Fri: The QOP Follows Up an Unpopular Fight With A Worse One

The Constitution Doesn't Say Congress Should Decide

During oral arguments this week, lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued that a Michigan challenge to his constitutional eligibility to appear on the ballot is invalid because judges don't have authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, The Messenger reported on Thursday.

"One of Trump's lawyers, Michael Columbo, said that the power to enforce the section of the amendment 'resides in Congress alone,' adding the section only applies to elected officials-to-be and not to candidates running for office," reported Aneeta Mathur-Ashton. "He added that the 'judicial review, if any, should occur only after the Electoral (College) and congressional processes have run their course,' arguing that those challenging Trump’s eligibility want to turn an after-the-fact 'Section 3 disqualification into a ballot access qualification'" — in other words, any case on this should be heard in 2025 after he hopes to have won the election.

The opposing counsel, Mark Brewer, argued this standard would be absurd, saying, “We’ve heard this morning about chaos… talk about chaos. That would require the country then to what, rerun the entire presidential election.”

Voters and legal activists around the country have sued in multiple states, arguing that the 14th Amendment's Insurrection Clause prohibits Trump from running for office, as he is accused of helping to incite the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In Case You Are Wondering, ...

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Apparenly Close Doesn't Only Count in Hand Gernades and Horseshoes

Since Democrats outperformed expectations on another Election Day, the traditional media has been looking for ways to manage its grief and lock down the narrative that Democrats are in big trouble. New York Times reporter Peter Baker dug into the Virginia election results and really went for it on Thursday:

New York Times reporter Peter Baker tweet: "A reminder of how closely divided some of this week's elections really were: a change of just 830 votes in a single Va. House district and 1,923 in a single Va. Senate district would have kept Democrats from taking full control of the legislature and changed the narrative."



Has this professional political reporter never encountered a close election before? Or familiarized himself with the concept that winning a close election is still winning? Nah, Baker just can’t handle the fact that voters created a narrative he didn’t control, a narrative very different from the one he and the Times have been pushing.

Consider this, too: It’s true that Democrats had a couple of narrow wins in Virginia on Tuesday. But so did Republicans. As Baker points out, one Democratic victory in the state House was by just 830 votes. That was in the 21st District, where Democrat Josh Thomas beat Republican John Stirrup by 51.48% to 48.33%—not razor-thin when you consider percentages. Meanwhile, unremarked on by Baker, in the 82nd District, Republican Kim Taylor defeated Democrat Kimberly Pope Adams by 228 votes, 50.32% to 49.51%. In the 57th District, Republican David Owen beat Democrat Susanna Gibson by 966 votes, but with a tighter percentage spread than Thomas’ win: 51.16% to 48.4%. (And that was the race where Republicans had to send thousands of revenge porn-themed mailers to pull out a win.)

Similarly, in the Virginia Senate, where Baker noted that 1,923 votes in a single district would have reversed a Democratic win, there were districts where Republicans won by 1,684 votes and 1,528 votes.

I Wonder What His Opinion Is of This

Easy Money

A freshwater spring bubbles amid the mangroves, cabbage palms and red cedars on Sweetheart Island, a two-acre uninhabited patch of paradise about a mile off the coast of this little Gulf Coast town.

Pelicans divebomb nearby into the cool waters of Florida's Withlacoochee Bay and the open view westward holds the promise of dazzling sunsets.

It may have seemed like an ideal getaway for Florida businessman Patrick Parker Walsh. Instead, he's serving five and half years in federal prison for stealing nearly $8 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds that he used, in part, to buy Sweetheart Island.

While Walsh's private island ranks among the more unusual purchases by pandemic fraudsters, his crime was not unique. He is one of thousands of thieves who perpetrated the greatest grift in U.S. history. They potentially plundered more than $280 billion in federal COVID-19 aid; another $123 billion was wasted or misspent.

The loss represents close to 10% of the $4.3 trillion the U.S. government has disbursed to mitigate the economic devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Luxury watches, diamond jewelry and Lamborghinis
An AP review of hundreds of pandemic fraud cases presents a picture of thieves and scam artists who spent lavishly on houses, luxury watches and diamond jewelry, Lamborghinis and other expensive cars. The stolen aid also paid for long nights at strip clubs, gambling sprees in Las Vegas and bucket-list vacations.

Their crimes were relatively simple: The government's goal was to get cash into the hands of struggling people and businesses with minimal hassle, particularly during the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis. Safeguards to weed out the swindlers were dropped. As Walsh's case and thousands of others have shown, stealing the money was as easy as lying on an application.

The Madness Continues

The FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service are investigating a series of letters containing suspicious powder that were sent to election workers in multiple states in recent days, law enforcement officials told NBC News.

In at least one case, the powder tested positive in a field test for fentanyl, officials said Thursday. There have been no reports of anyone suffering ill health effects, the officials said. The substances found in the letters are still being lab-tested.

In a statement Thursday evening, the FBI said that it had responded to "multiple incidents involving suspicious letters sent to ballot counting centers in several states." The bureau did not provide further details, citing "ongoing matters."

Officials in California, Georgia, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state have all reported suspicious letters addressed to election officers or workers.

The FBI field office in Portland said it had “responded to multiple incidents involving suspicious letters sent to several ballot counting centers in Oregon." The FBI's Seattle and Atlanta field offices issued similar statements.

The QOP Decides to Follow Up an Unpopular Fight With An Even More Unpopular One

Several Republican lawmakers plan to fight the recently approved abortion rights amendment by trying to overthrow the judicial branch's authority to interpret it.

Ohio voters approved protections for abortion and other reproductive rights, 57-43%, Tuesday. Abortion rights advocates will soon head to court to repeal restrictions and bans on the procedure.

But four GOP lawmakers had another idea.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

"To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative," according to a Thursday night news release with quotes from four GOP House representatives. "The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides."

The news release from Reps. Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester; Bill Dean, R-Xenia; Melanie Miller, R-Miller; and Beth Lear, R-Galena and was titled: "DECEPTIVE OHIO ISSUE 1 MISLED THE PUBLIC BUT DOESN'T REPEAL OUR LAWS." Ohio Value Voters, an anti-abortion organization, shared the same quotes in a Friday news release.

“We will withdraw jurisdiction from the courts so that they cannot misapply Issue 1 for the benefit of the abortion industry,” Gross said in the Ohio Value Voters' release.

Speaker Jason Stephens, R-Kitts Hill, declined to comment on the release or the idea through a spokesman. But Paul Pfeifer, executive director of the Ohio Judicial Conference, pushed back against the proposal.

"The Supreme Court of Ohio is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. Period," said Pfeifer, a former justice and Republican lawmaker. "There’s no getting around that, so legislation that attempts to circumvent the constitution eventually isn’t going to go anywhere."

Gabriel Mann, a spokesman for the Issue 1 campaign, said the idea was more bad behavior from Republican lawmakers. "Issue 1 passed thanks to the votes of a lot of Republicans who do not like the idea of government overstep. They don’t want government interference in people’s private lives," Mann said.