The next election was never designed to punish cheating

Leah McElrath tweeted a thread about the damage the coronavirus can do to a body. McElrath doesn’t have medical training though knows enough to follow this particular discussion. I don’t understand it all, so I’ll give the highlights.

This virus has been known to cause blood clots. They have been found not only in the organs whose failure caused death, but in every organ of the body. Which means even if a person survives there is likely damage to organs. That means a recovered person, and there will be a lot more who recover than die, could suffer health complications or crises, perhaps much later in life.

This virus is serious. Wear a mask.



Ian Reifowitz of Daily Kos says that the nasty guy commuting Roger Stone’s sentence should be a sufficient reason for impeachment. I mentioned this a bit yesterday. Reifowitz wrote:

It’s very simple: By commuting Roger Stone’s sentence, The Man Who Lost The Popular Vote has sent a clear signal that anyone who does something illegal on his behalf, or who has knowledge of something illegal he has done and lies about it under oath, and/or to investigators, will never be punished. This an act that fatally weakens the constitutionally mandated checks and balances through which our democracy prevents a president from achieving dictatorial power.

Investigations cannot proceed toward any sort of justice if no one is required to tell the truth. That much should be apparent to any reasonable, objective observer, no matter their party. This president has now created a shield around himself so that he can—so long as he simply maintains the loyalty of his minions—do literally anything he wants and remain free of accountability or punishment. That cannot be allowed to stand. Our system offers but one remedy.

Did you hear that, Nancy?

Adam Jentleson, former deputy chief of staff for Senator Harry Reid got into a Twitter argument with Michael Dresser, former correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Dresser points out all the things that the Democrat leadership has done while Jentleson discusses all the things they haven’t done. Dresser accuses Jentleson of not being familiar all they ways the nasty guy has stymied Congress. Jentleson replied:

I am very familiar. I am also familiar with what leadership can do when it wants to, and what it can stop from happening when it wants to. Leadership did not want Dems investigating Russia. They had many tools that they did not use. That was on purpose.

Benjamin Franklin tweeted:

An opposition party whose only answer to wanton lawlessness is to tell us to vote in an election that will surely be rigged is indistinguishable from controlled opposition whose goal is to lose on purpose while maintaining the appearance of opposition.

When asked about the alternative, he replied:

Simple really. using the full extent of the powers vested in them to oppose the Trump administration such as issuing subpoenas with jail time, using inherent contempt.

To the comment, well, the Dems tried, he replied:

No they didn't, they never issued subpoenas enforced by jail time, they never conducted the hard hitting investigations that were promised, they never used inherent contempt. Nancy Pelosi rolled out a stage girlboss photo ever other month and people took that as a substitute.

Rev. Magdalen tweeted:

The next election was never designed to be a mechanism to punish cheating in the last election. That would be a pretty poorly designed system easily undermined by even the least intelligent would-be tyrant.

The system is designed so that if you find out someone took power illegitimately, you remove them from power and bar them from ever being eligible to hold it again. See how much more sense that makes than "Don't tell anyone about the crimes, hope they choose right anyway"?

Someone pointed out a recent Supreme Court ruling allows the nasty guy to run out the clock. Magdalen again:

Yes. But the lower court that the SCOTUS sent it back to had already brought up inherent contempt and pointed out that if this were really an emergency, the House could just use that. A judge asked them directly why they wouldn't and they had no good answer.

The answer is very simple: Nancy doesn't want to, and she is very stubborn and once she decides a thing, that's that. She had to face a mutiny of a majority of the caucus before she'd even do a show impeachment to appease them. At no point did her mind actually change.

And an inflexible refusal to change your mind in the face of new evidence is an extremely bad trait for someone in that role.