Sunday, December 27, 2020

IF 60 CASES ARE LAUGHED OUT OF COURT AND MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T HEAR THE LAUGHTER, DO THE ALLEGATIONS REALLY SEEM "BASELESS"?

In The New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, Nick Corasaniti, and Alan Feuer declare that Donald Trump's election allegations have been definitively disproven.
President Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election over the last seven weeks — the most aggressive promotion of “voter fraud” in American history — failed to get any traction in courts across seven states, or come anywhere close to reversing the loss he suffered to Joseph R. Biden Jr. ...

After bringing some 60 lawsuits, and even offering financial incentive for information about fraud, Mr. Trump and his allies have failed to prove definitively any case of illegal voting on behalf of their opponent in court — not a single case of an undocumented immigrant casting a ballot, a citizen double voting, nor any credible evidence that legions of the voting dead gave Mr. Biden a victory that wasn’t his.
And yet somehow the myth of an election stolen by Biden persists!
The false notions have lived on in Mr. Trump’s Twitter and Facebook feeds; on the television programming of Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network; and in statehouse hearings where Republican leaders have contemplated more restrictive voting laws based on the rejected allegations....

After declaring outright that high levels of voting are bad for Republicans, [Trump] persuaded his base that the election system is rotten with fraud, and to view that fiction as a bedrock party principle. Several recent polls have shown that majorities of Republicans think the election was fraudulent, even as election officials across the country report that it went surprisingly smoothly even in a pandemic, with exceptionally high turnout and no evidence of fraud aside from the usual smattering of lone wolf bad actors or mistakes by well-intentioned voters.
How did Trump manage to do this? He did it by being relentlessly on message for nearly two months, backed up by many surrogates who are also perpetually on message. He did it by giving the public easily absorbed, seemingly detailed examples of fraud -- for instance, the notorious (and debunked) story of the suitcases allegedly full of Biden votes in Georgia, which shows up in a lie-filled Trump video that's been removed from other sites but remains available on Facebook:



But where are the TV and social media ads from Democrats that compellingly rebut these and other allegations? Where are the ads from the Democratic National Committee? Or the Lincoln Project? Do those folks assume -- the way well-educated liberals and moderates so often do -- that everyone in America is fully aware of all the details of all the relevant stories? Do they assume that no one needs to be told why Trump's allegations are (as every mainstream news story puts it, usually with little explanation) "baseless"?

I'll give Rutenberg et al. their due: They provide quite a few details in the second half of their Times story. But these details need to be restated by Democrats and their allies in a punchy, emotionally compelling form on multiple media platforms. It would be helpful in non-conservatives could be posting them to social media, rather than allowing Trumpist conspiratorialists to frame the discussion there. From the Times story:
For instance, in pressing their cases across the country, Republicans have referenced data analyses by a cybersecurity executive and one-time Texas congressional candidate named Russell J. Ramsland Jr. One of his reports alleged that various Michigan counties had vote tallies that exceeded their populations, implying their totals were padded with illegal ballots; the counties in question, it turned out, were in Minnesota, not Michigan.
That's a social media ad right there.
Likewise, several specific accusations that people illegally cast ballots in the names of dead people have been born of amateurish data analysis that later proved faulty.

In a federal case the Trump campaign brought seeking to delay certification of the results in Michigan, the specific mention of a ballot cast by a dead voter was incorrect: No vote was cast through the dead man’s registration. Rather, a man with his same exact name voted legally. (Mr. Trump’s team pulled that case from the docket as Michigan moved forward toward certification.)
That's another one.
In several other instances, the “dead voters” in whose names the Trump campaign said ballots were cast proved very much alive.
That's another one.
This past week in Pennsylvania, authorities did make one arrest based on an accusation the Trump campaign first leveled in November. Delaware County prosecutors said a man named Bruce Bartman cast an absentee ballot in his deceased mother’s name — for Mr. Trump.
That's another one -- and in fact, as Pennsylvania's Democratic lieutenant governor has noted,



Democrats need to be putting this narrative -- the truthful narrative -- before the public in an easily absorbed, compleling way. They need to be pulling the most damning sentence or two out of the rulings in the failed Trump legal cases, especially those decided by judges who are Republican appointees, and getting them before the public. They need to be contrasting the claims of evidence by Trump and his lawyers with the complete absence of evidence in those lawyers' filings.

