2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[RoseMorninStar]

I've toured the Capitol. It was not like that. At all.

[Frelga]

I've toured the Capitol. It was not like that. At all.

Yes, we also missed the free lentern giveaway.

20210525_145109.jpg (90.15 KiB) Viewed 3740 times

[N.E. Brigand]

Meanwhile, Michael Flynn's other brother, Jack Flynn, sued CNN a while ago for $75 million on the grounds that the network falsely implied that he's a QAnon follower when, in a story about Michael Flynn, CNN aired a short showed video of Jack Flynn and others (all unnamed in the video) reciting the QAnon oath along with Michael Flynn. In a motion to dismiss filed today, CNN not only argues that's not defamatory, they pointed out that Jack Flynn has repeatedly praised QAnon on social media, and so they ask that the court to dismiss the suit and to make Jack Flynn pay CNN's legal costs.

Whether or not former General Michael Flynn's other brother Jack is seriously involved in QAnon may be up for debate, but according to this lengthy investigative report in The Intercept, their other other brother Joseph, along with Michael Flynn himself, has at least been very busy using QAnon as a way to raise money -- and Michael Flynn himself set the stage for that as far back as November 2016, when he claimed that Donald Trump had won the presidency thanks to an "army of digital soldiers." Michael Flynn would later trademark the word "digital soldiers," a term which became regularly used by QAnon types.

In their official response to CNN's request to dismiss the case, the Flynn family says that:

"It is common knowledge that Nazis, white supremacists and adherents of QAnon are violent extremists. That is the connection that CNN intended and did make in the minds of viewers. To imply that a person is a Nazi sympathizer or a 'QANON FOLLOWER' is the same thing."

Well there you have it. Michael Flynn's relatives apparently think Flynn, a avowed QAnon supporter, is the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I read the brief. Mr. Biss actually does quite a credible job, and I am now doubtful that the motion to dismiss will be granted, though I will be interested to see what CNN's attorney's say in response.

[N.E. Brigand]

I read the brief. Mr. Biss actually does quite a credible job, and I am now doubtful that the motion to dismiss will be granted, though I will be interested to see what CNN's attorneys say in response.

In two subsequent sentences on the very first page, the brief has the plural of Flynn as both Flynns ("video clearly featuring the Flynns") and Flynn's ("falsely accused the Flynn's"). On the second page there's a related typo: "CNN moved to dismiss the Flynn’s amended complaint" should be "CNN moved to dismiss the Flynns' amended complaint". That error is repeated twice on page 4 -- but at another point on page 4, the plural possessive is spelled correctly. If a lay reader like myself can spot those repeated typographical error in just 30 seconds of scanning the complaint (and further reading reveals similar mistakes throughout the document), I do wonder how the substance holds up.

However, I do trust your assessment of its merits, though I would call out one item. In support of the Flynns' claim that when they recorded themselves on video, in the company of their famous QAnon-supporting relative Michael Flynn, uttering the QAnon oath ("where we go one we go all," which the Flynns' complaint at one point bizarrely claims has no connection to QAnon), they claim they were only intoning a "simple, family, July 4 statement of support for each other" and they say that CNN was already told this: "Powell, a former federal prosecutor, made it crystal clear to CNN in a series of tweets that the oath taken by the Flynn family was not an oath or pledge to QAnon."

And who is "Powell"? Why that would be Sydney Powell, the sometime "Kraken" lawyer for Donald Trump, who has repeatedly promoted QAnon!

Based on the reporting I saw earlier today, I thought the Flynns were throwing Michael Flynn under the bus, and would claim that he misled them, but overall the response seems to want to have it both ways as to whether or not QAnon is a dangerous conspiracy.

Also, was it wise of the Flynns to allege this in their complaint (page 26): "As an agent of the Democratic Party, CNN chose to target the Flynn family"?

Anyway, I'm here for CNN getting discovery, so by all means let the case move forward. Ideally this leads to Sydney Powell taking the Fifth on the stand when asked about her support for QAnon and how far it extended to encouraging the January 6th insurrection, and to the Flynns testifying in court that their brother is the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer.

