In the latest move during the current purge of people in Trump’s administration, he has fired the person who said that the recent election was the most secure in US history. (I wrote about the official expecting to be fired two days days ago.)
Trump fired Christopher Krebs, who served as the director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa), in a tweet on Tuesday, saying Krebs “has been terminated” and that his recent statement defending the security of the election was “highly inaccurate”.
The firing of Krebs, a Trump appointee, comes as Trump is refusing to recognize the victory of the president-elect, Joe Biden, and removing high-level officials seen as insufficiently loyal. He fired Mark Esper, the defense secretary, on 9 November part of a broader shake-up that put Trump loyalists in senior Pentagon positions.
Krebs had indicated he expected to be fired. Last week, his agency released a statement refuting claims of widespread voter fraud. “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,” the statement read. “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”
Krebs, a former Microsoft executive, ran the agency, known as Cisa, from its creation in the wake of Russian interference with the 2016 election through the November election. He won bipartisan praise as Cisa coordinated federal state and local efforts to defend electoral systems from foreign or domestic interference.
Of course Trump would fire someone who seems like he may have actually been competent at his job. What our very stable genius president wants is people like Rudy Giuliani who continues to make a fool of himself, this time in arguing Trump’s case before a federal court in Pennsylvania. Giuliani had inserted himself as a lawyer in this case at the last minute after the original lawyers withdrew even though he has not tried a case in federal court since 1992. And it shows.
Update from U.S. district court in Williamsport, Pa., one of the Trump campaign's last stands:
GIULIANI: “I’m not sure what 'opacity' means. It probably means you can see.”
JUDGE BRANN: “It means you can’t.”
— Dan Zak (@MrDanZak) November 17, 2020
Here are some other Giuliani gems from the hearing.
Judge asks Rudy if the complaint pleads fraud. He says it does. Then suggests it doesn't. Then says it should be 'interpreted' as charging fraud. Then he says it doesn't plead fraud with particularity. Then he says it doesn't plead fraud. Then he says it pleads a 'plan or scheme'
— Tony Webster (@webster) November 17, 2020
“Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny” is not a phase your attorney should say (a) ever, and (b) especially before a federal judge
— Tony Webster (@webster) November 17, 2020
Even I have an idea of what ‘strict scrutiny’ means and I am not a lawyer.
Apparently Giuliani had asked that he be paid $20,000 per day by the Trump campaign for his legal services. Imagine how much more he could have charged if he knew words like ‘opacity’ or what ‘strict scrutiny’ meant.
One of the Trump campaign’s election lawsuits had already been dismissed by the Pennsylvania supreme court. They are sure putting in a lot of effort into Pennsylvania even though Trump trails by over 70,000 votes in that state.
While we are on silly topics, people have noticed that since the election Trump’s hair color has gone from that preposterous blond to gray.
Uhm.
Anybody wanna talk about how Trump's hair is suddenly white as a sheet of paper??? 👀 pic.twitter.com/TAg7cITjTB— blep (@nikobloop) November 13, 2020
What might that mean? Is it a secret signal to QAnon followers that the game is afoot? As Q says, “Do your research!”
The Orange Toddler-Tyrant is bald. The animal on top of his head is getting really old, so its fur is graying.
Of all the fucking things, Roodles doesn’t know the meaning of “Strict Scrutiny”?
1. It’s a term peculiar to US law -- if ever used outside the USA it would not have at all the same meaning.
2. I went to law school in a whole ‘nother country.
3. I could recite the requirements of strict scrutiny from memory & then fucking give you an entire sermon on how it is applied to different circumstances and in different ways to its competitors, which are rational basis, so-called “rational basis with teeth”, and intermediate scrutiny.
If Giuliani can’t articulate the meaning of strict scrutiny then he doesn’t belong in a US courtroom.
He’s planning to sneak out of the WH disguised as Pence so he can make his getaway out of the country.
I suspect someone told Trump that Biden won because Biden has more gravitas, and Trump heard grey-hair.
Once they get him safely out in his pasture, I wonder how long it’ll be before the alzheimers’ diagnosis.
I suspect Trump’s hair situation is indicative of his coming apart at the seams; he’s so frantic and dejected, he isn’t even bothering, or isn’t able to sit still long enough to go through the dyeing process.
Uh no, the reason Krebs got fired is that he contradicted Trump. I mean how can you claim that the elections were stolen when a guy who you hired is loudly proclaiming they aren’t.
And not knowing what strict scrutiny means in lawspeak? I’m not a lawyer, I’m not playing one on TV, I’m not living in the US I’m not a US citizen and even I have an inkling of what it means in US law.
Or trying to play word games with a judge that has clearly had enough of the republican/Trump clown car in his courtroom?
Not only did the case get dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 5-2… but the two dissenters didn’t even think Trump’s claims had any merit. The dissent was that this case should never have come to them to be decided at all. The dissent was that this sort of decision was what the Commonwealth Court was for, and it had already been decided there; also that rendering any decision at all was unnecessary because there were already signals of legislative changes on the way. On top of that, throwing out otherwise valid votes because of minor procedural irregularities was rather a violation of the entire concept of a fair election.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-116-2020do%20-%20104608159120049063.pdf?cb=1
If Giuliani can’t articulate the meaning of strict scrutiny then he doesn’t belong in a US courtroom.
Hey, wait a minute! He is perfectly and totally qualified to serve as a defendant.
I recline corrected.
Considering recent events, I may need to retract my # 9.
Don’t judges regularly abort hearings when defendants’ mental capacities fall below some minimum threshold?