In addition to ads, every Democratic officeholder who appears in the media needs to make this case in this way.

We have the facts. Why aren't we making full use of them?

Friday, December 25, 2020

HAVING A VERY 2020 CHRISTMAS

Sorry not to be blogging, but I'm having some infrastructure issues. I should be back to normal tomorrow or Sunday. Hope you're having a lovely Christmas. See you soon.

Thursday, December 24, 2020

THEY'D DO ANYTHING FOR TRUMP (BUT THEY WON'T DO THAT)

We've established that congressional Republicans will do anything for Donald Trump. They'll defend him against impeachment charges. They'll agree that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though no one can find solid evidence.

But now Trump says he wants Americans to receive larger pandemic relief checks than the ones Congress agreed on. So congressional Republicans have no choice, right? They have to agree! Don't they?

Nope:
House Republicans shot down a Democratic bid on Thursday to pass President Donald Trump’s longshot, end-of-session demand for $2,000 direct payments to most Americans as he ponders whether to sign a long-overdue COVID-19 relief bill.

... House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 House Democrat, sought the unanimous approval of all House members to pass the bill, but GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, who was not present in the nearly-empty chamber, denied his approval and the effort fizzled.

The optics appear terrible for Republicans....
The optics are fine for Republicans.

Sure, they're denying desperately needed cash to voters and defying the president, but "Always be loyal to Trump" is a rule that has one exception: It's okay to defy to Trump if your defiance owns the libs.

Throughout Trump's term, we've all wondered what it would take to get Trump's superfans to turn against him. I think the answer is obvious: He'd have to agree with liberals on something. He'd have to back an assault weapons ban or climate change legislation or Medicare for All or a tax increase on rich people. They probably would have turned against him if he, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer agreed on an infrastructure bill.

I don't think Republican voters will reject Trump for agreeing with Pelosi et al. on the need for larger stimulus checks. But the support of Democrats gives Republicans in Congress -- and the two GOP senators running in Georgia -- cover to reject the idea. If we're for it, it's fine to be against it, no matter what it is.

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

I HAVE MY DOUBTS ABOUT THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ON STIMULUS CHECKS AND GEORGIA

We're being told that President Trump shivved Mitch McConnell last night:
Trump released a video criticizing the $900 billion coronavirus relief package that congressional lawmakers passed on Monday and demanding they increase the checks....

This leaves the next move to McConnell, who has for months insisted on a smaller stimulus package and has rejected Democratic proposals for $1,200 checks.

He now has two undesirable options:

* He can cave and accept a larger stimulus figure after fighting for months to keep it down.

* He can block the larger checks and take the political heat for it.
The conventional wisdom is that he and his party will be in trouble if the larger checks don't happen, because it's now clear to voters in the Georgia runoffs -- who want more government aid -- that what's holding up that additional aid is the Republican Senate.

I'm with Joshua Holland on this:



My take:



And lo and behold:



If Trump doesn't back down and sign the bill as is -- and despite his grumbling, he might -- McConnell will just add a poison pill or two, then blame Democrats when his bad deal is rejected.

I also believe that the impact of this on Georgia Senate voting is being greatly overstated. Reports on early voting in Georgia say that, yes, Black turnout is strong, but so is turnout among older voters, who tend to be more Republican. And this is without any stimulus checks.

I expect the runoffs to be close, but I think GOP voters will turn out for the same reason they always do: Because they've been told for decades that Democrats are evil. Anti-Democratic negative partisanship didn't just cease to exist when Trump started complaining about Republicans who won't help him steal the presidential election.

If Democrats win the runoffs, it won't be because of GOP infighting or because checks don't arrive. It'll be because they countered a healthy GOP turnout with strong turnout of their own.

