Senate page     Dec. 21

Senate map
Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)

Monday Didn't Matter; Today Does

On Monday, the Select Committee politely asked the Dept. of Justice to kindly indict Donald Trump on four charges. The DoJ will politely ignore this advice and make its own decisions. However, everything is going to change (probably today) when the Committee releases its full report, expected to be eight chapters and run to 1,000 pages. Some of that is material the DoJ does not have and is keenly interested in.

But the really big reveal will be when the Committee hands over the transcripts from over 1,200 people it interviewed, along with millions of pages of documents it collected. It's this raw information that Special Counsel Jack Smith desperately wants and will soon get. What Smith needs to know is whether there is hard evidence that Donald Trump, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and others committed federal felonies. The transcripts and documents could hold the evidence as witnesses told the Committee what they saw these gentlemen say and do. This is what really matters, not the big public show on Monday.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) has also implied that the transcripts and documents will also go up on the Government Publishing Office's website, so thousands of amateur detectives can pore over it and pull out and draw attention to hidden gems. What hasn't been decided yet is what to do with the videos of the interviews. Some of them may contain private information or national security secrets that cannot be published. Also, some witnesses testified only after they were granted a promise of anonymity. Some call records also contain private information and cannot be published. It may take some work to vet this massive trove of information and that may not be complete for a few weeks. Presumably by handing everything over to the GPO and letting it figure out what has to remain private, that will prevent the incoming House from redirecting the entire collection to the paper shredder.

Once most of the transcripts are public, there will be intense scrutiny of some of them. The Committee itself cast doubts on the testimony of former Secret Service member Tony Ornato, former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. This is a lawyer-speak for "it is plain that they lied through their teeth." The DoJ might just dust off some musty old perjury laws and offer the people in question another opportunity to do some bean spilling before being indicted.

Another point is that some of the key witnesses decided not to show up after receiving subpoenas. Others took the Fifth Amendment. The DoJ takes a dim view of people who don't show up, and can order the sheriff to corral recalcitrant witness and bring them in for a chat, even if the witnesses have other plans. It can also grant witnesses immunity, which largely removes their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment, since the grant means the government may not use what they say under oath at a trial against them. The DoJ can also get search warrants and empanel grand juries to investigate difficult witnesses. This may also apply to sitting members of the House who refused to obey subpoenas from the Committee. They have far less authority to ignore a subpoena from the DoJ about a criminal case.

The transcripts and documents will be an enormous Christmas present for the DoJ, which has been trying for months to acquire the material. However, it could take Smith weeks, or even months, to go through everything to see what he can use. (V)

Shelby Is Fighting with His Own Party over Funding the Government

As we noted yesterday, the Republicans are engaging in a little friendly fratricide. Another episode relates to the omnibus budget bill, driven by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He is an old-style conservative who prides himself on getting things done. In particular, before he retires from the Senate on Jan. 3, he wants to get a spending bill though to fund the government. That is part of his job. But he has been under massive fire from other Republicans to not do his job. They are calling him a RINO and a sellout (because he worked with chair Pat Leahy, D-VT, to put together a spending bill). The Republicans want the government to shut down at the end of this week to show who's in charge (short answer: no one). It's not a beautiful swan song for the longest-serving senator from Alabama ever (36 years). His only consolation is that he will be succeeded in the Senate by his former chief of staff, Sen.-elect Katie Britt (R-AL). There is no reason to believe that the people who don't like him will like her any better.

He isn't upset about all the flak he is taking from other Republicans. He knows it comes with the territory. He thinks he is doing what is best for the country and, at the same time, he is saving the House Republicans from themselves by preventing months of infighting next year over funding priorities. He said: "If we're successful, we'll have probably done them a favor. There probably won't be much thanks for it." What he means is that by preventing a government shutdown this week, he is also preventing the Republicans from getting blamed for it. Some people are saying the appropriations bill he and Leahy are working on is his monument. He replied to that by saying: "I don't want a monument. Monuments are for pigeons and dogs."

Although Shelby is taking a lot of friendly (?) fire from House Republicans, he is getting some support from his own chamber. The always-concerned Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said that the brickbats flying in Shelby's direction were "very unfortunate." For once, her concern is fully justified. She will take over his job as ranking member of the Appropriations Committee in January, and then the missiles launched by the House will be aimed at her.

