Not saying that America's enemies should attack between now and Jan 20, but they probably won't get a better opportunity.

Wrong!


Thirty seconds.

Trump has to have HHS fire Fauci for cause and he has options for redress. The president can't simply order him to be fired.

Overnight:
DOJ's top voter fraud official resigns in protest of Barr's order.
Pentagon's top policy official resigns as well.

... and both send their CV to Biden on the very same day I imagine.

Just for clarity's sake, here we call that a "resumé".

The DOJ person at least isn't leaving the DOJ, just that position.

This one does cause me some concern. Is Trump going to try a military coup if his claims of fraud fail to keep him in power? I suspect he's too much of a coward to go that far, as that is something likely to end with him dead or in prison if it fails, but it doesn't seem to be beyond the realm of possibility.

Trump can either tell the head of HHS to fire him, or fire the head of HHS and appoint someone (even in an acting capacity) who will do it for him.

Can we have a new Saturday Night Massacre? Keep firing people you can fire until one of them fires the guy you want to fire in the first place?

And then nominate that last guy to the Supreme Court?


I remember the original Saturday Night Massacre, but I was too young to understand it, really. Maybe Trump can do a few of those over the next few months.

I keep holding out hope that he will do something so outrageously over the top and illegal that there will have to be an emergency impeachment to get rid of him before January 20, or a 25th amendment action. I know it's not likely, but it would be fun.

The problem with that is that it would draw attention to republicans for enabling Trump for the past 4 years, and they would probably want to avoid that sort of publicity.

"Even though we voted against Trump's impeachment, voted for his various nominations, and didn't really challenge him when he engaged in racist actions, we now think Trump is a threat to the country".
"Why didn't you try to stop him before?"
"Because... Obama wore a tan suit! Buttery maies! Bengazi!"

There might even be other problems with that scenario.......but that doesn't mean I can't dream.


It occurs to me that about this time four years ago I predicted that Trump would be the first president impeached and convicted. i didn't think he could stay within the law for four years. I only have about 70 days left to be right.




(And....some would say he didn't stay within the law for four years, but that's for a different thread.)

Well, so far Trump hasn't used a guillotine. I wouldn't put it past him, though.

Reversing the trend, Rick Bright will join the Biden COVID-19 advisory board after Trump's White House retaliated against him for a whistleblower complaint.

That's ridiculous.

How would he manage to pull the lever that drops the blade with such small hands?

He has people to do that for him. You don't really think a person of Trump's status would pull the lever himself, do you?

He'd claim he did it himself, though.

Or claim that wanted to, but couldn't because of bone spurs in his arms.

Then afterword he would call the person who did pull the lever a "loser".

Two senior DHS officials have been forced to resign.

The assistant director for cybersecurity and the assistant secretary for international affairs

I've been thinking more about this in the waning days of Trump's reign, and what continues to amaze me (though it doesn't really surprise me) is the death star mentality we keep seeing. What could possibly possess a person at this stage to join Trump's toppling team?

You know, in the Star Wars universe, when an Imperial henchman fails (as they always must) the Emperor musters the force and kills him, and as the body lies on the floor, another henchman steps up, eager to try his hand. A retelling of the old fairy tale in which the hapless stumbler heads off to answer the oracle or fight the ogre. Is he spellbound, or just so devoid of hope that a flamboyant downfall seems a viable future?

Promotion in the Empire is quick - because the top echelons keep getting force-choked.

Looks like the head of cybersecurity is in a bad spot as well.

https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/...31339485331456

It doesn't matter much. If their positions were political appointed jobs, they would be gone in 45 days anyway.. Trump is livid that the AD for cybersecurity refuted his claims that the election was rigged.

To be fair, we only see Vader dispose of two officers in this way, and with at least one of them it is inferred they have failed Vader multiple times. Admiral Peitt survived a similar failure.

Now having said that it is clear that officers were aware of Vader's actions and punishments, so...

I'd also note that Thrawn had a slightly different technique, if someone failed him then it was the trainer of the person that paid the price. And far from canon, when I used to RP as what would now be considered an Imperial Intelligence DeathTrooper Commando, my character had a reputation for throwing people out of airlocks if they crossed them. So yeah, it was a thing, but not all of them got force choked.

Even the Emperor didn't just force choke those that disappointed him. check out the ways he executed Bevel Lemelisk. Yes, I did say "ways", he kept having him cloned and executed again, seven times!

A textbook case of overkill.

There was a Robot Chicken sketch that revealed that Vader doesn't actually have the power to choke people. His underlings just pretend that he does so he doesn't shoot them or cut them in half. When he holds out his hand, they pretend to choke, collapse to the floor, and their coworkers drag them away. Later, they return to work wearing a fake beard or mustache.