BANNON'S REVENGE? (updated)

CNN recently reported:
Conspiracist lawyer Sidney Powell, disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn, onetime chief strategist Steve Bannon, hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro and the eccentric founder of the retail website Overstock have all recently found themselves in the Oval Office or on the telephone advising Trump on new last-ditch efforts to reverse his loss.
But what else are they talking to him about -- particularly Bannon and Navarro, Bannon's fellow anti-globalist? I think I detect their influence in Trump's attack on the coronavirus relief bill:
President Trump on Tuesday night asked Congress to amend the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill passed just one day before, describing the legislation as “a disgrace” and suggesting he would not immediately sign off on aid for millions of Americans.

In a video posted to Twitter, Trump called on Congress to increase the “ridiculously low” $600 stimulus checks to $2,000 and outlined a list of provisions in the overall package of legislation that he described as “wasteful spending and much more.”
Here's the video:



Most reporting on the video has focused on the demand for larger checks, which makes the president seem, at long last, like the potential ally to the Democrats that the mainstream media has always wanted him to be. But note how Trump begins his speech:
Throughout the summer, Democrats cruelly blocked COVID relief legislation in an effort to advance their extreme left wing agenda and influence the election. Then a few months ago, Congress started negotiations on a new package to get urgently needed help to the American people. It’s taken forever. However, the bill they are now planning to send back to my desk is much different than anticipated. It really is a disgrace.

For example, among the more than 5,000 pages in this bill, which nobody in Congress has read because of its length and complexity, it’s called the COVID Relief Bill, but it has almost nothing to do with COVID. This bill contains $85.5 million for assistance to Cambodia, $134 million to Burma, $1.3 billion for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment. $25 million for democracy and gender programs in Pakistan, $505 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.
It's a classic paleoconservative complaint about the very existence of foreign aid.

These provisions are in the bill because Congress folded COVID relief into a larger spending bill. The New York Times reports:
The president ... seized on congressional leaders’ decision to pass the relief bill by combining it with a broader spending plan to fund government operations and the military.
That implies that a well-informed Trump critiqued Congress for putting COVID relief in a larger bill. There's no evidence that Trump actually understands that that's what happened. As far as I can tell, he just thinks Congress called it a COVID bill and then loaded it up with unrelated goodies.

Trump went to complain:
$40 million for the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, which is not even open for business. $1 billion for the Smithsonian and an additional $154 million for the National Gallery of Art. Likewise, these facilities are essentially not open.

$7 million for reef fish management, $25 billion to combat Asian carp, $2.5 million to count the number of amberjack fish in the Gulf of Mexico. A provision to promote the breeding of fish in federal hatcheries, $3 million in poultry production technology, $2 million to research the impact of down trees, $566 million for construction projects at the FBI.
These are old-fashioned right-wing complaints about the very existence of government spending. Only after this do we get a complaint about the size of the checks, and it's folded into Bannonesque (or possibly Stephen Miller-esque) immigrant-bashing.
The bill also allows stimulus checks for the family members of illegal aliens, allowing them to get up to $1,800 each. This is far more than the Americans are given. Despite all of this wasteful spending and much more, the $900 billion package provides hardworking taxpayers with only $600 each in relief payments and not enough money is given to small businesses.
Bannon postures as a populist. (Remember 2017, when he was a White House adviser and he let it be known that he favored raising the top marginal tax rate on rich people from 39.6% to 44%? And then it dropped to 37%?) Bannon is a cultural nationalist. Bannon wants everything blown up, because he's looking forward to some sort of historical "turning" that he expects to Change Everything.

I'm not saying that the entire video was Bannon's idea. One part of the speech seemed to come straight from Trump's heart:
And in particular, restaurants, whose owners have suffered so grievously. They were only given a deduction for others to use in business, their restaurant, for two years. This two year period must be withdrawn, which will allow the owners to obtain financing and get their restaurants back in condition. Congress can terminate it at a much later date, but two years is not acceptable. It’s not enough.
But I suspect Bannon was a major influence.

*****

ON THE OTHER HAND: There's this:
On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) stated that the coronavirus relief bill “should be vetoed” by President Donald Trump via a pocket veto, “and I’m hoping it will be.”

