The Long March to 11/24
- Thread starter Bagginski
- Start date
printer
Well-Known Member
Arizona county elections director quits, accusing officials of politicization
An Arizona county elections director resigned from her post on Tuesday after accusing officials of politicizing elections and creating a harmful work environment.
Pinal County Elections Director Geraldine Roll in Arizona quit her position Tuesday morning after sending her resignation email to County Manager Leo Lew, who she accused of standing by as she was “attacked.” In her email obtained by The Hill, she wrote that she has “never been subject to the ridicule, disrespect, intimidation and attacks on my reputation and ethics” that she has faced since starting her position.
“With no regrets, I quit,” Roll wrote in her resignation email to Lew. “When you no longer respect those you work for, it is time to leave. I have watched as you idly stood by when I was attacked. I cannot work for an individual who does not support me. The environment fostered by your team and the Board of Supervisors is toxic.”
In her email, Roll wrote that the elections department “should not be politicalized” and accused officials of being partial to a “faction of the Republican Party.”
“You relegate impartiality, common sense and dedicated work to irrational, extremist political party views and rhetoric,” she wrote. “It is a far reach to see how you will deliver clean elections when you bend to a faction of the Republican party. Clearly, politics are the value this administration desires in a place where politics have no place: elections administration.”
Azcentral.com first reported Roll’s resignation on Tuesday.
She also signed her email with, “Really, Not Respectfully,” ahead of her signature.
“I did not resign, I quit. I am sure there may be a distinction. I fail to see it,” Roll responded to The Hill when reached for comment.
Lew said in a statement to The Hill that he disagreed with Roll on her “assessment.”
“I want to thank Geri for her service during very challenging times and for the improvements that she identified and began to implement in the Elections Department,” Lew said in a statement. “Although I disagree with her assessment, she has been an impactful public servant, and I wish her the best and know that she will continue to do great things in her career.”
According to azentral.com, Roll was in her position for less than a year as the elections department faced a tumultuous few months.
thehill.com
An Arizona county elections director resigned from her post on Tuesday after accusing officials of politicizing elections and creating a harmful work environment.
Pinal County Elections Director Geraldine Roll in Arizona quit her position Tuesday morning after sending her resignation email to County Manager Leo Lew, who she accused of standing by as she was “attacked.” In her email obtained by The Hill, she wrote that she has “never been subject to the ridicule, disrespect, intimidation and attacks on my reputation and ethics” that she has faced since starting her position.
“With no regrets, I quit,” Roll wrote in her resignation email to Lew. “When you no longer respect those you work for, it is time to leave. I have watched as you idly stood by when I was attacked. I cannot work for an individual who does not support me. The environment fostered by your team and the Board of Supervisors is toxic.”
In her email, Roll wrote that the elections department “should not be politicalized” and accused officials of being partial to a “faction of the Republican Party.”
“You relegate impartiality, common sense and dedicated work to irrational, extremist political party views and rhetoric,” she wrote. “It is a far reach to see how you will deliver clean elections when you bend to a faction of the Republican party. Clearly, politics are the value this administration desires in a place where politics have no place: elections administration.”
Azcentral.com first reported Roll’s resignation on Tuesday.
She also signed her email with, “Really, Not Respectfully,” ahead of her signature.
“I did not resign, I quit. I am sure there may be a distinction. I fail to see it,” Roll responded to The Hill when reached for comment.
Lew said in a statement to The Hill that he disagreed with Roll on her “assessment.”
“I want to thank Geri for her service during very challenging times and for the improvements that she identified and began to implement in the Elections Department,” Lew said in a statement. “Although I disagree with her assessment, she has been an impactful public servant, and I wish her the best and know that she will continue to do great things in her career.”
According to azentral.com, Roll was in her position for less than a year as the elections department faced a tumultuous few months.
Arizona county elections director quits, accusing officials of politicization
An Arizona county elections director resigned from her post Tuesday after accusing officials of politicizing elections and creating a harmful work environment. Pinal County Elections Director Geral…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
As he fades into obscurity.
Eastman says Supreme Court decision makes argument ‘murkier’ in 2024
John Eastman, the lawyer who pushed a legal theory in his bid to overturn the 2020 election, said the Supreme Court’s decision in a major elections case will muddy the waters for any legal challenges that emerge from the 2024 election.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected a bid to give state legislatures broad authority to draw congressional maps and regulate federal elections, effectively declining to endorse the “independent state legislature” theory pushed by Eastman.
Advocates of the legal theory argue that the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution give state lawmakers the authority to regulate federal elections without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power, including constitutional conventions or independent commissions, according to the Brennan Center For Justice.
Eastman said the Supreme Court’s decision will allow courts to weigh in as part of “their normal exercise of judicial review.”
“Chief Justice Roberts says, ‘As long as it doesn’t transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review, such that the court irrigate to themselves the power vested in the state legislators.’
“So what does that mean?” Eastman continued. “Particularly if a state court is interpreting a fairly vague hortatory clause, like we shall have free and fair elections. Can the court just say ‘well that just means we are going to allow for absentee voting if a legislature hasn’t authorized it, because we don’t think it will be free and fair otherwise’?”
Eastman said Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent highlights the problems that this decision is now going to cause.
“This is a litigation bonanza without a clear answer,” Eastman said.
In terms of how the Court’s decision will impact the 2024 election, Eastman said there is going to be lots of litigation.
“We’ve now engaged in what I think is commonly called law fair for these elections,” he said. “There will be lots of lawsuits brought ahead of time to alter election laws, or weaken election laws that the state legislatures put in place to protect against risk of fraud.”
In addition, Eastman said there will be changes made “that appear to have partisan advantages,” saying that is a “huge danger.”
“It is particularly the case when people are lining themselves into different modes of voting,” Eastman said. “If everybody equally distributes themselves between in-person and absentee voting for example, changing the rules doesn’t have an effect on the outcome.
