish—not leave anyone guessing and not allowing it to fade into the memory of last week's news. This story is too important. The stakes are too high.

[...]

It comes down to this: Mr. Meadows started by doing the right thing—cooperating. He handed over records that he didn't try to shield behind some excuse. But in an investigation like ours, that's just a first step. When the records raise questions—as these most certainly do—you have to come in and answer those questions. And when it was time for him to follow the law, come in, and testify on those questions, he changed his mind and told us to pound sand. He didn't even show up.

Now, this happened the same day his book was published. The same book that goes into detail about matters the Select Committee is reviewing. It also details conversations he had with President Trump and others—conversations we want to hear more about. He has also appeared on national television discussing the events of January 6th. He has no credible excuse for stonewalling the Select Committee's investigation.

[...]

Our democracy was inches from ruin. Our system of government was stretched to the breaking point. Members and staff were terrorized. Police officers fought hand to hand for hours. People lost their lives.

We want to figure out why and share that information with the American people. And either you're on the side of helping us figure out why... or you're trying to stop us from getting those answers.

[...]

Conclusion: January 6th was without precedent. There has been no stronger case in our nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. This investigation is not like other congressional inquiries. Our Constitution, the structure of our institutions and the rule of law – which are at the heart of what makes America great — are at stake. We cannot be satisfied with incomplete answers, or half-truths; and we cannot surrender to President Trump's efforts to hide what happened. We will be persistent, professional and non-partisan. We must get to the objective truth and ensure that January 6th never happens again.

That's great, Liz. But it won't have to if you guys don't protect the right to vote and the election officials who are being threatened and challenged.

Read Meadows' texts or listen to Liz Cheney read them here.

UPDATE:

The US House of Representatives has approved a measure recommending criminal contempt charges against Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff to Donald Trump, a week after he ended his cooperation with the chamber’s committee investigating the Capitol insurrection.

The approval marks the first time the House has voted to hold a former member in contempt since the 1830s, according to the chamber’s records.

[...]

Republicans on Tuesday called the action against Meadows a distraction from the House’s work, with one member calling it “evil” and “un-American”. Trump has also defended Meadows in an interview, calling him “an honorable man”.

The committee’s leaders have vowed to punish anyone who doesn’t comply with their investigation, and the justice department has already indicted Trump’s longtime ally Steve Bannon on two counts of contempt after he defied his subpoena. If convicted, Bannon and Meadows could face up to one year behind bars on each charge.

[...]

Meadows himself has sued the panel, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are “overly broad and unduly burdensome”.

  Guardian

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.