On the 3rd vote for House speaker

I'm watching the 3rd vote. The roll call is in the H's at the moment. 

One thing that is striking about what Scalise said when nominating McCarthy is that Republicans would pay great heed to the federal debt, the border with Mexico and some other unspecified Democratic horrors. Scalise laid out no specific policies that Republicans want. That is standard Republican Party propaganda. What the GOP wants is Christofascist tyranny and a shift of power and wealth from government and the people to the GOP and wealthy and/or powerful elites.

That is what the FGOP (fascist GOP) stands for but refuses to say in public.

Q: Is that analysis wrong?

Part of a 1/6 Committee transcript: What John Eastman had to say

The following is part of a transcript of questions the 1/6 Committee asked to Trump's fascist attorney John Eastman. The interview was under oath, so Eastman could be theoretically be liable for perjury if he lied. Eastman was the one who cooked up most of the legal rationale that Trump relied on to try to overthrow the government on 1/6. During the interview, he invoked the 5th Amendment at least 208 times in refusing to answer questions. That included refusing to answer questions about things he had previously discussed in public. Eastman's contempt for the 1/6 Committee was obvious.

For context, invoking the 5th Amendment allows a person to refuse to incriminate themselves in crimes or law breaking generally. The legal system cannot attach any inference of guilt from a person's refusal to answer any questions. Before he got in hot water, this is how Trump viewed people when they invoked the 5th Amendment:

Mr. Trump previously contended that invoking one’s Fifth Amendment rights was virtually an admission of wrongdoing.

“So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” Mr. Trump said at a rally in Iowa in 2016, referring to investigations into Hillary Clinton’s handling of potentially classified material as secretary of state.

For obvious reasons, Trump is now an enthusiastic supporter of invoking the 5th Amendment.

From the transcript

Question: If nobody has any questions about the background of the witness, I'll just start getting into the more substantive questions. Dr. Eastman, in an interview with Larry Lessig and Matt Seligman on the "Another 25 Way" podcast, September 27th, 2021, you were asked about the memoranda that you wrote regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral college votes on January 6th, and you said, quote, "Although I did have a client in this, the client, the President, the former President of the United States, has authorized me to talk about these things. I want to make that clear upfront," close quote. Did President Trump authorize you to talk publicly about the memoranda that you wrote? 

Answer: On the advice of counsel, I hereby assert my Fifth Amendment right against being compelled to be a witness against myself. And with the committee's permission, I will invoke this right as necessary in response to further questions by simply stating "The Fifth."  

Q: So is it your position that you can discuss those memoranda in public settings, but will not discuss those memoranda with the committee pursuant to a 15 subpoena? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: So is it your position that you can discuss in the media direct conversations you had with the President of the United States, but you will not discuss those same conversations with this committee? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Dr. Eastman, you've not produced any documents in response to the subpoena, which is in exhibit 1. Why have you not produced any documents to the committee? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Just so I understand, is it your position that the act of producing documents, as opposed to the content of the documents themselves, could tend to incriminate you? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Dr. Eastman, did you use a Chapman University email account for any 21 communications related to the 2020 election? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Dr. Eastman, did you use any other email account for communication related to the 2020 election? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Did you send or receive any text messages related to the 2020 election using your personal cell phone? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Do you have any documents regarding the 2020 election on your personal computer. 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Do you have any documents regarding the 2020 election on any server? 

A: Fifth. 

Q: Dr. Eastman, were you in Philadelphia in connection with your participation in a panel on federalism and separation of powers at the Federalist Society National Lawyers Conference that took place in November 2020? 

A: Fifth. 

You get the idea. It went on like this for a long time. Like Trump would think, did Eastman invoke the 5th because he was guilty of breaking a law(s)? Probably, ~98% chance IMO. This is part of the reason it is so hard to convict white collar criminals of just about anything illegal. Our system is heavily rigged to protect the wealthy and powerful. This exemplifies an important advantage that smart white collar criminals enjoy.