“But if two-thirds of Democrats are voting absentee and two-thirds of Republicans are voting in person, if you loosen the rules on one rather than the other you benefit one of the parties.”
Eastman embraced the theory as part of his argument that former Vice President Mike Pence could have used his power to refuse to certify the 2020 presidential election.
thehill.com
Eastman says Supreme Court decision makes argument ‘murkier’ in 2024
John Eastman, the lawyer who pushed a legal theory in his bid to overturn the 2020 election, said the Supreme Court’s decision in a major elections case will muddy the waters for any legal challenges that emerge from the 2024 election.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected a bid to give state legislatures broad authority to draw congressional maps and regulate federal elections, effectively declining to endorse the “independent state legislature” theory pushed by Eastman.
Advocates of the legal theory argue that the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution give state lawmakers the authority to regulate federal elections without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power, including constitutional conventions or independent commissions, according to the Brennan Center For Justice.
Eastman said the Supreme Court’s decision will allow courts to weigh in as part of “their normal exercise of judicial review.”
“Chief Justice Roberts says, ‘As long as it doesn’t transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review, such that the court irrigate to themselves the power vested in the state legislators.’
“So what does that mean?” Eastman continued. “Particularly if a state court is interpreting a fairly vague hortatory clause, like we shall have free and fair elections. Can the court just say ‘well that just means we are going to allow for absentee voting if a legislature hasn’t authorized it, because we don’t think it will be free and fair otherwise’?”
Eastman said Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent highlights the problems that this decision is now going to cause.
“This is a litigation bonanza without a clear answer,” Eastman said.
In terms of how the Court’s decision will impact the 2024 election, Eastman said there is going to be lots of litigation.
“We’ve now engaged in what I think is commonly called law fair for these elections,” he said. “There will be lots of lawsuits brought ahead of time to alter election laws, or weaken election laws that the state legislatures put in place to protect against risk of fraud.”
In addition, Eastman said there will be changes made “that appear to have partisan advantages,” saying that is a “huge danger.”
“It is particularly the case when people are lining themselves into different modes of voting,” Eastman said. “If everybody equally distributes themselves between in-person and absentee voting for example, changing the rules doesn’t have an effect on the outcome.
“But if two-thirds of Democrats are voting absentee and two-thirds of Republicans are voting in person, if you loosen the rules on one rather than the other you benefit one of the parties.”
Eastman embraced the theory as part of his argument that former Vice President Mike Pence could have used his power to refuse to certify the 2020 presidential election.
Eastman says Supreme Court decision makes argument ‘murkier’ in 2024
John Eastman, the lawyer who pushed a legal theory in his bid to overturn the 2020 election, said the Supreme Court’s decision in a major elections case will muddy the waters for any legal ch…
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
irrigate to themselves!?As he fades into obscurity.
Eastman says Supreme Court decision makes argument ‘murkier’ in 2024
John Eastman, the lawyer who pushed a legal theory in his bid to overturn the 2020 election, said the Supreme Court’s decision in a major elections case will muddy the waters for any legal challenges that emerge from the 2024 election.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected a bid to give state legislatures broad authority to draw congressional maps and regulate federal elections, effectively declining to endorse the “independent state legislature” theory pushed by Eastman.
Advocates of the legal theory argue that the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution give state lawmakers the authority to regulate federal elections without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power, including constitutional conventions or independent commissions, according to the Brennan Center For Justice.
Eastman said the Supreme Court’s decision will allow courts to weigh in as part of “their normal exercise of judicial review.”
“Chief Justice Roberts says, ‘As long as it doesn’t transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review, such that the court irrigate to themselves the power vested in the state legislators.’
“So what does that mean?” Eastman continued. “Particularly if a state court is interpreting a fairly vague hortatory clause, like we shall have free and fair elections. Can the court just say ‘well that just means we are going to allow for absentee voting if a legislature hasn’t authorized it, because we don’t think it will be free and fair otherwise’?”
Eastman said Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent highlights the problems that this decision is now going to cause.
“This is a litigation bonanza without a clear answer,” Eastman said.
In terms of how the Court’s decision will impact the 2024 election, Eastman said there is going to be lots of litigation.
“We’ve now engaged in what I think is commonly called law fair for these elections,” he said. “There will be lots of lawsuits brought ahead of time to alter election laws, or weaken election laws that the state legislatures put in place to protect against risk of fraud.”
In addition, Eastman said there will be changes made “that appear to have partisan advantages,” saying that is a “huge danger.”
“It is particularly the case when people are lining themselves into different modes of voting,” Eastman said. “If everybody equally distributes themselves between in-person and absentee voting for example, changing the rules doesn’t have an effect on the outcome.
“But if two-thirds of Democrats are voting absentee and two-thirds of Republicans are voting in person, if you loosen the rules on one rather than the other you benefit one of the parties.”
Eastman embraced the theory as part of his argument that former Vice President Mike Pence could have used his power to refuse to certify the 2020 presidential election.
Eastman says Supreme Court decision makes argument ‘murkier’ in 2024
John Eastman, the lawyer who pushed a legal theory in his bid to overturn the 2020 election, said the Supreme Court’s decision in a major elections case will muddy the waters for any legal ch…
they’re all wet.
printer
Well-Known Member
Federal court blocks Florida election law
A federal court blocked a Florida election law Monday that would’ve imposed more limitations on voter registration efforts in the state.
In a 58-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker agreed with the plaintiffs that the new state law is unconstitutional, saying that implementing restrictions on third-party voter registration organizations violates the Constitution.
SB 7050, signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in May, includes a ban on noncitizens participating in registering votes. Organizations could face a $50,000 fine for each noncitizen person who “collects” or “handles” voter registration forms on the organization’s behalf.