Note also that you should not discount the possibility that a lot of the carping directed at Shelby is actually just political theater. For example, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has been one of the loudest voices demanding that no deal should be cut. But is that really what McCarthy wants? He's already being stretched to the limits of his political skill (and perhaps beyond) just trying to lay hands on the Speaker's gavel. Does he really want to layer a fight over the budget on top of that? Not if he's smart, or even if he's of just average intelligence. If Shelby can hammer something out, then McCarthy can whine and moan about RINO Republicans, and yet avoid a massive political headache that he's probably not capable of managing.

As an aside, Shelby started out as a Democrat but switched to the Republicans in 1994—the day after the Republicans got the Senate majority. That is somewhat relevant now since another senator, Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), also left the Democrats, albeit to become an independent, not a Republican. Historically, most party switchers don't do well, but Shelby is a counterexample. He was accepted by the Alabama voters as a Republican and won five elections as a Republican after switching, eventually rising to become the top Republican on the very-important Appropriations Committee, which decides (together with the House Committee on Appropriations) how the government will spend its money. So there can be life after switching.

Anyway, despite the opposition, Shelby and Leahy finally produced a 4,155-page bill, released yesterday, that would fund the government to the tune of $1.66 trillion for another year. They hope the Senate will pass it by Thursday and send it over to the House in time to avert a government shutdown. Getting it through the House is straightforward though because no Republican votes are needed if all the Democrats vote for it.

The bill contains $858 billion for defense/military, including $119 billion for veterans' care, a 22% increase over last year. Also in there is $45 billion for military aid to Ukraine, more than the $37 billion Joe Biden asked for. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who will be visiting Washington today, is undoubtedly pleased; the entire GDP of Ukraine is just $200 billion. There is also a 5% boost for domestic programs, less than inflation, but something both parties grudgingly agreed to. Democrats can say: "Hey, we got more money for domestic programs." Republicans can say: "In real (inflation-corrected terms), we cut domestic spending." See, everyone is happy!

The bill also contains a lot of stuff unrelated to spending, including an update to the 1887 Electoral College Act, something both parties actually want, albeit for different reasons. It also states that a certificate of ascertainment, which identifies a state's presidential electors, must be signed by the governor. It also states that the President of the Senate may not object to electoral votes from any state. Not part of her job description. Objections can only be lodged when the requisite number of members of Congress object. The Senate bill puts that at one-fifth of each chamber; the House bill puts that at one-third. Our staff mathematician bought the wrong kind of egg nog, and so was available to crunch the numbers on his old calculator. He suggested four-fifteenths of each chamber as a compromise. Fifteenths are important and rarely get the attention they deserve. A distant second choice would be one-quarter of each chamber. In practice, finding 109 crazy House members is easy but finding 25 crazy senators is vastly more difficult.

Also in there are provisions relating to:

In short, it is the usual Christmas tree decorated with shiny ornaments. One ornament that didn't make it to the tree is the cannabis banking bill, which would have allowed banks to service marijuana dealers without breaking the law. Since the sale of Mary Jane is illegal under federal law, no bank will open an account for stores selling the illegal weed, forcing them to operate entirely in cash, with the danger of being robbed and more. Another one that is in there but might yet be killed is 4,000 visas for Afghans who worked for the U.S. military in Afghanistan as translators, drivers, etc. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wants that item killed.

However, there is one battle still to be fought. It is the question of where the new $500 million FBI headquarters is to be built. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) would like it in Maryland, either in Greenbelt or Landover. Virginia Democrats think that Springfield, VA, would be a better choice. The bill wouldn't actually make a choice, but it could rejigger the requirements to favor one state over the other. Republicans don't care and say it is a "Dem-on-Dem" fight.

Most Senate Republicans are expected to vote against the bill, but if 10 of them vote for cloture, no Republican votes for the bill itself are needed, assuming President of the Senate Kamala Harris is available to break the expected tie on the bill proper. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) supports the bill, which gives the 10 Republican senators cover to vote for cloture. Remember that five Republican senators are retiring in January and so don't have to worry about the consequences of voting for cloture. They are, besides Shelby, Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Rob Portman (OH), and Pat Toomey (PA). So only five more are needed. With McConnell on board, Minority Whip John Thune (R-SD) and Conference Chair John Barasso (R-WY) are surely fine with it as well, so only two more are needed.

Late in the day on Tuesday, the Senate voted 70-25 to advance the bill to the floor for debate. Some of those 70 want to add amendments, and could become "nay" votes if their pet project is rejected. However, it certainly looks like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has plenty of margin for error. We'll know within the next day or so. (V)

Could Trump Run as an Independent If He Loses the GOP Primary?