That's brilliant.

Found it.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Aaaaaand he's gone

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...52352787484677

The way Rudi is spectacularly failing to succeed at spoiling the election, I'm betting he will not survive the Trump reign either.

Shameless.

But we knew that.

Thanks.

One former US Attonrey who worked with Rudy when Rudy was going after the Mob Bosses said he can't believe the smart lawyer who got the first serious convictiions in ages on previous untourchable Mafis Dons is now doing stuff that would get him a F grade in any decent Law School.

Everything Trump touches, dies.

Doesn't seem to stop people in totalitarian states. Did Stalin really have difficulty filling the openings he made?

A big difference is that nobody knew when Stalin would leave power. Someone promoted to a higher office could spend years with more power and a higher rank, and if they thought they could avoid any purges, might end up doing even better in the future.

Trump as a "best before" date. Despite some MAGAchuds thinking Trump might still win the election, most people with even a smidgeon of brains realize he's out of office in January. Even if you survive Trump's regular temper tantrums, getting promoted at this point will just give you a few extra months, after which you become just another Trump bootlicker (which doesn't look good on the resume for many people).

Trump knows he himself has a "Use by..." date for his Office. And he's going to do things to his full extent before that time is up. Bad things.

Yep. (Link is to Politico via MSN)-

The GOP in 2016, when Obama had a SC nomination with almost a year left in his duly-elected presidency- "no, no, we should wait for the voice of the people to be heard before we advance any noms by a lame-duck president."

The GOP in 2020, when Trump pushes nominations with just two months remaining in his duly-rejected presidency- "****, we gotta hurry up, the voice of the people has been heard and our president is a lame duck!"

....and from 2021 until 2025 the excuse will be "we cannot consider any nominations from a President where the legitimacy of election itself is in doubt" :rolleyes:

Talking of lame ducks, has there been any serious proposal to reduce the time between the result of the election being known, and the new president taking over? I imagine the two months were originally needed in order to count the votes and get the representatives together in the age of horse and steam, but that's no longer the case.

When the Constitution was written, before steam, it was even later. I think it was March 4. It was sometime in March.

Today, with airplanes and teleconferencing, it really ought to be very fast, so I think an amendment is in order. The lame duck period is bad for the country, in my opinion. I'm puzzled why counting the votes and settling the related disputes take so much longer here than in other countries. I suppose it's related to the fact that we have fifty one ways of casting votes, and sometimes it isn't even uniform in a state.

ETA: But I haven't a call for such an amendment that would be taken seriously, i.e. either from a prominent politician or from major media outlets.

actually, the two months are barely enough to for a normal transition, because so many posts must change hands.
The only way to shorten the time would be to make far more positions permanent instead of politically appointed.

I think the March date was a carryover from the Julian calendar.
For transition, the election winner becomes President December one but the outgoing is President emeritus or some such, retaining a White House office for a while.

As Meadmaker says, no, there have been no serious conversations about shortening that lame duck period. I can see TGZ's point here too, that the federal government is a big, complicated machine that a new set of drivers need time to get in gear properly; in normal circumstances (i.e., with a lame duck President who isn't throwing a hissy fit about being one), that wouldn't be an issue. But Trump's presidency seems, if nothing else, to be a lesson in how that machine can be broken by someone determined to make his successor's voter-sanctioned use of it a failure from the get-go. Maybe, instead of shortening the lame-duck period, some provisions could be made, via Constitutional amendment if necessary, that would limit an outgoing President's ability to kneecap the next guy- for example, no SC justices (even other federal judges) to be nominated during this period. And I've seen where Mnuchin has taken some action (Reuters article), re the Fed, that will impact the economy well into Biden's term, even if he reverses the action quickly- that might be another area that could be addressed by limitations on lame duck Presidential action.

Hell, you would think the GOP would be at least half on board for something like this, based on their mealy-mouthed antics in Obama's last year. And I predict that if a SC vacancy occurs during Biden's last year in office before an election (never mind after his possible defeat in it), they will revive their empty "let the people have a voice!" rhetoric. Their standards are like their rhetoric though, entirely situational and tactical- they would never support such limitations on lame ducks if he's one of theirs, so it's better to not be bound by them in any way stronger than easily-disavowed speechifying.

I do hope you win that bet.

Sidney Powell didn't last long.

Even more reason for Trump to not pay him.

Wait what? (Googles)
Well that didn't take long. Apparently she's a Q-nut. Or maybe Rudi thought she made him look bad.
Hint for Rudi: It wasn't her that made you look stupid.

I wonder if she managed to piss away Flynn's chance at a Pardon with her failure to torpedo the vote count.

Scott Atlas resigns.