So, yeah. I had to get a new Twitter account (@LadySnarkOfTNB if you’d like to follow me and haven’t already), all so I could have access to the Twit thing to have fodder to snark about. Was that enough of a run-on sentence for you, or do I need to add a couple more phrases? There was some snafu when I tried to reset the password of my old account, and I just didn’t want the hassle. So here we are…
Anyhoo, let’s get started, because I’m extra snarky today!
Elon Musk terminated his deal to buy Twitter. The response from the twitterati went something like this:
Also this one:
And finally on Elon, apparently Twitter is going to try to enforce the deal agreement, or he’ll have to cough up some big bucks.
Y’all know my deep and abiding fondness of Tucker Carlson (yeah… I had a hard time typing that sentence with a straight face). Well, it’s apparently shared by Sundae_Girl:
Sadly, something tells me that God being omnipotent probably knows that’s a fib, S_G. But nice try!
Rep. Anthony Sabatini doesn’t have a firm grasp on who are “the worst people in the country”…
I’d wager Sabatini and his GQP pals in Congress are worse than most anyone at NPR. And I don’t even know anyone at NPR…
Trump & Co. are going to go through some things…
He also testified for over 8 hours and never took the 5th once, so, yeah…
Laura Ingraham was bitching about Liz Cheney on her show the other night and said this:
Here’s the complete transcript, in case you don’t want to listen to her, along with my comments interspersed.
LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): She’s (Liz Cheney) also repeatedly lied about the events of January 6th.
Videotape of Liz Cheney speaking in Simi Valley, CA Wednesday
LIZ CHENEY (ON TAPE): He summoned a mob to Washington. He knew they were armed on January 6th. He knew they were angry. And he directed the violent mob to march on the Capitol.
TAPE ENDS
Me: Just curious which of Cheney’s statements there was a lie. Because it’s already been established by the Committee in their hearings that those things did, in fact, happen.
LAURA INGRAHAM: I mean, the notion that hundreds of people wandering through the Capitol represented an attempt to subvert the US government?
Me: They weren’t simply “wandering through the Capitol,” Laura. They had a plan, which was to hold the building for as long as it would take to create chaos. According to the Oath Keepers’ own defense, now, they believed they were going to become Trump’s personal army when he invoked martial law. Trump’s plan was to go with his supporters to the Capitol and at least pretend to lead them into battle. But, sure, let’s pretend that didn’t happen.
LAURA INGRAHAM: And that was the plan all — it’s just ludicrous. We know that virtually everyone in the American populist movement opposed the events of January 6th. They announced their opposition at the time, and they’ve repeatedly stated that any lawbreakers from that day should be punished.
Me: Oh, really? That’s why congressmen like Mo Brooks were there at the Ellipse telling the crowd to “fight like hell.” That’s why Senator Josh Hawley gave them a raised fist salute as he walked past the crowd.
They may pay lip service to being against the violence, but their other actions and words make a lie of that sham. Marjorie Taylor Greene has said they’re “political prisoners” being held in inhumane conditions. Others claim they’re being held without charge.
LAURA INGRAHAM: But as for President Trump–
Me: He’s no longer president, you stupid cow.
LAURA INGRAHAM: –he certainly never indicated that he intended to overthrow the Constitution.
Me: Maybe he didn’t say it publicly in so many words, but he did everything he could behind the scenes to do just that.
LAURA INGRAHAM: Instead, he did dispute the vote count.
Me: While never offering any credible evidence of his wild claims. And we know he did, in fact, attempt to pressure various public officials, like GA Sec of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes.” That’s more than merely “disputing” the vote count. That’s attempting to CHANGE the vote count in his favor.
LAURA INGRAHAM: Just as democrats did in 2000, 2004, and 2016.
Me: Okay, when did Al Gore call up the Sec of State of Florida and beg him to “find” more votes for him in 2000? When did John Kerry do that? When did Hillary Clinton do that?