Biggs said, “Well, I — this is the worst bill, and it typifies the swamp. Because it’s terrible, both from a process and a substantive point of view.”
Biggs is one of several House crazies Trump has been meeting with in his efforts to get the election results overturned. I'm sure they all hate the bill and have told him it's bad. But I don't think any of them would recommend larger stimulus checks.

*****

UPDATE: I'm probably wrong to ascribe this to Bannon. The list of foreign aid appropriations seems to have been making the right-wing rounds for a couple of days. Here's a Monday post in the comments section of a Breitbart story that provides a different list of foreign aid recipients:



And also from Monday, in the comments for an AP story in Maryland's Free Lance-Star:



Cambodia and Burma top these commenters' lists of outrages, as they top Trump's. I'm not sure where this ultimately comes from, though.

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

HOUSE LUNATICS WILL CHALLENGE THE ELECTORAL VOTE IN SIX STATES -- AT LEAST

In case you had any doubts, CNN tells us that this is happening:
Alabama GOP Rep. Mo Brooks and fellow House conservatives met privately on Monday with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence as the lawmakers prepared to mount a long-shot bid in January to overturn the Electoral College results that made Joe Biden the official winner of the election....

Pence's involvement in the meeting is significant because he will preside over the joint session of Congress that would count the electoral votes that day.
I told you Pence would join Trump in this. He has to. Sure, we all know he's not crazy enough to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, even if no member of the Trump family runs, but for now he polls well when President Trump isn't included in the surveys. If Pence fails to back this challenge, his chances instantly drop to zero.

Also, as Axios reports, Trump is very focused on whether Pence will die on the "stolen election" hill:
A source who spoke to Trump said the president was complaining about Pence and brought up a Lincoln Project ad that claims that Pence is "backing away" from Trump. This ad has clearly got inside Trump’s head, the source said.

Trump views Pence as not fighting hard enough for him — the same complaint he uses against virtually everybody who works for him and has been loyal to him.

Pence’s role on Jan. 6 has begun to loom large in Trump’s mind, according to people who’ve discussed the matter with him.

Trump would view Pence performing his constitutional duty — and validating the election result — as the ultimate betrayal.
More from the CNN story:
Brooks told CNN on Monday night that they would seek to challenge the election in at least six battleground states....
"At least"? After Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Michigan, all of which Biden won by less than 3%, where else could they challenge the results? The next-closest states were Minnesota and New Hampshire -- but Biden won them both by 7%.

It's likely that the challengers won't go beyond those six states, but I have a long-shot prediction for an additional state where they might issue a challenge:

California.

No, really. After the 2016 election, Trump implied that the reason he lost the state (by 30 points) was fraud.



In September of this year, he suggested the same thing in an interview:
“I think I did win the popular vote in a true sense,” Trump told [Laura] Ingraham. “I think there was tremendous cheating in California. There was tremendous cheating in New York and other places.”
There was this a couple of weeks after the election:
“New reports claim that the real results of the 2020 U.S. election were found on a computer server that was seized by the U.S. military in Frankfurt, Germany,” an OAN personality said.... “In a recent tweet, a Virginia congressional candidate shared an electoral map that’s allegedly based on this data from that server. It shows a landslide victory for President Trump with a 410 electoral-college vote, including liberal strongholds California and Minnesota.”

Here is that “recent tweet” which constitutes one of the “new reports.”

And, of course, the conspiracy theorists believe that Smartmatic helped steal the election for Biden. Smartmatic actually had no involvement in the 2020 elections -- except for the fact that it helped Los Angeles County run its elections.

So while I don't expect a challenge of the California results (Trump lost by 29 this time), I won't be shocked if it happens, and I expect that at least one of the many speeches from the challengers will mention California (which has, y'know, all those brown people voting).

So who's likely to challenge? The CNN story tells us:
Brooks said the meeting was attended by a "double digit" number of lawmakers, but he wouldn't say if senators were part of the meeting....