“Florida may, of course, regulate elections, including the voter registration process,” Walker said in his ruling. “Here, however, the challenged provisions exemplify something Florida has struggled with in recent years; namely, governing within the bounds set by the United States Constitution.”
Walker, who was appointed to his position by former President Obama, also said in his ruling that the decision is not final, also highlighting one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, an immigrant from El Salvador who has permanent residency in the U.S. and works as a Florida field director for Mi Vecino, a voter registration group.
“Tomorrow, Floridians across the state will commemorate our Nation’s birthday. They will endure the heat of the Florida summer to celebrate the Fourth of July with family and friends at barbecues and picnics,” Walker said in his ruling, who noted that the ruling comes a day before the July 4th holiday.
“They will gather with their communities at public parks for music and fireworks. They will cheer and sweat at parades and block parties. And amid these patriotic festivities, some may feel moved, for the first time, to embrace their solemn privilege as citizens by registering to vote.”
This comes as the lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Florida, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Dēmos, and other organizations and individual clients.
In a statement, legal director for the ACLU of Florida Daniel Talley said the ruling “fortifies the idea that all Floridians have a right to participate in building a stronger democracy through civic engagement.”
“While this is a step in the right direction, our work is not finished. People in our communities, including noncitizens, work tirelessly to assist in voter registration efforts to empower Floridians to vote on issues that impact their daily lives,” Talley said. “We applaud the court’s decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether.”
thehill.com
A federal court blocked a Florida election law Monday that would’ve imposed more limitations on voter registration efforts in the state.
In a 58-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker agreed with the plaintiffs that the new state law is unconstitutional, saying that implementing restrictions on third-party voter registration organizations violates the Constitution.
SB 7050, signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in May, includes a ban on noncitizens participating in registering votes. Organizations could face a $50,000 fine for each noncitizen person who “collects” or “handles” voter registration forms on the organization’s behalf.
“Florida may, of course, regulate elections, including the voter registration process,” Walker said in his ruling. “Here, however, the challenged provisions exemplify something Florida has struggled with in recent years; namely, governing within the bounds set by the United States Constitution.”
Walker, who was appointed to his position by former President Obama, also said in his ruling that the decision is not final, also highlighting one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, an immigrant from El Salvador who has permanent residency in the U.S. and works as a Florida field director for Mi Vecino, a voter registration group.
“Tomorrow, Floridians across the state will commemorate our Nation’s birthday. They will endure the heat of the Florida summer to celebrate the Fourth of July with family and friends at barbecues and picnics,” Walker said in his ruling, who noted that the ruling comes a day before the July 4th holiday.
“They will gather with their communities at public parks for music and fireworks. They will cheer and sweat at parades and block parties. And amid these patriotic festivities, some may feel moved, for the first time, to embrace their solemn privilege as citizens by registering to vote.”
This comes as the lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Florida, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Dēmos, and other organizations and individual clients.
In a statement, legal director for the ACLU of Florida Daniel Talley said the ruling “fortifies the idea that all Floridians have a right to participate in building a stronger democracy through civic engagement.”
“While this is a step in the right direction, our work is not finished. People in our communities, including noncitizens, work tirelessly to assist in voter registration efforts to empower Floridians to vote on issues that impact their daily lives,” Talley said. “We applaud the court’s decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether.”
Federal court blocks Florida election law
A federal court blocked a Florida election law Monday that would’ve imposed more limitations on voter registration efforts in the state. In a 58-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker agreed …
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump, DeSantis aides spar over former president’s spending on legal fees
Aides to GOP rivals Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) are trading barbs over news that the former president has spent more than $40 million so far in 2023 on legal fees as part of ongoing investigations into his conduct.
Multiple reports indicated the Trump-aligned PAC Save America was set to disclose the legal expenditures in a filing Monday. The expenses for legal costs for Trump and others in his orbit are the former president’s highest cost by far as he faces charges in Florida and New York and ongoing investigations in Washington, D.C., and Georgia.
Andrew Romeo, a DeSantis campaign spokesperson, seized on the figure and argued it was evidence of the Trump team’s misplaced priorities.
“Trump has spent over $60 million on 2 things: falsely attacking DeSantis and paying his own legal fees, not a cent on defeating Biden,” Romeo said. “DeSantis’s sole focus, by contrast, has been campaigning for this country’s future, defeating Biden, and reversing the decline of America.”
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, shot back that DeSantis’s campaign was taking an “un-American” position.
“Ron DeSantis and his campaign are disgustingly siding with Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and the January 6th Unselect Committee,” Cheung said in a statement. “They would rather defend Crooked Joe Biden and his weaponized Department of Justice than the innocent people who are being targeted by these political witch-hunts. Only desperate idiots and un-American morons would take the position the DeSantis team has taken.”
In a separate statement, Cheung defended the PAC’s spending on legal fees for the former president and his aides, saying it was necessary to “protect these innocent people from financial ruin and prevent their lives from being completely destroyed.”
Trump’s legal problems have loomed over the 2024 Republican primary, with most candidates including DeSantis largely avoiding direct attacks on the former president over his two indictments thus far this year and the two ongoing investigations into his attempts to subvert the 2020 election.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released Monday underscored underscored that Trump’s grip on the primary remains largely unshaken despite those legal troubles.
The poll found Trump leading DeSantis, 54 percent to 17 percent, among likely Republican primary voters, while no other candidate reached more than 3 percent support.
thehill.com
Aides to GOP rivals Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) are trading barbs over news that the former president has spent more than $40 million so far in 2023 on legal fees as part of ongoing investigations into his conduct.
Multiple reports indicated the Trump-aligned PAC Save America was set to disclose the legal expenditures in a filing Monday. The expenses for legal costs for Trump and others in his orbit are the former president’s highest cost by far as he faces charges in Florida and New York and ongoing investigations in Washington, D.C., and Georgia.
