More Snappy Answers To Stupid Questions

"Trump-endorsed candidates might start to wonder how strong an ally the former president really is, beyond lending his name in a primary." Karl Rove wonders where Trump's fundraising haul is going https://t.co/5jniaNO9wk

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 28, 2022

Actually the same answer will do: “Three guesses, first two don’t count.”

There have been other campaigns that have plotted out their governments within more or less two years of a campaign ahead of them. Those campaigns usually didn’t end in victory. https://t.co/0uRadSfVgc

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 27, 2022

Pretty much the unstated issue with that Axios story: early front-runners fail, for a variety of reasons. Thinking it’s yours to lose is the most common reason. So, the question: “What’s wrong with this picture?” And the answer:  (see above).

On the one hand, the Post's story about Trump’s potential criminal exposure is a blockbuster

On the other hand, to quote Hamlet, “There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave to tell us this.”

I explained for @Slate w/ @DennisAftergut https://t.co/qRPA790SVI

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) July 27, 2022

The modern version is appositive: “If it’s not a smoking gun, is it evidence?” Our court system requires less reasonable doubt than our national narratives do. For example:

Tom Klingenstein, Chair of Claremont Institute, on he wants Trump in 2024: “In war, you must make a stand. For that, we need strong men .. Trump is a manly man. When manhood is being stripped of its masculinity, traditional manhood, even when flawed, is absolutely essential.” pic.twitter.com/SjkO0cfIR0

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) July 28, 2022

What evidence must be provided to prove this?

For people who don’t understand what real strength is, who see posturing and window-dressing as strength, Trump is the alpha. He’s all flash and pomp and arrogance without anything underneath. Just as he’s the poor man’s caricature of a rich man, he’s the wimp’s model of courage.

— Dan Roche (@eqvolvorama) July 28, 2022

Why can’t we just agree Trump is less manly than a purse poodle? 🐩 

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted," the lawyer wrote. @maggieNYT @lukebroadwater it in writing.https://t.co/yxroQdNFLO

— Catie Edmondson (@CatieEdmondson) July 26, 2022

I had just assumed this was the plan, from a cursory reading of the 12th amendment (which was clearly all Trump’s advisors had made).  Nobody ever said they were smart, so it’s hardly surprising they were dumb enough to put it in writing. After all, they assumed they would prevail and when they did, who was going to read these e-mails? Once the election is settled it’s settled, right?

Yes, I know what I’m saying.

And of course that part of the plan would be preceded by throwing it to the courts for Son of Bush v Gore:

2/2 "...to issue whatever is required to name the electors. The key nationally would be for all six states to do it so the election remains in doubt until January.” https://t.co/P36lgMtFuA

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 26, 2022

Which, again, comes under the heading of: never put your conspiracy in writing. It’s also really the only surprise. Clearly these guys thought they were invisible and bulletproof because they were going to win, one way or the other, and then there would be no conspiracy. At least not one that would be investigated.

It doesn't hurt to have some evidence in the court of public opinion, but: come on!  At this point the whole magilla should be visible to a blind man.