- - - - - - - - - -
And speaking of Nazis, there's a new book by Wall Street Journal reporter MIchael Bender (titled Frankly, We Did Win This Election) that includes a previously unreported conversation between President Donald Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ender-book

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You're talking like what matters is what really happened. What matters for the purposes of a motion to dismiss is what they say in the Complaint happened. That is why it is usually so hard to get such a motion granted.

[N.E. Brigand]

Speaking today at CPAC, an annual conservative event, Donald Trump said this about polling:

"If it's bad, I say it's fake. If it's good, I say: that's the most accurate poll perhaps ever."

[N.E. Brigand]

Comparing present figures to historical Nazis is generally frowned upon as unnecessary hyperbole that undermines discussion.

So let me emphasize that I'm not comparing Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler.

No it was General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who did that.

Milley was appointed to that position by Trump -- against the recommendation of Trump's Secretary of Defense, I might add -- and he continues in that role during the Biden administration. (The Chairs normally serve for four years and thus frequently serve under two Presidents.)

Following the election last year, as President Trump riled up his supporters and claimed that he hadn't actually lost, Milley told his staff that "this is a Reichstag moment . . . the gospel of the Führer," and that he worried that the result "could be the modern American equivalent of brownshirts in the streets."

That's according to a new book, I Alone Can Fix It, by Carol Leonnig and Phillip Rucker. (The authors also interviewed Trump himself for the book.)

The nation's top military official thought were on the verge of a coup. And he told his team that they needed to be ready to stop that from happening.

[N.E. Brigand]

Comparing present figures to historical Nazis is generally frowned upon as unnecessary hyperbole that undermines discussion.

So let me emphasize that I'm not comparing Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler.

No it was General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who did that.

Milley was appointed to that position by Trump -- against the recommendation of Trump's Secretary of Defense, I might add -- and he continues in that role during the Biden administration. (The Chairs normally serve for four years and thus frequently serve under two Presidents.)

Following the election last year, as President Trump riled up his supporters and claimed that he hadn't actually lost, Milley told his staff that "this is a Reichstag moment . . . the gospel of the Führer," and that he worried that the result "could be the modern American equivalent of brownshirts in the streets."

That's according to a new book, I Alone Can Fix It, by Carol Leonnig and Phillip Rucker. (The authors also interviewed Trump himself for the book.)

The nation's top military official thought were on the verge of a coup. And he told his team that they needed to be ready to stop that from happening.

I think that the news about Milley is probably more important than the Guardian's Russia story (unless the part about the kompromat proves to be true). And here's some more notable information about the last days of the Trump administration from Leonnig and Rucker's book, although I will note that it seems to be sourced to people close to Mike Pence and thus may have been provided to the authors with the aim of improving Pence's reputation among centrists:

During the insurrection, the reason he wasn't driven to a safe location, as Pence's security team urged, and instead remained (underground) in the Capitol, is that Pence and his aides feared that Trump would then order the Secret Service to take Pence out of Washington, which would prevent Pence from overseeing the certification Joe Biden's victory.

Holy ----. I hadn't thought of that before. Can you imagine what it would add to our national angst if the insurrection had been quelled (as it was) but Pence was no longer there to preside? I believe the process could continue with the Senate president pro tempore presiding, but he's a Democrat, and not having Pence there would add to many Republicans' (unjustified) sense that Biden's presidency was legitimate.

[N.E. Brigand]

I think that the news about Milley is probably more important than the Guardian's Russia story (unless the part about the kompromat proves to be true). And here's some more notable information about the last days of the Trump administration from Leonnig and Rucker's book, although I will note that it seems to be sourced to people close to Mike Pence and thus may have been provided to the authors with the aim of improving Pence's reputation among centrists:

During the insurrection, the reason he wasn't driven to a safe location, as Pence's security team urged, and instead remained (underground) in the Capitol, is that Pence and his aides feared that Trump would then order the Secret Service to take Pence out of Washington, which would prevent Pence from overseeing the certification Joe Biden's victory.

Holy ----. I hadn't thought of that before. Can you imagine what it would add to our national angst if the insurrection had been quelled (as it was) but Pence was no longer there to preside? I believe the process could continue with the Senate president pro tempore presiding, but he's a Democrat, and not having Pence there would add to many Republicans' (unjustified) sense that Biden's presidency was legitimate.