The difference here is that the democrats followed the rules and once they had exhausted every legal avenue, they accepted defeat. And they certainly didn’t continue to bellyache about a stolen election 1.5 years later. That didn’t happen with Trump, and Ingraham knows it. But she tells her audience the lies they want to hear that it’s all the same, when she knows it isn’t.
I’m just going to leave this right here…
Tell us, again, Laura, how they were just wandering around the Capitol building with no real plan.
Now let’s move on to some lighter fare. Here’s Trump at his latest “love-me fest” blabbering while the loudspeaker blares out “God Bless the USA,” drowning out his words:
This clip is 39 seconds, and he literally talks for 35 seconds with the loudspeaker playing that dumb country song he comes out to. If the guy wasn’t senile and apparently hard of hearing, he’d have sense enough to stop talking and wait for the sound guy to cut off the recording. But not the Donald, no!
In more delusional ravings from the not-quite-campaign-trail, here’s Trump telling us what a great unifier he was:
I can’t even…
Oh, and apparently he’s the victim of racism.
Here’s the transcript, with my comments interspersed:
TRUMP: …and really mean it. In many cases, however, racist prosecutors–
Me: I didn’t realize being a tangerine-American entitled you to protection from racism. My bad.
TRUMP: –should also be vigorously investigated for their brazen violation of federal civil rights laws.
Me: I’m pretty sure tangerine-Americans are not included in the federal civil rights statutes, but I’m also not an internet attorney, so what do I know?
TRUMP: It’s happening to me with a racist Attorney General in New York who campaigned solely on the fact that she would get Donald Trump, “I’m gonna get him!” She knew nothing about me.
Me: Apparently she was literally the only person who knew absolutely nothing about Donald Trump.
TRUMP: Who is this woman?
Me: Donnie, it sounds like you’re a little confused as to who didn’t know about the other…
TRUMP: She crazy? Little bit? No, a lot!
It’s been going on for years; violent crime got worse and worse–
Me: Um… somebody’s confused here. Weren’t we just talking about the racist prosecutor?
TRUMP: –and worse. They devote their time and energy, “We’re gonna get Donald Trump!” They’ve been tryin’ a long time, haven’t they?
Likewise, Biden has established committees to go after republicans, and it seems as though the Justice Department and even local and state prosecutors have become weaponized. They’re after polticians, not the people that are murdering people on the streets.
Me: First of all, there’s nothing which precludes prosecution of murderers and rapists while also prosecuting Trump and his family. And there’s no evidence that the state of New York is letting “real” criminals go unpunished in order to focus their laser-sharp attention on Trump alone. This isn’t a zero-sum game, after all.
Also, these prosecutions wouldn’t seem “political” if there were more than two republicans in Congress who are willing to stand up and be honest about what Trump has done and continues to do. If RW media would be honest with their audience and hold Trump accountable. But we all know that’s not happening anytime soon…
TRUMP: Just like a third world dictatorship, democrats only see the law as a weapon to persecute their political opponents, while they let rapists and murderers go free.
Me: This from the leader of the party which is promising to prosecute the January 6th Committee members for… *checks notes* doing their job of investigating what happened that day, who was involved in planning it and putting that plan into action. You can’t get more banana republic going after your political enemies than that.
TRUMP: Instead of going after republicans and conservatives and others–
Me: Not sure who he means under “others”…
TRUMP: –they should be focused on taking down the gangs, the killers, the murderers.
Me: Yeah, after all tax fraud, obstructing justice, witness tampering, inciting an insurrection, seditious conspiracy, and intimidation of state election officials are nothing anyone should go to jail for. It’s not like they’re real and serious crimes. Duh!
Fox host complaining about how Biden’s inability to read from a teleprompter proves he’s mentally incompetent, yet can’t read from a teleprompter himself. And he doesn’t have the handy excuse of being old and a stutterer…
And finally, some world-class cray-cray from Trump’s current attorney, Christina Bobb:
I’m including a transcription, again, with my comments interspersed.