Andrew Romeo, a DeSantis campaign spokesperson, seized on the figure and argued it was evidence of the Trump team’s misplaced priorities.
“Trump has spent over $60 million on 2 things: falsely attacking DeSantis and paying his own legal fees, not a cent on defeating Biden,” Romeo said. “DeSantis’s sole focus, by contrast, has been campaigning for this country’s future, defeating Biden, and reversing the decline of America.”
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, shot back that DeSantis’s campaign was taking an “un-American” position.
“Ron DeSantis and his campaign are disgustingly siding with Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and the January 6th Unselect Committee,” Cheung said in a statement. “They would rather defend Crooked Joe Biden and his weaponized Department of Justice than the innocent people who are being targeted by these political witch-hunts. Only desperate idiots and un-American morons would take the position the DeSantis team has taken.”
In a separate statement, Cheung defended the PAC’s spending on legal fees for the former president and his aides, saying it was necessary to “protect these innocent people from financial ruin and prevent their lives from being completely destroyed.”
Trump’s legal problems have loomed over the 2024 Republican primary, with most candidates including DeSantis largely avoiding direct attacks on the former president over his two indictments thus far this year and the two ongoing investigations into his attempts to subvert the 2020 election.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released Monday underscored underscored that Trump’s grip on the primary remains largely unshaken despite those legal troubles.
The poll found Trump leading DeSantis, 54 percent to 17 percent, among likely Republican primary voters, while no other candidate reached more than 3 percent support.
Trump, DeSantis aides spar over former president’s spending on legal fees
Aides to GOP rivals Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) are trading barbs over news that the former president has spent more than $40 million so far in 2023 on legal fees as part of ongo…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Biden overturns Trump decision to move Space Command HQ from Colorado to Alabama
President Biden overturned a decision from the Trump administration to relocate the temporary headquarters of Space Command to Alabama, deciding instead to keep the base in Colorado.
The decision was made because Biden believes keeping the HQ in Colorado Springs, rather than relocating it to Huntsville, would maintain stability and not impact readiness, according to a senior U.S. official.
The senior administration official said Biden consulted with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other military leaders before deciding to keep the base in Colorado permanently.
Gen. James Dickinson, the head of Space Command, also helped to convince Biden to not relocate the base, according to the Associated Press.
U.S. Space Command headquarters is set to achieve “full operational capability” at Colorado Springs later this month, according to the senior administration official.
The official said moving the headquarters to Alabama would force a transition process that does not allow the new base to open until the mid-2030’s.
“The President found that risk unacceptable, especially given the challenges we may face in the space domain during this critical time period,” the official said. “Locating Headquarters U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs ensures peak readiness in the space domain for our nation during a critical period.”
Biden’s reversal is likely to spark the fury of Alabama Republicans who have for months feared the administration would scrap the relocation plan.
Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers (R), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been investigating the delay behind the relocation plan, which was first put in motion when Space Command was resurrected in 2019.
Former President Trump’s decision to temporarily establish a headquarters in Colorado and relocate Space Command to Alabama was criticized as a political choice based upon a more favorable constituency in the Yellowhammer state.
Since coming into office, the Biden administration ordered reviews of the decision, none of which found anything improper in Trump’s decision, though they found the former president could have followed better practices in the process.
The delayed relocation reached new heights over the spring when NBC News reported the Biden administration was considering scrapping the relocation plan because of restrictive abortion laws in Alabama.
Rogers and other Alabama Republicans objected to any such plan, saying Huntsville, also known as Rocket City, was selected based on its merits and in a fair process, while pointing to the reviews that found nothing improper.
The House version of the annual defense bill that passed earlier this month includes provisions that slash funding for the Air Force Secretary until the administration makes a final decision. It’s unclear whether Rogers will be satisfied with a reversal.
Other Alabama politicians, including Gov. Kay Ivey (R), are likely to also object to the decision.
thehill.com
President Biden overturned a decision from the Trump administration to relocate the temporary headquarters of Space Command to Alabama, deciding instead to keep the base in Colorado.
The decision was made because Biden believes keeping the HQ in Colorado Springs, rather than relocating it to Huntsville, would maintain stability and not impact readiness, according to a senior U.S. official.
The senior administration official said Biden consulted with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other military leaders before deciding to keep the base in Colorado permanently.
Gen. James Dickinson, the head of Space Command, also helped to convince Biden to not relocate the base, according to the Associated Press.
U.S. Space Command headquarters is set to achieve “full operational capability” at Colorado Springs later this month, according to the senior administration official.
The official said moving the headquarters to Alabama would force a transition process that does not allow the new base to open until the mid-2030’s.
“The President found that risk unacceptable, especially given the challenges we may face in the space domain during this critical time period,” the official said. “Locating Headquarters U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs ensures peak readiness in the space domain for our nation during a critical period.”
Biden’s reversal is likely to spark the fury of Alabama Republicans who have for months feared the administration would scrap the relocation plan.
Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers (R), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been investigating the delay behind the relocation plan, which was first put in motion when Space Command was resurrected in 2019.
Former President Trump’s decision to temporarily establish a headquarters in Colorado and relocate Space Command to Alabama was criticized as a political choice based upon a more favorable constituency in the Yellowhammer state.
Since coming into office, the Biden administration ordered reviews of the decision, none of which found anything improper in Trump’s decision, though they found the former president could have followed better practices in the process.
The delayed relocation reached new heights over the spring when NBC News reported the Biden administration was considering scrapping the relocation plan because of restrictive abortion laws in Alabama.
Rogers and other Alabama Republicans objected to any such plan, saying Huntsville, also known as Rocket City, was selected based on its merits and in a fair process, while pointing to the reviews that found nothing improper.
The House version of the annual defense bill that passed earlier this month includes provisions that slash funding for the Air Force Secretary until the administration makes a final decision. It’s unclear whether Rogers will be satisfied with a reversal.