I just realized I was wrong about that last part: Democrats had just won control of the Senate with the victories in Georgia the night before, but it would be at least a week before Ossoff and Warnock were seated, so Republicans still had control of that chamber.

[N.E. Brigand]

Donald Trump, from a newly-published interview that was conducted earlier this year:

“I think it would be hard if George Washington came back from the dead and he chose Abraham Lincoln as his vice president, I think it would have been very hard for them to beat me.”

[N.E. Brigand]

From the same interview, by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig for their book I Alone Can Fix It (my emphasis added):

When we asked Trump why he encouraged people to believe things that weren’t true or to distrust science and the media, he delighted in talking about the scientific smarts in his family’s genes.

“First of all, I’m a big person,” he said. “Do you know this? My uncle, Dr. John Trump, I think he was at [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] longer than any other professor. Totally brilliant man. He had numerous degrees. So that’s in the genes. I always go with that stuff. But it’s a little bit in the genes and Dr. John Trump, he was a great guy. My father’s brother. No, I’m a big believer in science. If I wasn’t, you wouldn’t have a vaccine. It depends. Are you talking about disinformation, or are you talking about lies? There is a more beautiful word called disinformation.”

The interview was conducted on March 31. It was scheduled to last 60 minutes, but Trump kept talking and it ran for two-and-a-half hours.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/07 ... hite-house

Also, and this is less important, but this paragraph reminded me of something that always baffled me:

Trump walked into the room flanked by a couple of plainclothed Secret Service agents, a much smaller detail than he once had as president. He wore his customary dark suit and tie, his face covered with bronze makeup. He sat in his preferred position, a plush armchair of ivory brocade facing the entrance where guests arrive, with us on a sofa to his right. Behind him was a huge window looking out to the Atlantic Ocean; in front of him, the patio facing Lake Worth.

What was the deal with Trump's bronze makeup, and why didn't his supporters find that strange? The only comments I ever saw Trump's fans make about his appearance -- and I saw this often -- was in their attempts to deflect criticism of the former president with the response: "orange man bad." Usually as a complete non-sequitur. The implication being that critics didn't really care about what Trump did, they just didn't like the way he looked. Which is ridiculous.

But also: the orange look really was weird. If Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden looked that way, you can darn well bet that Republicans would mention it!

[Dave_LF]

Donald Trump, from a newly-published interview that was conducted earlier this year:

“I think it would be hard if George Washington came back from the dead and he chose Abraham Lincoln as his vice president, I think it would have been very hard for them to beat me.”

Well, to be fair, the guys would be hopelessly out of touch. Like, you couldn't even call Washington a dinosaur, because he wouldn't know what one was.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Jim Jordan among 5 House Republicans selected by McCarthy for January 6 select committee

Five white men. No surprise there.

[Frelga]

Is that like when OJ Simpson was going to find the real killers?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think Pelosi made a major error.

[N.E. Brigand]

I think leaving Jim Jordan on the committee would have been like letting O.J. Simpson sit on the jury in his murder trial.

[elengil]

I'm so confused, but mostly because I've been on a news haiatus lately.

I thought Republicans had already refused to take part in the Jan 6th investigation?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is all very confusing, I agree. What you are thinking of us the bipartisan commission that the Democrats tried to form. That got passed in the House, but was blocked in the Senate by Mitch McConnell et al. The Democrats in the House then went forward with a different plan to form a "select committee" in the House to investigate 1/6. The rather bizarre format that they approved allowed Pelosi to name 8 members and Kevin McCarthy to name 5 members, but gave Pelosi the right to veto McCarthy's choices. Pelosi name a diverse group of 7 Democrats plus Liz Cheney, the former No. 3 members of the GOP leadership who got stripped of that role after voting in favor of Trump's impeachment. McCarthy eventually named 5 while men, including Jim Jordon and Jim Banks, to the most prominent Trump supporters in the House. Pelosi refused to seat those two, and invited McCarthy to name two others. Instead, McCarthy withdrew all of his choices and claims that they will do their own investigation (which is just words, they have no real capacity to do any kind of investigation that has any meaning).

[N.E. Brigand]

On January 6, as the insurrection was underway, Rep. Liz Cheney said to Rep. Jim Jordan as she smacked his hand away:

"Get away from me. You f---ing did this.'"