Other GOP lawmakers have also confirmed their attendance at the meeting, including Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who told CNN: "We talked about a lot of things."

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, a staunch Trump defender, said this when asked if Trump urged him to object to the election results at the meeting: "He didn't urge anything, he didn't need to, I've been planning on objecting all along."

Rep. Jody Hice, a Georgia Republican who attended the meeting, tweeted: "I will lead an objection to Georgia's electors on Jan 6."

Sources told CNN that other members were there, including Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, a prominent ally of the President who has been urging him to continue the battle.
Also:



So it'll be a big gang. And I bet they'll get at least one senator. CNN:
... several senators have not ruled out joining the effort, including Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Trump has heaped praise on Alabama's incoming senator, Tommy Tuberville, for signaling he'd object to the results.

Another incoming senator, Kansas Rep. Roger Marshall, wouldn't say if he would join House conservatives' effort to contest a state's election results. Marshall was a signatory on the House GOP's amicus brief backing the Texas suit seeking to invalidate votes across several battleground states that the Supreme Court rejected earlier this month.
And this probably won't be resolved on January 6.
... if a House member and a senator object to six states' results, it would lead to at least 12 hours of debate, in addition to the time for casting votes on each of the motions, potentially prolonging the fight until the next day.
There's something to be said for empty, futile histrionics. They build tribal loyalty. They turn faits accomplis into permanent grievances. This dog-and-pony show will be obnoxious, but I wish Democrats had tried some of this tantrum-throwing during the past few years of judicial confirmations.

NO, TRUMP DID NOT GET MITCH McCONNELL REELECTED -- HERE'S THE EVIDENCE

Axios reports that Donald Trump is trying to scare Republicans who might acknowledge his defeat by demonstrating his mighty power to sustain or destroy their politcal careers:
President Trump lashed out at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday night for acknowledging Joe Biden won the election, sending a slide to Republican lawmakers taking credit for saving McConnell's career with a tweet and robocall....

"Sadly, Mitch forgot,” reads the top of the slide sent to Republican senators by Trump's personal assistant, written in red for emphasis. “He was the first one off the ship.”

... While both the message and its delivery targeted McConnell, they also carried a subtle warning to other Republicans who may follow suit as the president grasps at the last straws of his election-fraud claim.
Here's the slide:



Trump's claim is that the polls in the race between McConnell and Democrat Amy McGrath were tight until June 19, when Trump sent this tweet:



The Kentucky Senate polls collected by FiveThirtyEight do show a tight race early on. As the Trump slide notes, a poll released June 9 by RMG Research showed McGrath with a one-point lead.

But a poll released on June 18 -- a day before Trump's tweet -- showed McConnell with a 20-point lead. That survey, from the liberal firm Civiqs, was conducted June 13 to 15. The numbers were McConnell 53%, McGrath 33%.

So no, Trump's tweet didn't save McConnell. It's Kentucky. McConnell was always going to win.

Monday, December 21, 2020

I'M SURE THIS IS FINE

CNN reports that in addition to the White House meeting with President Trump that she attended on Friday night, "Kraken" lawyer Sidney Powell was also at the White House yesterday and the day before, although it doesn't appear that she met with Trump again. (If she didn't, who was she there to see?)

But there's more. In the Friday night meeting, which was also attended by General Mike Flynn, there was another celebrity guest:
They were joined by Patrick Byrne, the founder of Overstock.com, who tweeted afterward that he was disappointed in how Trump is being served by his White House team.

"President Trump is being terribly served by his advisers. They want him to lose and are lying to him. He is surrounding by mendacious mediocrities," Byrne wrote, adding later: "For the first time in my life I feel sorry for Donald Trump. He is standing up to his waist in snakes. Trust Rudy and Sidney only."
That would be this Patrick Byrne:
They met at a libertarian conference in Las Vegas in July 2015, where they discussed Milton Friedman, Anton Chekhov and John Locke.

He was the philosophizing founder and chief executive of Overstock.com, a publicly traded e-commerce retailer that sells discount furniture and bedding. She was an ambitious graduate student from Russia.