Other Alabama politicians, including Gov. Kay Ivey (R), are likely to also object to the decision.
Biden overturns Trump decision to move Space Command HQ from Colorado to Alabama
President Biden overturned a decision from the Trump administration to relocate the temporary headquarters of Space Command to Alabama, deciding instead to keep the base in Colorado. The decision w…
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
“later this month” on the afternoon of the 31st!?Biden overturns Trump decision to move Space Command HQ from Colorado to Alabama
President Biden overturned a decision from the Trump administration to relocate the temporary headquarters of Space Command to Alabama, deciding instead to keep the base in Colorado.
The decision was made because Biden believes keeping the HQ in Colorado Springs, rather than relocating it to Huntsville, would maintain stability and not impact readiness, according to a senior U.S. official.
The senior administration official said Biden consulted with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other military leaders before deciding to keep the base in Colorado permanently.
Gen. James Dickinson, the head of Space Command, also helped to convince Biden to not relocate the base, according to the Associated Press.
U.S. Space Command headquarters is set to achieve “full operational capability” at Colorado Springs later this month, according to the senior administration official.
The official said moving the headquarters to Alabama would force a transition process that does not allow the new base to open until the mid-2030’s.
“The President found that risk unacceptable, especially given the challenges we may face in the space domain during this critical time period,” the official said. “Locating Headquarters U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs ensures peak readiness in the space domain for our nation during a critical period.”
Biden’s reversal is likely to spark the fury of Alabama Republicans who have for months feared the administration would scrap the relocation plan.
Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers (R), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been investigating the delay behind the relocation plan, which was first put in motion when Space Command was resurrected in 2019.
Former President Trump’s decision to temporarily establish a headquarters in Colorado and relocate Space Command to Alabama was criticized as a political choice based upon a more favorable constituency in the Yellowhammer state.
Since coming into office, the Biden administration ordered reviews of the decision, none of which found anything improper in Trump’s decision, though they found the former president could have followed better practices in the process.
The delayed relocation reached new heights over the spring when NBC News reported the Biden administration was considering scrapping the relocation plan because of restrictive abortion laws in Alabama.
Rogers and other Alabama Republicans objected to any such plan, saying Huntsville, also known as Rocket City, was selected based on its merits and in a fair process, while pointing to the reviews that found nothing improper.
The House version of the annual defense bill that passed earlier this month includes provisions that slash funding for the Air Force Secretary until the administration makes a final decision. It’s unclear whether Rogers will be satisfied with a reversal.
Other Alabama politicians, including Gov. Kay Ivey (R), are likely to also object to the decision.
Biden overturns Trump decision to move Space Command HQ from Colorado to Alabama
President Biden overturned a decision from the Trump administration to relocate the temporary headquarters of Space Command to Alabama, deciding instead to keep the base in Colorado. The decision w…
They got 99 minutes til Miller time.
printer
Well-Known Member
Could you imagine?
Bannon says Trump-RFK Jr. ticket would win in ‘massive landslide’
Steve Bannon suggested on Sunday that a presidential ticket with former President Trump (R) as president and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (D) as vice president could result in “a massive landslide.”
On an episode of “Bannon’s War Room,” the longtime Trump ally predicted the former president, if he gets through the mounting legal issues he faces, could win in the general election with RFK Jr. as his running mate.
“We stay maniacally focused in the general – particularly as, remember, the firestorm of the lawfare will start next spring with him,” Bannon said on the podcast, referring to Trump. “If you can walk through that, which you can do – you can walk through that fire … and I think get 55 percent or more of the country.”
Bannon continued: “If somehow it worked out [that] you could get Kennedy as a running mate — and I don’t know, that is far from even technically can happen because of the structure of the Democratic and Republican parties and ballot access and all that — you could get 60 percent or higher in the country and win a massive landslide.”
Kennedy is running as a Democratic presidential candidate, but has gained favor mostly with conservatives. In a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, Kennedy’s favorability among Republicans continued to be high, with likely GOP voters favoring him by more than a 2-to-1 margin.
Kennedy’s favorability among Democrats, however, was the opposite, and continues to drop, according to the poll. Likely Democratic voters had an unfavorable opinion of him, by a more than 2-to-1 margin. His net favorability among Democrats is negative 26 points, which is down from a net negative 15 points one month prior.
Kennedy, who has at times come under fire for promoting conspiracy theories championed by the far-right, has been floated as a possible vice presidential pick for Trump in the past.
Roger Stone, another Trump ally, called a potential Trump-RFK ticket a “dream ticket” back in April.
thehill.com
Sadly no one could look at the US again with a straight face.
Bannon says Trump-RFK Jr. ticket would win in ‘massive landslide’
Steve Bannon suggested on Sunday that a presidential ticket with former President Trump (R) as president and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (D) as vice president could result in “a massive landslide.”
On an episode of “Bannon’s War Room,” the longtime Trump ally predicted the former president, if he gets through the mounting legal issues he faces, could win in the general election with RFK Jr. as his running mate.
“We stay maniacally focused in the general – particularly as, remember, the firestorm of the lawfare will start next spring with him,” Bannon said on the podcast, referring to Trump. “If you can walk through that, which you can do – you can walk through that fire … and I think get 55 percent or more of the country.”
Bannon continued: “If somehow it worked out [that] you could get Kennedy as a running mate — and I don’t know, that is far from even technically can happen because of the structure of the Democratic and Republican parties and ballot access and all that — you could get 60 percent or higher in the country and win a massive landslide.”
Kennedy is running as a Democratic presidential candidate, but has gained favor mostly with conservatives. In a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, Kennedy’s favorability among Republicans continued to be high, with likely GOP voters favoring him by more than a 2-to-1 margin.