Richard Shelby switched teams. Kyrsten Sinema jumped off her team into a kind of no-womans-land as an independent. Could Donald Trump do something like that if he loses the Republican primaries? So far, he has insisted that he will win the GOP nomination, so the issue is moot for the moment. But the reality is that if he is indicted and convicted, there is a realistic chance that he could lose to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) or someone else. What then? Could he run as an independent? How would that play out?

Juan Williams has some ideas about that. Williams' main point is that Trump can't stand losing the spotlight. If he loses the primary and goes back to Mar-a-Lago to sulk and issue "truths" on Truth Social, the media will simply drop him like a hot potato and focus entirely on the Democratic and Republican nominees, not Trump. He won't be able to bear that. Also, he will be furious with the Republican Party for not anointing him. That suggests that he will try to mount a campaign as an independent.

Some states have "sore loser" laws that forbid someone who lost a partisan primary from getting on the ballot as an independent. However, most of them do not apply to candidates for president. So legally, if Trump could get enough signatures on petitions, which would be easy for him, he could get on the ballot almost everywhere. But how well would he do as an independent? A lot depends on how the "double haters" react. These are people who hate both Biden and Trump (and, generally, the two-party system). If they all flocked to Trump, he might be able to make a go of it. Would they?

There is some history here. In 2016, the double haters went for Trump by 17 points. However, in 2020, they went for Biden by 15 points. How come? Maybe in 2016, they thought Trump would upset the applecart and move in a new, bipartisan direction. Instead, he acted like an extreme Republican, and a crazed one at that. They probably didn't like that. Williams thinks that in 2024, they will mostly go for the Democratic nominee, probably Joe Biden, again, and that Trump will mostly pull votes from the Republican candidate. In a close election, a net loss of even 5 or 10 points would be fatal to the Republican nominee. Would Trump go through with a plan that would probably give Biden another term? We would say so, and Williams agrees. The former president has no loyalty whatsoever to the Republican Party, and would have no compunction against destroying the Party to feed his own ego. Williams concludes by saying he hopes the double haters realize that if they vote for Trump, they may be able to destroy the old system but they won't be creating a new one.

If Trump loses the GOP primary and decides to go it alone, we wonder who his running mate might be. If Kysten Sinema thinks she has no chance to actually be elected senator from Arizona as an independent, she has some veepish things going for her: she's a woman, she's an actual independent, Republicans like her, and she is very well known. Would she do it? Well, her love of the spotlight is second only to Trump's. (V)

Progressives Want Biden to Govern by Executive Order Next Year

It is hardly a secret that the new House is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing those things that are mandatory, like adopting a budget and funding the government. It is certainly not going to pass any bills that it doesn't have to, except maybe a couple that have no chance of passing the Senate, such as making abortion a capital crime. Joe Biden and he Democrats know this, so is Biden just going to sit around and twiddle his thumbs for 2 years? Not if progressives have any say in the matter (which they might not).

Many of them are now urging Biden to govern by executive order (EO). This is not really possible for a couple of reasons, but it may be all Biden can do, other than nominating judges (which will be much easier as soon as Democrats get a majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 3, 2023). EOs are not laws. Only Congress can make laws. EOs are instructions from the president to the executive departments indicating the president's priorities and how be wants resources managed. They can be—and often have been—sucessfully challenged in court on the grounds that the president has no constitutional or legal authority to do what the EO is trying to do.

Nevertheless, progressives want Biden to give his best shot at it, between judicial nominations. For example, Deirdre Shelly of the Sunrise Movement is asking Biden to cancel more student debt, declare a climate emergency, and use the Defense Production Act to expedite the transition to renewable energy. These three illustrate the likely range of successes and failures. Biden probably doesn't have the authority to cancel student debt and the courts are likely to call him on that. Biden can probably declare a climate emergency but it is not clear what consequences, if any, that declaration might have. Biden can certainly invoke the Defense Production Act and order, say, General Motors, to produce an extra 100,000 electric cars because depending on Russia or the unstable Middle East for oil is a threat to national security.

Another progressive priority is enforcing overtime rules. Here the instruction would be to the Dept. of Labor to make sure all the laws that require companies to pay overtime when workers work more than a certain number of hours a week are vigorously enforced. This is the kind of "priority" issue that EOs are designed for.

