Responding to the arrest of former president Donald John Trump in Atlanta, former Alaska governor and twice-defeated candidate for Congress, Sarah Palin, broached the subject of war in a recent interview with a right-wing commentator.
Palin, in her comments following the arrest warned, “those who are conducting this travesty and creating this two-tier system of justice.”
‘I want to ask them: What the heck?”
The former candidate for Vice-President of the United States went further: “Do you want us to be in civil war? Because that’s what’s going to happen. We’re not going to keep putting up with this.”
“We do need to rise up and take our country back.”
For some reason it appears Palin believes the country once belonged to the mentally unstable.
NYT’s Michael Bender and J. David Goodman had quite the lede summing all this up: “In the last 28 months … Trump has been voted out of the White House, impeached for his role in the Capitol riot and criticized for marching many of his fellow Republicans off an electoral cliff in the 2022 midterms with his drumbeat of election-fraud lies. He dined at home with a white supremacist … called for the termination of the Constitution … embraced the QAnon conspiracy theory movement, described President VLADIMIR V. PUTIN of Russia as a genius and used a gay joke to mock a fellow Republican … has become the target of four criminal investigations. … Still, Mr. Trump remains a strong front-runner for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination.”
shockingly bad or excessive ”an outrageous act of bribery’‘
very bold, unusual, or startling “her outrageous leotards and sexy routines”
In recent years more and more acts seem outrageous, at least compared to behavior of say, 10 years ago. We seem to be less civil, less engaged, less friendly. Much of that behavior stems from the actions of politicos and their followers, but it also reaches deeper into our neighborhoods and casual interactions with others we encounter during the exercise of our daily lives.
I thought it would be interesting to catalog some of these interactions, and hopefully cause some to consider their own contribution to the weakening of the fabric that was once considered essential in American life.
My hope is to keep the list updated with the latest instances of outrageous behavior that come to my attention. Of course, if you have other examples, I’d love to share them with other visitors. Feel free to leave examples in the comment section.
Outrage #1: Republicans in Georgia nominate Herschel Walker for the United States Senate.
The members of the Republican Party of Georgia nominated former University of Georgia football star, Herschel Walker to represent them in the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” Walker, with no legislative or political experience, was endorsed by former president Donald John Trump, and apparently the people of Georgia are okay with whatever Trump wants.
During a recent campaign event in Georgia, speaking on the topic of climate change, Walker said:
Of course, as we’re reported before, this isn’t Walker’s first brain freeze. Actually, his brain seems to be frozen much more often than it is operates normally. Of course it’s entirely possible his version of normal is different from the rest of us.
It’s possible that Walker wins this election against the incumbent, Reverend Raphael Warnock. If he does, we should consider eliminating the Senate. It will have become a haven for idiots. (See: Marsha Blackburn). And maybe this is the method Republicans have agreed upon as the quickest way to destroy democracy in the United States — elect enough unqualified people to important positions in the government that it implodes.
“If you don’t believe in the country, leave and go somewhere else. If it’s the worst state, why are you here? Why don’t you leave? Go to another — there’s, what, 51 more other states that you can go to?
After the 3rd hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, the simple question that seems to come more clearly into focus is — did he or didn’t he fulfill the oath of his office as outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 1, 8 of the Constitution of the United States
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Predictably, Alito argues that abortion rights are unconstitutional because they aren’t specifically mentioned in the constitution. Lepore points out that the women were of little or no concern to the men who drafted the document, and in fact, for all intents and purposes of the drafters, weren’t considered “persons.”
Women are indeed missing from the Constitution, as Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion suggests. That’s a problem to remedy, not a precedent to honor.
Lepore continues by pointing out:
There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states.
There were no women judges.
There were no women legislators.
At the time of the Constitutional Convention, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote.
“I truly feel sorry for our friend. He’s never had a days peace. On the other side of this, he’s exposed a very dark side of the swamp that’s far worse than I ever imagined and I am not particularly optimistic for the future.”
Fox celebrity Sean Hannity to White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows – December 12, 2020
Testimony regarding non-privileged documents (including text and email communications) that Mr. Meadows has already provided to the Select Committee in response to the subpoena, and testimony about events that Mr. Meadows has already publicly described in his book and elsewhere;
Testimony and documents regarding post-election efforts by the Trump campaign, the Trump legal team, and Mr. Meadows to create false slates of Presidential electors, or to pressure or persuade state and local officials and legislators to take actions to change the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election;
Testimony and documents relating to communications with Members of Congress in preparation for and during the events of January 6th;
Testimony and documents relating to efforts by President Trump to instruct, direct, persuade or pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th;
Testimony and documents relating to activity in the White House immediately before and during the events of January 6th; and
Testimony and documents relating to meetings and communications with individuals not affiliated with the federal government regarding the efforts to change the results of the 2020 election.
On September 23, 2001, the Select Committee issued a subpoena to Mark Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff under former president Donald Trump. Meadows agreed to appear before the Committee to provide testimony on December 8, 2021. Meadows, on December 7, 2021 informed the Committee that he had changed his mind and would not appear the following day as originally agreed.
Instead, Meadows filed suit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and members of the Select Committee. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, asks the court to invalidate two subpoenas that the panel had issued to Meadows and Verizon, the carrier for his prior personal cell phone, calling them “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”
On December 14, 2021, the House voted 222-208 to hold the former White House Chief of Staff in criminal contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the Committee.
The most recent filing by the Select Committee asks that Meadows’ suits be dismissed
Committee Report rationale for contempt citation
In it’s report filed in the House (Report:117-216), the Committee explains it’s rationale for the charge:
“To be clear Mr. Meadow’s failure to comply, and this contempt recommendation, are not based on good-faith disagreements over privilege assertions. Rather, Mr. Meadows has failed to comply and warrants contempt findings because he has wholly refused to appear to provide any testimony and refused to answer questions regarding even clearly non-privileged information — information that he himself has identified as non-privileged through his own document production.
Mr. Meadow’s relevant documents and testimony are necessary to the Select Committee’s investigation for many additional reasons. Mr. Meadows also reportedly participated in meetings and communicated with senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials about unsupported election-fraud claims and litigation aimed at disrupting or overturning the election results. Mr. Meadows reportedly participated in a contentious meeting at the White House with private individuals and others linked to Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign during which Mr. Trump and others discussed seizing voting machines and invoking certain laws including the National Emergencies Act for election-related purposes because of purported fraud in the election. Mr. Meadows reportedly joined a January 2 call with Mr. Trump and State and Federal officials to discuss overturning certain States’ electoral college results on January 6, and later sent the former Vice President’s staff a memo drafted by a Trump campaign lawyer urging the Vice President to delay or decline the counting of votes from certain States. Mr. Meadows was also reportedly in contact with at least one of the individuals who planned and organized a January 6 rally, one of whom may have expressed safety concerns to Mr. Meadows about the event. In short, Mr. Meadows appears to have participated in, and been a witness to, critically important communications and events that took place before and on January 6, and the Congress is entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions and knowledge. The Select Committee expects such testimony to be directly relevant to its report and recommendations for legislative and other action.”