The GOP Is Starting to Plot Against Donald Trump

Republican Party donors and leaders are talking about how best to stop Trump from running away with the nomination again in 2024. But they don’t have a clear plan to stop him.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/09/gop-trump-2024-election-00081944

Back in 2020, the buzzword among Democrats was “electability,” as the need to defeat Trump came to outweigh any other concerns or considerations including those of ideology, vision, competence and style. And the winner of the “electability” primary, at least for donors and liberal pundits, was Joe Biden, which led to most of his competitors dropping out and endorsing him when he was still trailing in the delegate count to Bernie Sanders. Republicans are now hoping that a similar dynamic plays out on their side this year and that even Trump loyalists will understand the stakes. Trump did not respond to requests for comment. “I don’t think it is fair to call Donald Trump a damaged candidate,” said Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser who has been calling on the party to move on from Trump since the 2020 election and the uprising at the Capitol. “He is a metastasizing cancer who if he is not stopped is going to destroy the party. Donald Trump is a loser. He is the first president since Hoover to lose the House, the Senate and the presidency in a single term. Because of him Chuck Schumer is the Leader Schumer, and the progressive agenda is threatening to take over the country. And he is probably the only Republican in the country, if not the only person in the country, who can’t beat Joe Biden.”

The big fear among donors like Levine and other party players is that, like in 2016, a number of challengers to Trump will jump into the primary and linger too long, splitting the field and allowing Trump to win. And some of these top Republicans are meeting with potential candidates and telling them that if they want to run, they should by all means do so — but that they should also be prepared to drop out well before voting begins in order to make sure that the GOP puts their best candidate forward against Biden. “I am worried about this, but experience is a good teacher, and there is no education in the second kick of a mule,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist and longtime adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell. “My hope is that those exploring a race [for president] right now are asking themselves what is best for the party.” Bob Vander Plaats, the president of The Family Leader, a socially conservative advocacy group, is one of the most sought-after endorsers in the Iowa Caucus. He said that he is speaking with every potential candidate about the need to not overstay their welcome in the race. “I tell them that there is an open and fair playing field here in the state of Iowa, and that we will introduce you to our base, and we will give you all kinds of opportunities for you to introduce yourself. And if you have the call in your heart to run for president, I am the last person to tell you to not to. “But,” he also tells them. “Do not listen to your consultants, who have a vested interest in you staying in. I can help you decide if you should stay in or not.” “They all agree right away,” he added. Leading donors who have spoken with the top-non-Trump contenders like Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence say that all get it, that none of them are looking to play the spoiler and are aware of the dangers to the party, if not the country, of a Trump Redux. For evidence, these donors point to the potential candidate’s public statements and recent memoirs, in which all are critical of Trump in one way or another. “Does Mike Pence really want his legacy to be that he got four percent of the vote and helped elected Donald Trump?” asked one adviser to a major Republican giver. “Same goes for [Mike] Pompeo, same goes for [Nikki] Haley. They want to get traction, of course, but there is a higher motivation to pull out more quickly based on what it would mean for the country and the party.”

Supreme Court deadlocked on enacting ethics code of conduct

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-deadlocked-on-enacting-ethics-code-of-conduct

For at least the past four years, the Supreme Court has been in active discussions to adopt a code of conduct but has struggled to agree on its parameters, in addition to uncertainty on whether the justices will actually follow through with such deliberations. The high court "has failed to reach consensus" on a code of conduct despite ongoing internal deliberations about bringing one into the fold, according to the Washington Post, citing anonymous sources who say the topic remains "active." The novel revelation of a search for a code coincides with a New York Times report from last week highlighting claims that Chief Justice John Roberts's spouse conducted paid legal recruitment to place lawyers at firms, some of which had business before the high court. Other liberal critics of the court have often pointed to the conservative political activism of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, as one of their top concerns for judicial ethics. Since the dramatic leak of the high court's draft opinion signaling the overturning of nationwide abortion protections, the justices have been subject to reports and allegations that they have failed to live up to the ethical standards of their duties, prompting left-wing organizations to call for a stricter code of conduct for the nine justices. The ethics calls increased as liberal demands to expand the number of justices on the court died down after a committee formed by President Joe Biden expressed "profound disagreement" on the issue of court packing in December 2021. Legal counsel for the Supreme Court has presented a "working document" outlining what issues a code would address, but there's no deadline for when the court should make its decision and no guarantees that it will actually adopt one, according to the Washington Post report. However, justices already consult the federal judges' code of conduct if ethics concerns are ever raised about their conduct. But justices ultimately make their own decisions on when to practice restraint from certain activities. For example, the Judicial Conference of the United States, in its Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, says the "main precepts" of the Code of Conduct are "highly general" and that the code "is in many potential applications aspirational rather than a set of disciplinary rules."

