2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[N.E. Brigand]

The headline and first paragraph of a New York Times article on Oct. 4, 2020:

After Biden’s Exposure to Trump, His Team Is Cagey on Health Questions
"With transparency on health newly significant in the presidential race, Joe Biden’s safety protocols have remained largely under wraps. But on Sunday evening, his campaign said he had again tested negative for the coronavirus."

That's right. The story was that Biden wasn't being open enough about his health.

Whereas the real story seems to be closer to this headline and first paragraph in the admittedly partisan (but conservative) outlet The Bulwark:

Trump Tried to Kill Biden with Covid
"Of all the insane moments from 2020, this one still stands out: The former president of the United States knowingly and intentionally exposed his opponent to a deadly virus and covered it up to protect his re-election campaign."

As the author, Tim Miller, goes on to note, he had suggested at the time that this might be the case. I'm intrigued by Miller's notion that one reason Trump shouted so much in that debate is that he was trying to spread the virus. But that's not necessary to uphold Miller's thesis. Miller also has an interesting guess about why Meadows revealed this information: he might have thought it made Trump look tough.

Trump's response to Meadows's book yesterday is curious: "The story of me having COVID prior to, or during, the first debate is FAKE NEWS. In fact, a test revealed that I did not have COVID prior to the debate."

Since we know that Trump often lies, it may be a waste of time to parse his claims. Even so, I seem to recall Trump once saying that he used the term "fake news" to mean stories he didn't like (without regard to their veracity). Also, "prior to the debate" could mean hours, days, weeks, or months -- and I believe that Trump was tested repeatedly (if not as regularly as he should have been) during the pandemic, so the test he mentions here could have happened long before the debate and be irrelevant. But on top of that, Meadows' book explicitly says that Trump (1) tested positive, then (2) tested negative, and then (3) refused to be tested again prior to the debate. Trump's statement yesterday only affirms #2 and doesn't explicitly address #1 and #3.

Given all that we know, we can say with confidence that Trump and his staff knew at least that he might have Covid-19 and took no steps to prevent Joe Biden from getting sick.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this is a better -- and more accurate -- headline than either of them.

Ex-White House official says Trump showed 'flagrant lack of regard for public health' in keeping positive Covid test secret

[N.E. Brigand]

Yes, it all comes down to what was in the Trump's mind (and any aides who knew he had Covid).

[N.E. Brigand]

That's a very tough sell. The right against self-incrimination is a bedrock pillar of our justice system. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to assert it and who doesn't, based simply on your own political believes or even your own moral judgments. That is the path to anarchy and/or authoritarianism.

I'm not saying he doesn't have the to assert it. I'm not picking and choosing at all. It's Clark who should choose. He should choose to do the right thing.

And the right thing, if he is guity, would be for him to confess his crimes.

That said, here as in general, I advocate for leniency. I don't want Jeffrey Clark severely punished. I just want the truth.

Which will not be found in the transcript of Clark's deposition by the Select Committee on November 5, which was released today.

In that deposition, Clark's lawyer advised the Committee that, per a letter he delivered to them not long before (that most of the Committee hadn't yet seen), Clark wouldn't answer any questions, citing various grounds of executive or attorney-client privileges, even questions that would seem not to be covered by any privilege (When did he "first meet Congressman Scott Perry"? Did he "meet with any other members of Congress"? When did he become "engaged in the debates about the Georgia election procedure"? Where did he get the information underlying his "assertions about Dominion voting machines and smart thermostats"?). He wouldn't even say in the deposition who the attorney and client are that the attorney-client privilege he was invoking supposedly covers.

There is just a little bit of substance toward the end (p. 32), where Clark is asked about a specific email address. But after that, he's back to stonewalling.

Rep. Adam Schiff asks Clark: "[D]id you use personal electronic devices to conduct government business while you were at the Department of Justice? Yes or no?"

Clark's attorney replies: "That has been asked and answered". Schiff says no it hasn't.

So Clark's attorney says: "We would object based on privileges set forth in the letter".

It's on page 39 of the deposition that, after the members and staff of the Committee indicate they'd like to take an hour to read the letter from Clark's attorney -- the letter that Clark's attorney repeatedly cited without specifics and that the Committee had yet to read -- that Clark and his attorney say that they're not going to wait around for that (even though Clark was appearing in response to a subpoena), and they walk out.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's not a question of leniency or severity of punishment; it is a question of maintaining constitutional protections so that they are preserved for all. As Aryeh Neier, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said about his organizations representing the Nazis who marched in Skokie to protect their right to free expression, “The oppressed know that they are the first people who will suffer if freedom is denied and therefore they must protect the freedom of others.”

[N.E. Brigand]

Is it a crime to pay someone to run as a third-party candidate in order to split the vote of the opposition? Asking for a friend.