It was the start of a three-year relationship between the e-commerce executive, Patrick Byrne, and the young woman, Maria Butina, that became romantic at times. She is now serving 18 months in prison after being accused by federal prosecutors of trying to infiltrate powerful political circles in the United States at the direction of the Russian government. She ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.
Byrne claimed that the FBI had directed him to pursue a romantic relationship with Butina. He issued
a bizarre press release — “Overstock.com CEO Comments on Deep State, Withholds Further Comment” — in which he claimed he was aiding the “Men in Black” in a “Clinton investigation,” and that he was the “notorious ‘missing Chapter 1’ of the Russian investigation.”

Naturally, investors weren’t thrilled, as company shares dropped by 36 percent over the next two days, sheering $317 million off Overstock’s market value. And they probably weren’t thrilled by his interview with the New York Times on August 15, [2019,] in which he ... said he was still “quite fond” of Butina ... and recommended that she “go home and be president of Russia one day.” On August 22, Byrne resigned....
I'm sure it's perfectly fine that this guy is advising the president of the United States. Right?

THIS IS SO IDIOTIC THAT IT'S ALL BUT INEVITABLE

Back in June 2019, I wrote a post in which I tried to imagine a second Trump term. I assumed that if he managed to win reelection, he'd largely ignore the responsibilities of the job and focus even more than usual on golf, Twitter, and TV, while looking ahead to his legacy:
... he might start focusing on inappropriate honors. Where's my Nobel Prize? How do I get on Mount Rushmore? Do I have to be dead before they put me on money?
I thought of that post when I read this at the Daily Beast:
In the dying days of his presidency, Donald Trump has taken to asking some aides and advisers about the process of naming airports after former U.S. presidents, according to two people who’ve heard him recently inquiring on this.

... [One] knowledgeable source said that Trump had, at one point since the 2020 election, offhandedly asked what kind of “paperwork” was necessary to get an airport named after a former president....

Trump’s focus on airport namings suggests that his mind has begun to wonder towards the ceremonial elements that accompany life after the presidency.
I don't think this means that all of Trump's "election fraud" talk is an act. The human mind is complex -- we know that friends and relatives of people who commit suicide often say they were surprised because the person seemed to have been making a lot of plans for the future. I think Trump is thinking along parallel tracks in a similar way. Because he believes any crackpot theory that confirms his prior beliefs, he's certain he really won. Because he finds failure unbearable and shameful, he has to fight to the bitter end to establish the notion that he was the winner. (It's working, of course -- the vast majority of his base thinks he was robbed.) But part of him knows that no one with the power to do so has demonstrated a willingness to throw the election to him.
It also shows that his infatuation with having pieces of infrastructure emblazoned with his name hasn’t faded at all with his time occupying the single most powerful position in the world.
He's so obsessed with this that last summer I noticed he'd purchased the cleaning rights to a stretch of roadway in Manhattan, on the Upper West Side, where he's loathed, and where he didn't have a chance in hell of winning the state's electoral votes:



Another individual close to Trump told The Daily Beast that they could recall the president mentioning at least a couple times since early 2018 his desire for having a national or international airport in the United States named after “Donald J. Trump,” and that he hoped there would be an aggressive organized effort to do so....
You can laugh at this, but it will happen.

First, you don't have to be dead to have an airport named after you. Washington's National Airport was renamed in honor of Ronald Reagan in 1998, six years before Reagan died.

Beyond that, we can assume that fawning Trumpist governors and state legislators will be in a hot competition to see who can get an airport named after Trump first. I assume Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and South Dakota's governor, Kristi Noem, will fight hardest to get this done. I'm sure Trump would prefer having a big international airport named for him, which would seem to give Florida the advantage, but it's a purple state, and the airports there are mostly in Democratic areas, so he might encounter less popular and legislative resistance in South Dakota.

Red America loves Trump. Many things will be named after him once he's out of office. There are Ronald Reagan Schools....



So I'm sure there'll be Donald Trump Schools in a few years.

****

UPDATE: I'm reminded that the Trump highway sign has been there for a while -- since 2007, although it was down for about a year after it was vandalized in 2017.