Kennedy’s favorability among Democrats, however, was the opposite, and continues to drop, according to the poll. Likely Democratic voters had an unfavorable opinion of him, by a more than 2-to-1 margin. His net favorability among Democrats is negative 26 points, which is down from a net negative 15 points one month prior.
Kennedy, who has at times come under fire for promoting conspiracy theories championed by the far-right, has been floated as a possible vice presidential pick for Trump in the past.
Roger Stone, another Trump ally, called a potential Trump-RFK ticket a “dream ticket” back in April.
Bannon says Trump-RFK Jr. ticket would win in ‘massive landslide’
Steve Bannon suggested Sunday that a presidential ticket with former President Trump (R) as president and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (D) as vice president could result in “a massive landslide.” On…
thehill.com
Sadly no one could look at the US again with a straight face.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The really frightening thing is that the wingnut might be a less awful VP choice than his predecessor. Pence stayed out of the news by and large, so one has to look him up to see how dangerous he is. Behind the mediagenic face lies a stone-cold dominionist.Could you imagine?
Bannon says Trump-RFK Jr. ticket would win in ‘massive landslide’
Steve Bannon suggested on Sunday that a presidential ticket with former President Trump (R) as president and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (D) as vice president could result in “a massive landslide.”
On an episode of “Bannon’s War Room,” the longtime Trump ally predicted the former president, if he gets through the mounting legal issues he faces, could win in the general election with RFK Jr. as his running mate.
“We stay maniacally focused in the general – particularly as, remember, the firestorm of the lawfare will start next spring with him,” Bannon said on the podcast, referring to Trump. “If you can walk through that, which you can do – you can walk through that fire … and I think get 55 percent or more of the country.”
Bannon continued: “If somehow it worked out [that] you could get Kennedy as a running mate — and I don’t know, that is far from even technically can happen because of the structure of the Democratic and Republican parties and ballot access and all that — you could get 60 percent or higher in the country and win a massive landslide.”
Kennedy is running as a Democratic presidential candidate, but has gained favor mostly with conservatives. In a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, Kennedy’s favorability among Republicans continued to be high, with likely GOP voters favoring him by more than a 2-to-1 margin.
Kennedy’s favorability among Democrats, however, was the opposite, and continues to drop, according to the poll. Likely Democratic voters had an unfavorable opinion of him, by a more than 2-to-1 margin. His net favorability among Democrats is negative 26 points, which is down from a net negative 15 points one month prior.
Kennedy, who has at times come under fire for promoting conspiracy theories championed by the far-right, has been floated as a possible vice presidential pick for Trump in the past.
Roger Stone, another Trump ally, called a potential Trump-RFK ticket a “dream ticket” back in April.
Bannon says Trump-RFK Jr. ticket would win in ‘massive landslide’
Steve Bannon suggested Sunday that a presidential ticket with former President Trump (R) as president and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (D) as vice president could result in “a massive landslide.” On…
Sadly no one could look at the US again with a straight face.
printer
Well-Known Member
But he has been consistent in his beliefs and actions. I would not want to see him in power but I have a smidgen of respect for him.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
What keeps me from even a smidgeon of respect is how Pence silently allowed it all to happen.
At day’s end he is as unprincipled an opportunist as the rest, and with serious problem values once stripped of the cover of loyalty.
If Pence possessed even rudimentary principles, he would have spoken up at some point while his boss was busy breaking things. He didn’t.
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
But there had to be some grownups in the room. I have read a number of time he had worked behind the scenes, with democrats also, in order to get the government's business done. If he was a thorn in Trump's side he would have been gone in a minute. Heck, trump wanted to more than once.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Perhaps being made gone would have been the best thing for any claim that he had any principles.
The “grownups in the room” idea runs hard aground on the fact that Pence never once moderated that man’s nuke-a-storm impulses.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how many stupid and damaged people there are in America and that a psychopathic slimeball like Trump is tied in the polls with Biden one of America's most successful presidents and a decent human being. After covid, all the crime, incompetence and national humiliation they still will vote for him, even after sucking Putin's ass and betraying the country. America needs to do something about its media environment, if nearly half the population are unmoored from reality and are fed bullshit for profit.
Don't count on Trump losing the republican nomination just because he's been indicted multiple times and could be found guilty of what is essentially treason against the constitution and defrauding voters of their rights before the election. He will run from a prison cell, it's the only chance he has and there are no other real contenders in the republican field. If anything gives hope to Trump it is these poll numbers, he just has to make it until the election by playing the legal system. If he loses, he will say it was stolen and try to start civil war on the way to prison, or from inside one, if they will let him.
Don't count on Trump losing the republican nomination just because he's been indicted multiple times and could be found guilty of what is essentially treason against the constitution and defrauding voters of their rights before the election. He will run from a prison cell, it's the only chance he has and there are no other real contenders in the republican field. If anything gives hope to Trump it is these poll numbers, he just has to make it until the election by playing the legal system. If he loses, he will say it was stolen and try to start civil war on the way to prison, or from inside one, if they will let him.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Only a POS would speak down about the greatest country on earth
Just saying
USA USA USA !
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
Yes Hitler was a cunt. Funny clip though with a great ending.
USA greatest country on Earth? I'm not so convinced on that one, maybe for a white person in the 1950's and 60's (if they didn't get drafted of course). 37.9 million Americans are currently living in poverty, accounting for 11.6% of the total population. That’s despite the fact that America ranks first as the richest nation in the world in terms of GDP.
Mass shootings including school shootings are common, so common they are normal events. Highest % of incarcerated in the world. Civil war very possible. The White house over run and ransacked protesting election results that could of seen a dictator put in power. Elections that a huge % of the population don't see as fair.
Its fantastic propaganda though. But i spose as long as you believe you have chosen the best part of the best country for you to live in then that's all that counts. And it really is as its a personnel choice that well off people like us from rich countries have choice on where to call home. From what I've read on here Portugal is a nice choice that gets mentioned as a wanted country to live in.