CHRISTINA BOBB: …the evidence that Joe Biden’s side cheated.
Me: Even if you accept that there was massive fraud, what evidence is there that Joe Biden had anything to do with that or had any knowledge of this conspiracy? Oh, right, there is none. I guess Ms. Bobb wants to be slapped with a defamation suit…
CHRISTINA BOBB: So they can withdraw their electors or they can actually decide to award Trump electors; although I would anticipate they would just withdraw the electors.
Me: Yeah, this sounds completely plausible and not at all cray-cray.
CHRISTINA BOBB, TRUMP NUT LAWYER: And if that happens from three different states, three different resolutions go into Congress, I’m sorry, I’m summarizing this–
HOST: Right.
CHRISTINA BOBB: –it’s complicated issue. Uh, it would have to go into the US Congress to decide if they want to accept the resolution; whether they want to act on them or not.
Me: Again, this seems totally normal and not at all cray-cray.
CHRISTINA BOBB: It’s a complex, uh, issue that needs to be handled complexly by different state legislatures and the US Congress.
Me: It’s so crazy and convoluted, we’re going to dazzle them with bullshit!
CHRISTINA BOBB: And I actually think that, it’s a, it’s designed well, because you don’t want this to be something that you can quickly, easily overturn elections.
HOST: Correct.
Me: (Consulting my crazy legal bullshit-to-English dictionary) We don’t want anyone else to ever be able to try this, that’s why we’ve made it complicated.
But notice what she hasn’t said: “evidence.” She’s never once mentioned showing anyone any evidence which would convince them they need to decertify the results they already certified.
CHRISTINA BOBB: It needs to be something that you need many, many elected officials to take action on, and you have to have the majority of, if, (stammers a lot), in this siutation, the majority of three different legislatures, say, “Oh, you know what? We got it wrong,” then Congress, so…
Me: Legislatures don’t decide elections, nor should they. The voters of a state should decide elections. But, see, doing this through the legislatures which — surprise! are controlled by a bunch of insane GQPers — don’t require any actual evidence. They can just say, “Yeah, we totally made a mistake and let’s fix it! The people will be cool with that, right?”
This is all bullshit that should’ve been dropped once the insurrection failed. The fact that they’re still — a-year-and-a-half later — talking about trying to get some kind of electoral do-over from state legislatures is insanity.
Not surprising, just insane.
CHRISTINA BOBB: It’s a complex issue, so, I, uh, I don’t know that this Congress–
Me: Gee… I wonder why the current Congress wouldn’t go along with this crazy scheme. Whatever could the reason be…?
CHRISTINA BOBB: –would take action on it. However, after ’22–
HOST: Well…
CHRISTINA BOBB: –if we replace them–
Me: Oh, wait. I’m confused now. Is she suggesting voters replace elected politicians, or is this some kind of additional attempt to disenfranchise the electorate and do whatever the hell the GQP wants?
CHRISTINA BOBB: –there might be. Who knows?
HOST: Like you said, it’s never been done before–
CHRISTINA BOBB: Right.
HOST: –but that’s why this primary coming up in November is so — the midterms, rather — is so important.
CHRISTINA BOBB: Yep.
HOST: It’s important that we get it right and that we try to, uh, to call out…
Me: I wish we had the ending of his sentence. But as it is, these people seem to think that somehow we got it “wrong” in 2020. Regardless of how many recounts — both machine and by hand — and audits were performed, all showing the same outcome. And yet, somehow it was all “wrong.”
Well, I’m snark-spent, so I’m signing out. This is an open thread, so talk about whatever you like.
And remember, tomorrow’s noir film is “High Tide,” which you’ll want to let it sweep you away either tonight at midnight eastern or ten tomorrow morning.
Stay snarky, my Blender peeps!