The progressives also want to crack down on "junk fees." These are well-hidden charges from hotels, airlines, banks, cable companies and others. For example, some hotels have mandatory "resort fees" that cover the use of WiFi, the gym, the pool, and other facilities that a guest may not be interested in using. If a fee is mandatory, it is part of the price and not disclosing it up front and advertising a lower price is fraud. Biden could certainly order the DoJ to prioritize prosecuting hotels and other companies for false advertising.

Another area where progressives want an EO is on marijuana. It is illegal nationwide and only Congress can change that. That some states have legalized it means only that selling it or using it doesn't violate state law. But it still violates federal law. Biden could instruct the DoJ to put far more resources into, say, prosecuting corporate monopolies and far fewer resources into prosecuting violations of marijuana laws. This is known as "prosecutorial discretion." The courts have long recognized that no law enforcement agency has the resources to prosecute every violation of every law, that choices have to be made as to what is most important, and it is not the job of the courts to second guess the choices the agency makes.

Aside from the possibility that the courts will throw out some of his EOs, Biden understands that signing certain EOs will motivate parts of his base, especially young voters. If the courts later say: "Nope, no can do," Biden can blame the courts and say he needs another 4 years to appoint "good" judges who won't legislate from the bench. Trying to govern using EOs is hardly a panacea, but it is probably all Biden can do with a House that will block just about everything other than possibly naming a post office in every state after Donald J. Trump. (V)

Jeffries Is Likely to Pick Suzan DelBene to Run the DCCC

Assuming no House seats change party in the coming 2 years, Democrats will go into the 2024 elections with 213 seats. They need to pick up a net of five seats to get a majority in Jan. 2025. Eighteen Republicans are in crossover districts (districts that Joe Biden won in 2020) and only five Democrats are in crossover districts that Donald Trump won. This means the Democrats have a decent chance to take back the House in 2024, especially since Democratic turnout tends to be higher in presidential years.

All this means that it is hugely important who is in charge of the DCCC, the Democrats' House campaign arm. That person will be appointed by incoming Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Two men, Reps. Ami Bera (D-CA) and Tony Cárdenas (D-CA), are actively lobbying for the job. However, a report from Punchbowl News claims that multiple sources believe that Jeffries will give the job to Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA).

Supposedly, Jeffries felt that since the Democrats' are increasingly becoming the "women's party," it would be wise to have a woman running the effort to take back the House. She would undoubtedly be more attuned to seeking out and encouraging promising women to run for House seats, especially in suburban districts.

DelBene was born in Selma, AL, a city best known for its role in the "Bloody Sunday" civil rights battles. DelBene was 3 years old when that happened. She later got a bachelors' degree in biology at Reed College and an MBA from the University of Washington. She was a Microsoft executive for 10 years and later cofounded drugstore.com. In 2010, she ran for the House and lost. She ran again in 2012 and won. She is now on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax laws.

DelBene is the chair of the New Democrat Caucus, the third largest in the House. She is a moderate, but is generally more sympathetic to the progressive members in the House than the Blue Dogs. She certainly is aware that the previous head of the DCCC, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), lost his own seat this year, but her district, WA-01, which runs from the Canadian border down to the I-90, is D+13, so she is quite safe even if the Republicans target her. (V)

House Committee Voted on Trump's Tax Returns

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has the past six years of Donald Trump's tax returns. Yesterday he convened the panel at 3 p.m. to discuss what to do with them, since Democratic control of the committee will soon be at an end (for at least 2 years). The options varied from keep everything a complete secret to publishing all of them verbatim on the Committee's website. The discussion was expected to be—how shall we put this—spirited, so after a short photo op, Neal told all the reporters and photographers to leave so the Committee could do it work in private.

There has been endless speculation on why Trump has tried so hard to keep his tax returns secret. Some people have speculated that he isn't actually a billionaire at all, but only a middling millionaire at most. Or worse yet, that he is an extremely bad businessman and almost never makes money on his businesses. Others have speculated that he has loans from Russian banks, deducts the interest he pays to them, and is deeply in hock to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is also possible that he does things that are borderline illegal.

After Neal and his Committee had their... discussion, they voted on the matter, with all the Democrats voting to release the returns and all the Republicans voting to keep them secret. The Democrats are in the majority, of course, so they win. As with the 1/6 Committee documents (see above), there will have to be some redactions (e.g., blacking out Social Security numbers), so the returns aren't available quite yet. That will happen later this week. For now, the Committee has released a 39-page report summarizing, in effect, the top-level numbers from the returns.