Is it an election topic?
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
North Carolina bill could change voting rules if state GOP majority overrides veto
North Carolina may make it more difficult to vote by mail, as the Republican-controlled state legislature is expected to override a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper (D) on a sweeping absentee ballot bill.
Senate Bill 747 would reduce the period of time an absentee ballot can be received in order to count, as well as increases signature scrutiny and other measures which advocates say would result in less rightful votes being counted.
“This legislation has nothing to do with election security and everything to do with Republicans keeping and gaining power,” Cooper said in his veto message last month. “It requires valid votes to be tossed out unnecessarily, schemes to restrict early voting and absentee ballots, encourages voter intimidation and attempts to give Republican legislators the authority to decide contested election results.”
Specifically, the bill requires that mail-in ballots be received by the county board of elections by the time polls close on election day. In current North Carolina law and throughout most of the country, mail-in ballots must only be postmarked by election day, and have a few days to get to the vote counters through the mail.
Cooper said that change would invalidate many votes, even if the delay is caused by the U.S. Postal Service and not the voter. The changes target college students and people of color, who vote by mail at higher rates and are more likely to be Democrats, Cooper said.
Republicans have hailed it as a critical election security measure.
“The one thing this bill does do is it does improve voting in elections for the entire state,” state Rep. Grey Mills (R) said. “It’s not killing early voting — we’re improving early voting.”
The bill initially came under criticism because of the influence from the Election Integrity Network, a conservative activist group led by Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who assisted former President Trump’s election challenge lawsuit in Georgia.
The group advocated for provisions in the bill which encourage partisan election observers to show up at polling places. Observers would be allowed to listen in to conversations between voters and election workers and take notes.
Groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause and the NAACP said allowing observers that much access “crosses the line into an opportunity for voter intimidation and suppression, reminiscent of Reconstruction-era tactics by the Ku Klux Klan.”
Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the state legislature and are expected to overturn Cooper’s veto of the bill.
thehill.com
North Carolina may make it more difficult to vote by mail, as the Republican-controlled state legislature is expected to override a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper (D) on a sweeping absentee ballot bill.
Senate Bill 747 would reduce the period of time an absentee ballot can be received in order to count, as well as increases signature scrutiny and other measures which advocates say would result in less rightful votes being counted.
“This legislation has nothing to do with election security and everything to do with Republicans keeping and gaining power,” Cooper said in his veto message last month. “It requires valid votes to be tossed out unnecessarily, schemes to restrict early voting and absentee ballots, encourages voter intimidation and attempts to give Republican legislators the authority to decide contested election results.”
Specifically, the bill requires that mail-in ballots be received by the county board of elections by the time polls close on election day. In current North Carolina law and throughout most of the country, mail-in ballots must only be postmarked by election day, and have a few days to get to the vote counters through the mail.
Cooper said that change would invalidate many votes, even if the delay is caused by the U.S. Postal Service and not the voter. The changes target college students and people of color, who vote by mail at higher rates and are more likely to be Democrats, Cooper said.
Republicans have hailed it as a critical election security measure.
“The one thing this bill does do is it does improve voting in elections for the entire state,” state Rep. Grey Mills (R) said. “It’s not killing early voting — we’re improving early voting.”
The bill initially came under criticism because of the influence from the Election Integrity Network, a conservative activist group led by Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who assisted former President Trump’s election challenge lawsuit in Georgia.
The group advocated for provisions in the bill which encourage partisan election observers to show up at polling places. Observers would be allowed to listen in to conversations between voters and election workers and take notes.
Groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause and the NAACP said allowing observers that much access “crosses the line into an opportunity for voter intimidation and suppression, reminiscent of Reconstruction-era tactics by the Ku Klux Klan.”
Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the state legislature and are expected to overturn Cooper’s veto of the bill.
North Carolina bill could change voting rules if state GOP majority overrides veto
North Carolina may make it more difficult to vote by mail, as the Republican-controlled state legislature is expected to override a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper (D) on a sweeping absentee ballot bill.…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Judge rejects DeSantis’ congressional map, empowering Black voters in North Florida
A state judge struck down North Florida’s congressional districts Saturday, rebuffing Gov. Ron DeSantis’ open defiance of anti-gerrymandering protections, finding the governor’s map illegally reduced Black voters’ electoral power.
DeSantis had wagered the state’s Fair Districts Amendment against the U.S. Constitution, arguing mandatory protections for Black voters violated the Equal Protection Clause. Second Judicial Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh flatly rejected that gamble, rendering a decision that could reverberate from the halls of Tallahassee to the streets of Jacksonville, paving the way for a new, Democratic district where Jacksonville’s Black voters have more influence.
Marsh refused to bite on DeSantis’ claim that the state’s Fair Districts Amendment violated the U.S. Constitution, saying DeSantis’ secretary of state and the Legislature didn’t even have standing to make such an argument.
Marsh’s ruling was limited to North Florida after plaintiffs abandoned claims that other districts also violated the state Constitution.
This is the congressional districts map submitted by Gov. Ron DeSantis and approved by the Legislature that may now be revised to recreate a North Florida district that favors the election of a Black candidate.
The ruling could restore a district similar to the one the Florida Supreme Court ordered last decade that stretched from Jacksonville to Tallahassee and Gadsden County: that district previously elected U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee.
A joint agreement between the state and plaintiffs should ensure a quicker-than-normal appeals process and potentially allow a new map before 2024’s elections.
FAST-TRACKING THE APPEALS
The state must file a notice of appeal by Monday. Both parties intend to request that the Florida Supreme Court hear the case directly, skipping the usual step of going through a lower appellate court. They will also propose a schedule to allow the state’s highest court to decide by Dec. 31.
Typically, an appeal pauses trial court rulings. However, thanks to a joint agreement made last month, the state has committed to requesting the court lift that automatic hold.