Under the circumstances described in that article? It certainly seems fraudulent, but I simply am not knowledgeable enough to say for sure.

An update on this story from the Orlando Sentinel, headlined: Florida Power & Light Execs Worked Closely With Consultants Behind 'Ghost' Candidate Scheme, Records Reveal.

"These records reveal that start-up expenses for Grow United, the dark-money nonprofit central to the spoiler candidate scandal, were billed to Florida Power & Light by operatives then working for Matrix LLC, an Alabama consulting firm."

[N.E. Brigand]

It's not a question of leniency or severity of punishment; it is a question of maintaining constitutional protections so that they are preserved for all. As Aryeh Neier, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said about his organizations representing the Nazis who marched in Skokie to protect their right to free expression, “The oppressed know that they are the first people who will suffer if freedom is denied and therefore they must protect the freedom of others.”

But I'm not asking for any loosening of Clark's constitutional protections. I don't want his freedom to take the Fifth denied or restricted in any way.

I'm asking for Clark, if he did wrong, to do the right thing now.

It's not about the law. It's about the person.

Shouldn't people take responsibility for what they've done?

[River]

They should. They don't.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here's another one for you to complain about.

Conservative lawyer Eastman says he will defy subpoena from January 6 committee

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here's another one for you to complain about.

Conservative lawyer Eastman says he will defy subpoena from January 6 committee

His attorney sent them a letter asserting various claims, including the Fifth.

"Dr. Eastman has a more than reasonable ... in court."

And then there is this:

In addition to not answering questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment, Eastman claimed on Bannon's podcast that the partisan makeup of the committee and the way it was organized makes it invalid, and therefore he does not have to cooperate.

I don't think the latter argument is going go over very well.

[N.E. Brigand]

Politico reports that Col. Earl Matthews, fromerly with the National Guard in the District of Columbia, has provided the House Select Committee investigating January 6 with a 36-page memo claiming that a Dept. of Defense inspector general report on the events of January 6 was whitewashed and that two generals (Charles Flynn and Walter Piatt) lied to Congress about what happened on that day.

[elengil]

two generals (Charles Flynn and Walter Piatt) lied to Congress ...

... any relation?

[N.E. Brigand]

two generals (Charles Flynn and Walter Piatt) lied to Congress ...

... any relation?

Charles Flynn is one brother of the former National Security Director and undisclosed Turkish lobbyist Michael Flynn.

There certainly have been questions raised before about Gen. Charles Flynn's role on January 6, but previously, to my knowledge, no suggestion of impropriety.

[elengil]

Except an accusation of lying to congress regarding exactly that??

[N.E. Brigand]

Right. Now there is a suggestion of impropriety surrounding Gen. Charles Flynn's actions on January 6. Previously there was mainly some astonishment that the brother of Trump's felonious former factotum was among the military decision makers that day.

[RoseMorninStar]

It would be extremely odd and infuriating, imo, if there were fewer repercussions for such things (a general lying to the Jan. 6th commission to help his brother) than a cable network host for helping his creepy ex-mayor brother. Don't get me wrong, I think CNN did the right thing, but why should the high bar stop there?

[N.E. Brigand]

There were ten different investigations into the 2012 Benghazi attack, six of which were conducted by Republican Congressional commitees. So any claims by Republicans now that the House Select Committee investigation into the much more serious 2021 Capitol attack goes too far in issuing subpoenas for telecommunications records of Trump associates (like John Eastman) whose actions appear to have played a role in precipitating the day's events should be ignored.

[elengil]

It would be extremely odd and infuriating, imo, if there were fewer repercussions for such things (a general lying to the Jan. 6th commission to help his brother) than a cable network host for helping his creepy ex-mayor brother. Don't get me wrong, I think CNN did the right thing, but why should the high bar stop there?

because of who was setting that bar...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think we have a new winner for least surprising headline.

Mark Meadows to halt cooperation with January 6 committee

[N.E. Brigand]

Yes, it all comes down to what was in the Trump's mind (and any aides who knew he had Covid).

And what his doctors knew. On Sunday, the Washington Post had an article that found Donald Trump was personally exposed to more than 500 people between the date we now know he tested positive and the date it was publicly announced that he had Covid-19 (by which time he was seriously ill). It now appears he was probably infected the entire time, that he, his top staff, and his doctor(s) had good reason to know that he was infected, and that none of the 500-plus people with whom he was in contact were warned.

If you're a doctor, and you have a patient who has a dangerous disease for which there is (at the time) no known cure, and you know your patient is regularly interacting with hundreds of people who have not been advised to take precautions in such encounters, do you have any responsibility for the possibility that your patient is infecting those hundreds of others?