Based on what is in the report, those who hoped that the returns would be very damning are going to be disappointed. The main takeaway is that Trump rarely pays much in taxes, often less than $1,000. That is hardly a revelation. The New York Times got ahold of some of Trump's older tax returns in 2020 and reported that he had vast write-offs that wiped out nearly all of his tax bills.

While the Times' article summarized some general aspects of Trump's tax situation, it provided far less information than would just publishing the literal tax returns, something the Times didn't do for legal reasons. So, maybe the release of the returns will reveal something new and very damaging. But we are inclined to doubt it. If there was something really bad in there, presumably Neal would have put it into the preliminary report. But beyond the low tax bill, the only other "revelation" in the report is that the IRS failed to audit Trump until 2019. That means that the IRS failed to do its legally mandated job, and that Trump was lying about being unable to release his returns because he was under audit. The former revelation is bad for the IRS, but has little to do with Trump. And as to the latter revelation, well, anyone who didn't know that Trump was lying has had their head in a hole approximately 30,000 times in the last 6 years. (Z)

Trump's Florida Lifestyle Mirrors His White House Lifestyle

Donald Trump constantly chafed at the restraints placed on him as president. For example, former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone was constantly telling him: "I'm sorry Mr. President, but you can't do that. It is illegal." Cipollone wasn't the only one. Trump also often wanted to do things that weren't illegal, just that he had no authority to order. For example, he wanted to spend money to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is perfectly legal for the government to build a wall wherever it wants to but only if Congress has appropriated funds to do it. In many cases he tried to do these things anyway and got pushback from other people in the Executive Branch telling him he didn't have the authority to do what he wanted to do. He frequently got angry when people told him he couldn't do something he wanted to do.

Once he was out of office, most of his power vanished, but so did the rules and, especially, so did the people who kept saying: 'no." What also vanished was his staff of people who told him—however gently and informally—that doing something he wanted to do would be a very bad idea, even if it didn't violate any law or other rule. A recent example is dining with antisemites and Nazis. That is not illegal, but the political fallout hurt him much more than it helped him.

In the almost 2 years since leaving the White House, Trump has created the conditions he wanted in the White House and couldn't have. There is chaos, no rules, and no minders telling him what he can and cannot do, or even what would be unwise to do even if it there are no legal problems with it. He thrives in such an environment, but some of the things he has done with no one to stop him (like keeping Top Secret documents all over his house and in storage lockers in West Palm Beach) may end up being his undoing.

What Trump has (foolishly) done is replace his initial staff of people at Mar-a-Lago exclusively with sycophants who never say "no" to him and cater to his every whim. At first his staff consisted of people with some political experience who could gently suggest to him that something he wanted to do wouldn't look so good. They are all gone now.

Trump wants to hear good news about himself all day long, so he has employed Natalie Harp, a former OAN host, to drive around Mar-a-Lago with him in a golf car equipped with a laptop computer and printer so she can find, print, and feed him a steady stream of flattering news stories about himself. What Trump actually needs is someone who can tell him that what he wants to do is a bad idea and will ultimately hurt him. He doesn't have that.

Worse yet, he has no senior aide living full time anywhere in the state of Florida. When he feels he needs to talk to someone, he can call them or have them fly in for a meeting. In reality, he needs someone around all the time to check his worst impulses. David Urban, a long-time Trump adviser, said: "He needs someone there to say, 'Here's a really bad idea, and this is why.' I don't think he has that kind of crowd around him right now. Nor does the president want anybody like that."

For example, Trump is always looking for ways to make money. He tried to get the General Services Administration to pay him rent for his own office space at Mar-a-Lago. They said "no." So he started selling digital trading cards, a project that was almost universally panned by his own high-profile supporters. He made around $4 million on that, but it looked cheap and unpresidential. And there was no one around to say: "Sir, that is a terrible idea."

The Post article linked to above was based on interviews with 23 people who have observed him post-presidency. Most presidents have crafted a new life focused on something after leaving the White House. Some worked on their presidential library. Jimmy Carter worked for world peace and built houses for the poor. George H.W. Bush took up skydiving. Bill Clinton started a charitable foundation. George W. Bush began painting. Barack Obama makes movies and podcasts. Trump took up whining.

