Nobody elected them anything; their former President nearly wrecked the country; they don’t wish us well; and they likely won’t deliver — can we move on? politico.com/news/2021/05/2…
Until now, it seemed pretty clear that the infrastructure negotiations were about what would be bipartisan, with no cap on what else we might do via reconciliation. This seems to change that and offer a cap on infrastructure investment. If so, that’s new.
It also seems to kick climate to the curb, with only specific climate-related investments mentioned, not the overall urgency to get on a 1.5 degrees trajectory. This suggests a separate climate bill must come later. If so, that’s new.
Leonard Leo operated the dark-money court capture operation from his @FedSoc perch. It was a $250 million dark-money operation.
Down the hall (literally) was the Judicial Crisis Network, which took anonymous $15-17 million donations to fund campaign ads for the Supreme Court nominees the FedSoc-hosted operation selected.
When the @washingtonpost outed Leo and Trump polling tanked, Leo jumped ship to “Honest Elections Project” to move from court capture (which needs a Republican president) to voter suppression (to make good use of those judges).
Looks like Trump’s BS-artist attorneys may have crossed the line from BS to something much more serious. cnn.com/2021/02/12/pol…
A review of Trump’s abominable lawyers in which the authors did not yet know about evident lies. Pretty damning stuff, even without that. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Trump’s lawyers are likely under ethics obligation to clean this up: duty of candor to a tribunal. You don’t get as counsel to make misrepresentations; if you do, you have an affirmative duty to clean it up. Tomorrow just got a lot more interesting.
Just reading the Trump pleading on impeachment,& it’s a headspinner. Calling the impeachment a Bill of Attainder is weird because that’s guilt of crime without trial & impeachment is (a) not criminal & (b) has a trial (coming right up).
Saying that the removal penalty is a “condition precedent” to the disqualification penalty is weird because (a) it’s a contract law term, (b) that “condition” isn’t in the Constitution & (c) it ignores Senate precedent on point (Belknap), usually something lawyers try to address.
Misstating the act in question (that Trump said “the election results were suspect”) so as to call it “unpopular” “protected” speech is weird because it ignores (a) everything we know Trump actually said, & (b) that criminal/fraudulent speech (like incitement) isn’t protected.