That would allow the court to proceed with a remedial process for a new map while the state appeals the court’s decision.
The Legislature will get a first chance at drawing a new map, which the plaintiffs could challenge. If the Legislature doesn’t draw a new map, both sides agreed to accept a district that spans from Duval to Gadsden, similar to the Legislature’s initial proposal.
In this version of a congressional redistricting map released Nov. 29, 2021, by the Florida House of Representatives, the North Florida district represented by Al Lawson (it’s numbered 3 at the top right) was configured similarly to how it had been.
LEGAL STAKES
Last year, DeSantis rejected the Legislature’s proposed congressional plans and drew his own. His version removed a district that would have given Black voters in Jacksonville a better chance to elect their preferred candidates, replacing it with whiter, more Republican districts.
DeSantis conceded that his map did not meet the state’s “non-diminishment” standard, which mandates that new districts must not undermine the voting power of racial minorities.
The protection mirrors language in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the state argued Marsh should strike down that protection as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
At a hearing last month, Marsh questioned why Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody wasn’t defending the state’s Constitution in the case.
He also expressed sharp skepticism that he could make such an expansive ruling. Marsh said that if he ruled for the state, “this court will be the first in the country to say that even the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.”
If the Florida Supreme Court sides with DeSantis, it could have national implications.
It means the court, a majority of whom DeSantis appointed, would go further than the U.S. Supreme Court has in advancing a legal argument, pushed by many conservatives, that it’s inherently wrong to take race into account, even if it’s done to preserve the political voice of Black voters.
DeSantis’ veto of the initial map and the GOP-controlled Legislature’s decision to adopt his new one sparked an historic protest in the Florida House where Reps. Angie Nixon (D-Jacksonville) and Travaris McCurdy (D-Orlando) led a sit-in to disrupt the proceedings.
After that protest, DeSantis vetoed all of Nixon’s appropriations in the current budget, and legislative leadership put her office in the basement of the Florida Capitol.
ca.yahoo.com
A state judge struck down North Florida’s congressional districts Saturday, rebuffing Gov. Ron DeSantis’ open defiance of anti-gerrymandering protections, finding the governor’s map illegally reduced Black voters’ electoral power.
DeSantis had wagered the state’s Fair Districts Amendment against the U.S. Constitution, arguing mandatory protections for Black voters violated the Equal Protection Clause. Second Judicial Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh flatly rejected that gamble, rendering a decision that could reverberate from the halls of Tallahassee to the streets of Jacksonville, paving the way for a new, Democratic district where Jacksonville’s Black voters have more influence.
Marsh refused to bite on DeSantis’ claim that the state’s Fair Districts Amendment violated the U.S. Constitution, saying DeSantis’ secretary of state and the Legislature didn’t even have standing to make such an argument.
Marsh’s ruling was limited to North Florida after plaintiffs abandoned claims that other districts also violated the state Constitution.
This is the congressional districts map submitted by Gov. Ron DeSantis and approved by the Legislature that may now be revised to recreate a North Florida district that favors the election of a Black candidate.
The ruling could restore a district similar to the one the Florida Supreme Court ordered last decade that stretched from Jacksonville to Tallahassee and Gadsden County: that district previously elected U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee.
A joint agreement between the state and plaintiffs should ensure a quicker-than-normal appeals process and potentially allow a new map before 2024’s elections.
FAST-TRACKING THE APPEALS
The state must file a notice of appeal by Monday. Both parties intend to request that the Florida Supreme Court hear the case directly, skipping the usual step of going through a lower appellate court. They will also propose a schedule to allow the state’s highest court to decide by Dec. 31.
Typically, an appeal pauses trial court rulings. However, thanks to a joint agreement made last month, the state has committed to requesting the court lift that automatic hold.
That would allow the court to proceed with a remedial process for a new map while the state appeals the court’s decision.
The Legislature will get a first chance at drawing a new map, which the plaintiffs could challenge. If the Legislature doesn’t draw a new map, both sides agreed to accept a district that spans from Duval to Gadsden, similar to the Legislature’s initial proposal.
In this version of a congressional redistricting map released Nov. 29, 2021, by the Florida House of Representatives, the North Florida district represented by Al Lawson (it’s numbered 3 at the top right) was configured similarly to how it had been.
LEGAL STAKES
Last year, DeSantis rejected the Legislature’s proposed congressional plans and drew his own. His version removed a district that would have given Black voters in Jacksonville a better chance to elect their preferred candidates, replacing it with whiter, more Republican districts.
DeSantis conceded that his map did not meet the state’s “non-diminishment” standard, which mandates that new districts must not undermine the voting power of racial minorities.
The protection mirrors language in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the state argued Marsh should strike down that protection as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
At a hearing last month, Marsh questioned why Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody wasn’t defending the state’s Constitution in the case.
He also expressed sharp skepticism that he could make such an expansive ruling. Marsh said that if he ruled for the state, “this court will be the first in the country to say that even the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.”
If the Florida Supreme Court sides with DeSantis, it could have national implications.
It means the court, a majority of whom DeSantis appointed, would go further than the U.S. Supreme Court has in advancing a legal argument, pushed by many conservatives, that it’s inherently wrong to take race into account, even if it’s done to preserve the political voice of Black voters.
DeSantis’ veto of the initial map and the GOP-controlled Legislature’s decision to adopt his new one sparked an historic protest in the Florida House where Reps. Angie Nixon (D-Jacksonville) and Travaris McCurdy (D-Orlando) led a sit-in to disrupt the proceedings.
After that protest, DeSantis vetoed all of Nixon’s appropriations in the current budget, and legislative leadership put her office in the basement of the Florida Capitol.
Judge rejects DeSantis’ congressional map, empowering Black voters in North Florida
State Judge Judge J. Lee Marsh’s ruling was limited to North Florida after plaintiffs abandoned claims that other districts also violated the state Constitution.