The transition to Joe Biden was typical Trump: completely chaotic. Gifts that a president receives from foreign leaders are property of the U.S. government, not of the president. In the final days of his administration, trucks drove daily from the White House to a NARA facility in Maryland to store boxes of random stuff. But at the same time, Trump himself was taking boxes of stuff upstairs to the president's private residence, many of which ultimately made it to Mar-a-Lago. In the chaos of the last few days, no one seemed to notice what Trump was doing. That chaos and lack of oversight may ultimately cost him dearly. (V)

Supreme Court Freezes Title 42 in Place for the Moment

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration issued a rule, known as Title 42, that allowed the U.S. government to expel migrants without any discussion about asylum or other legal niceties because they could be health risks. Last month a federal judge ruled that the rule was arbitrary and capricious and ordered it terminated today. On Monday, the Supreme Court said "not so fast" and ruled that it had to stay in place until the Court could make a decision on the merits of the case.

Supporters of Title 42 say that if it is overturned, the country will be overrun with migrants and the government needs a way to deal with the flood, namely arresting them and just sending them back to Mexico, no questions asked. The ACLU has argued that using a purported health measure for a pandemic that is no longer raging is not a valid legal basis for an immigration policy. The Biden administration has been preparing for Title 42 to be repealed, but now has a bit more time until the Supreme Court makes a final ruling on the merits of the case. So this is just a temporary delay and does not indicate how the decision will go in the end. (V)

Kari Lake Wanted to "Burn it to the Ground"

Kari Lake lost the election for governor of Arizona by over 17,000 votes but hasn't conceded. In fact, she filed a lawsuit to overturn the election result. She is trying to out-Trump Trump, calling the people who run elections in Maricopa County "crooks" even though there is not a shred of evidence that they did anything illegal or that she won. In fact, Trump could learn a few things from her about how to make a great sound bite while lying through your teeth. She said: "They have built a house of cards here in Maricopa County. I think they're all wondering what I'm gonna do. I'll tell you what, I'm not just gonna knock that house of cards over. We're going to burn it to the ground."

In the first hearing of her lawsuit, her lawyer, Kurt Olsen, alleged—without any proof—that hundreds of thousands of illegal votes were cast and 30,000 Lake supporters were disenfranchised by long lines on Election Day. Olsen also claimed that Maricopa County election workers conspired to rig the election. Her theory seems to be, as long as you are going to lie, aim for the stars. We seem to remember some other historical figure who argued that big lies are much more effective than small lies.

Abha Khanna, the lawyer representing defendant Katie Hobbs (D), the current Arizona secretary of state and the governor-elect, said: "If there is anything rotten here ... it's candidates who cannot accept they lost."

Lake's lawyer made all kinds of incredible claims, none of which were backed up by even one iota of proof. One thing Lake's side did have were sworn declarations from more than 200 voters who claimed they were harmed by Maricopa County's procedures on Election Day. However, the county said that all but three of them did in fact vote, and the three who didn't vote could have but decided not to. One of the three couldn't find a parking space. Another didn't want to vote in the 26 days of early voting and found the lines too long on Election Day.

We think that Lake may be auditioning for the role of Trump's running mate by showing that she is as crazy as a loon. Consequently, she probably doesn't care what the judge does since her real audience is not the judge, but one Donald J. Trump. That's just as well because the judge threw out most of her suit. It can go forward on two minor points, though. That doesn't mean she can win even on those, but at least she can try to find evidence to support her claims. If she can't, she will lose those two as well, this time on the merits of the case. (V)

A December to Rhymember, Part XI: Hey, Joe

Whaddya know? Joe Biden is back in the news, at least a little. We think that's enough to turn this space over to him today. Taking the lead is D.C. in Portland, OR:

Dark Brandon, let's go!
Calm leadership, wise guidance.
Sail smooth on rough seas.

Here's something aspirational from G.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ:

Though Biden be hidden,
While Trump gets his lumps,
Soon Biden will widen,
Jail terms for Trump.

And finally, a submission from Z.K. in New York City, NY that is something of a cross of e.e. cummings and Lawrence Ferlinghetti:

Sleepy joe sleepy joe
where are you
snoozing with the
laws you passed
more than your former foe
inflation reduction
chips and science act
ended a war
kept the us intact

not like the former guy
insurrections no more

saving us from covid
creating infrastructure
helping our truckers

repairing our roads
while the former guy rants
has prison bars tamped
his future orange pants
full of a load

even that transition
of trumps steamy emission

didn't stop ol sleepy joe
from passing some laws
of climate change fruition
or punishing sedition

so even tho hes eighty
more judges than his matey

not tired of winning yet
stop the art of the steal
he grabbed em by the balls
his hands are not so small.

Christmas is soon upon us; if you have anything that would be apropos to the holiday, here's the address for submissions. (Z)


Previous | Next


Back to the main page