Sunday, December 20, 2020

HOW CAN TRUMP JUST LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE PEACEFULLY ON JANUARY 20?

You know the alarming news:
President Trump on Friday discussed naming Sidney Powell, who as a lawyer for his campaign team unleashed conspiracy theories about a Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines in the United States, to be a special counsel overseeing an investigation of voter fraud, according to two people briefed on the discussion.

It was unclear if Mr. Trump will move ahead with such a plan.
And the even more alarming news:
Ms. Powell’s client, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser whom the president recently pardoned, was also there....

During an appearance on the conservative Newsmax channel this week, Mr. Flynn pushed for Mr. Trump to impose martial law and deploy the military to “rerun” the election. At one point in the meeting on Friday, Mr. Trump asked about that idea.
We're told there's nothing to worry about. The ideas were rejected by Trump's aides:
Ms. Powell’s ideas were shot down by every other Trump adviser present, all of whom repeatedly pointed out that she had yet to back up her claims with proof....

The White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, and the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, repeatedly and aggressively pushed back on the ideas being proposed, which went beyond the special counsel idea, those briefed on the meeting said.
So if "the ideas being proposed ... went beyond the special counsel idea," does that mean that "those briefed on the meeting" wouldn't confirm the martial-law part of the story, but would acknowledge that something off-the-wall was discussed beyond making Sidney Powell a special counsel? Or does that mean there were even crazier ideas floated that have yet to be revelead?

A Business Insider story assures us that Trump can't really declare martial law.
The president has broad powers to suspend normal legal constraints on his authority in response to a "national emergency," such as a natural disaster or terror attack, including deploying troops within the US to subdue unrest and assist law enforcement officers.

However, Joseph Nunn, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, in October, wrote that the legal precedents for a president imposing martial law are vague, with no clear Constitutional principles or Supreme Court rulings governing its use. He wrote that under current law, "the president lacks any authority to declare martial law."
Nunn notes that martial law can be appealed to the courts:
The Supreme Court, without actually endorsing the federal government’s power to declare martial law, has established that such declarations are subject to judicial review. At a minimum, in a state or territory that the federal government has placed under martial law, individuals who have been detained by the military may ask a federal court to order their release by petitioning for the writ of habeas corpus. A court that considers an individual’s petition can decide whether the declaration of martial law was constitutionally permissible. The reviewing court can also decide whether the military’s particular actions — such as the decision to arrest and detain the person petitioning for habeas corpus — have violated the Constitution or exceeded the powers granted by the statute (if any) that authorized martial law.
Even Jonathan Turley, usually a Trump sycophant, says that "a plan for martial law ... would quickly collapse in the courts." I'm not sure this would be the case if Trump had installed loyalists rather than Federalist Society clones on the bench, but the judges he's appointed, even though they're right-wing ideologues, seem to want to do their work within the system.

Also:
Despite Flynn’s claim that the U.S. military could be dispatched to take part in re-running the presidential election in certain states, senior military leaders say that’s not going to happen.

On Friday, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville said in a joint statement that there “is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”
And now even Trump is claiming he never entertained the notion:



But it's clear that he's desperate to do something. It's clear that he won't accept a congressional ratification of the Electoral College vote on January 6. And neither will a large segment of his base. (Polls suggest that the about a third of the electorate firmly believes he was cheated.)

You might think he's just grifting, or trying to stave off legal and financial entanglements. But even if this is a grift, how can he simply leave office voluntarily on January 20 and retain the support of folks like these?



These people will conclude that Trump is a cuck if he leaves peacefully -- but he'll also look weak if he's successfully dragged out kicking and screaming.

I don't know what the way out will be. Maybe Trump will save face by declaring that he doesn't want anything more to do with Washington because it's so sick and corrupt, in effect telling us that we can't fire him because he quit. Or maybe he'll insist (preposterously) that he can force the system to reinstate him as president and force Biden out. Failing that, I think he'll make a scene right up to noon on January 20 -- and beyond. There might be a standoff. I can't believe there'll be a peaceful transition.