News bits: Some thoughts about bothsidesism, etc.

From the Faux Investigations Files: An article in Salon warns the mainstream media not to take the bait when Republicans in the House enters its crazy-go-nuts investigations of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and every other thing they think they can turn into a scandal. Salon writes:

Dark Brandon strikes again! Republicans have been drooling openly for weeks now over the small House majority they will have in the new year, and not because they have plans for legislation that will improve the lives of Americans. Nah, the blueprint for 2023 is all revenge on Democrats, all the time. Republicans are still salty over House Democrats investigating Donald Trump for minor transgressions like attempting to overthrow democracy and sending a murderous mob after Congress and his own vice president. 

And, because Republicans have no limits to their pettiness, we can expect two years of taxpayer money being used to show off pictures of Hunter Biden's penis, excused with the vague pretext that it's necessary to investigate his "business dealings."

Republicans no doubt are aware that they look like a bunch of clowns when they do stuff like this, but they don't care for one reason: Traditionally, these antics work to bait the mainstream media into giving credulous coverage to fake scandals about Democrats. The gold standard, of course, is how the phony Whitewater investigation in the '90s took a winding road to the discovery that President Bill Clinton .... Even more preposterous pumped-up scandals have followed, from President Barack Obama's birth certificate to Benghazi, which became a national catchword, even though no one can really explain what was supposed to be so scandalous about it.

Republicans understand all too well the Achilles heel of the mainstream media: The cavernous longing for "balance." Journalists want desperately to be seen as objective and the cheapest way to achieve that is to present "both sides" as equally corrupt. The problem, of course, is that simply isn't true. Democrats, like all political parties, have their problems, and when they mess up or engage in corruption they should be held accountable. But their issues at the moment are a pittance compared to the endemic lying and corruption of the party of Donald Trump. One way for the press to achieve "balance" is to make mountains out of Democratic molehills — or worse, to cover flat-out fake or unimportant stories as if they were for-real scandals.  

It's probably pissing in the wind to write this, but I would implore the editors at the New York Times, CNN, and other such outlets to resist the bait. Just because Republicans cast aspersions doesn't mean they need lavish coverage for doing so. The role of the press is not to "balance" very real, bad stories about Trump and other Republicans with fictitious nonsense about Democrats. The first duty should be to the truth. And the truth is there's no equivalence between Biden and Trump, or, at this point, Republicans and Democrats, broadly speaking.

I think that Benghazi and Hillary's deleted emails should be looked into once again.

----------------------

----------------------

From the Treasonous Republicans Don't Care About Their Own Treason Files: Time writes:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy spent the first two days of the new year trying to shore up GOP support for his bid to be Speaker by releasing a series of proposals aimed at winning over hard-right detractors who stand to torpedo his ascension.

The part of his proposed changes to House rules that drew the most attention was allowing just five House members to call for a vote at any time on ousting the Speaker; that would render McCarthy beholden to the most extreme members of his caucus, should he get on their wrong side. But buried in the text was another provision that could be highly consequential for the new Congress being sworn in on Tuesday: language that would effectively gut the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), as the independent panel faces pressure to investigate lawmakers who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Most significantly, McCarthy’s proposal would require OCE to hire its staff for the 118th Congress within 30 days of the resolution’s adoption, a requirement that sources familiar with the process tell TIME would make it exceedingly difficult for the office to have the resources it needs to conduct its investigations, given how long it takes to hire candidates for roles in the federal government. The proposal would also block OCE from hiring new employees over the next two years if someone leaves their position, sources say.

“Republicans get to take control of the House, and on their first day in Congress, they are not trying to take a hammer to the OCE—they’re being a little smarter about it—but they’re taking a scalpel to it,” a Hill source familiar with the ethics process tells TIME.

So there goes any possibility of Republican traitors investigating Republican traitors in the House. Too bad the Democrats didn't do it while they had those precious two years in power. 

Fox = Republicans in congress

What a peach!

 Let's play "What's wrong with this picture?":