Judicial ethics expert Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution wrote an op-ed in 2011 titled "Regulating Supreme Court Justices’ Ethics—'Cures Worse Than the Disease?'" In his report, he underscored that the Judicial Conference's rules "explicitly reject the position that a Code [of Conduct] violation is, per se, a ground for finding misconduct." Lower court judges make their own decisions on whether to recuse themselves from cases or whether to recuse in a similar fashion to Supreme Court justices. In essence, under the current judicial standards and expectations, there is no recourse for judges or justices who make an apparent ethics violation other than impeachment proceedings, which are rare and unlikely to succeed. Earlier this week, the American Bar Association passed a resolution to urge the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct after more than two dozen legal and ethics scholars wrote a letter in support of the code in March. “The Supreme Court should have a code of ethics. Exclamation point. The end,” Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor and former Justice Department official who has ties to the conservative Federalist Society, said in a statement via the ABA. Additionally, legislation was proposed in Congress on Thursday to force the high court to adopt a code of conduct. The bill was reintroduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and was backed by more than 20 co-sponsors in the Senate. A similar bill pushed by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-LA) last year passed the House before failing in the Senate. Murphy's new measure is not expected to be passed given that Republicans now control the House and can block the legislation in the Senate and that most recent ethical concerns about the Supreme Court are focused on the conduct of the six Republican-appointed majority of justices.

House weaponization panel opens first hearing with a partisan bang

https://thehill.com/homenews/3851910-house-weaponization-panel-opens-first-hearing-with-a-partisan-bang/

The GOP’s weaponization subcommittee launched its first hearing Thursday, offering a dizzying flood of claims that highlight the partisan divisions over the role of the federal government and the legitimacy of the newly created panel. Republicans formed the committee as a way to counter alleged abuse of a government they say is abusing its power to target conservatives. Democrats see the committee as the weapon itself, a vehicle for the GOP to forward conspiracy theories that will mobilize the Republican base ahead of 2024. Helmed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of both the subcommittee and the overall Judiciary Committee where it is housed, Thursday’s hearing included a quartet of current and former lawmakers, with the GOP inviting former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party, to testify. “Over the course of our work in this committee, we expect to hear from government officials and experts like we have here today. We expect to hear from Americans who’ve been targeted by the government. We expect to hear from people in need. And we expect to hear from the FBI agents who have come forward as whistleblowers,” Jordan said Thursday. “Protecting the Constitution shouldn’t be partisan.”

Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.), the top Democrat on the panel, countered that the conception of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government itself was purely partisan. “I’m deeply concerned about the use of this select subcommittee as a place to settle scores, showcase conspiracy theories, and advance an extreme agenda that risks undermining Americans’ faith in our democracy,” Plaskett said at the outset of the hearing. The hearing, convened to broadly explore politicization of the FBI and the Justice Department, went even wider, with a first panel of current and former lawmakers offering a roadmap of the suite of potential topics the panel could cover. References to the investigation of former President Trump, probes into Hunter Biden, alleged abuse of authority at the IRS, complaints of media coverage and social media company actions were woven together in opening statements from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rob Johnson (R-Wis.). Grassley complained of a “triad” of influences seeking to limit a number of his own inquiries, stymied by what he said were partisan media, the FBI and Democratic colleagues. “What I’m about to tell you sounds like it’s out of some fiction spy thriller, but it actually happened,” he said.

Johnson said his 10-minute opening statement “barely scratched the surface in the striking complexity, power and destructive nature of the forces that we face.” The two, along with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the oversight committee who served as the party’s witness Tuesday, each took a page out of Jordan’s book, rattling off a list of examples of impropriety, whether by the government or allies of Trump. “Weaponization is the right name for this federal subcommittee. Not because weaponization of the government is targeted. But because weaponization of government is its purpose,” Raskin said. “The odd name of the weaponization subcommittee constitutes a case of pure psychological projection.” A second panel included Jonathan Turkey, an attorney and often-used Republican witness, as well as two former FBI agents, including James Baker, who penned the book “The Fall of the FBI: How a once great agency became a threat to democracy.” In questions with the witnesses, lawmakers’ own assessments of the FBI were on display. “We come not to trash the FBI, but to rescue the FBI from political capture,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). Gaetz, a last-minute addition to the panel in place of Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), was previously under investigation by the Justice Department in connection with a sex-trafficking probe, but career prosecutors recommended against charging him. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who served as counsel to House Democrats in the first impeachment of Trump, asked Jordan to turn over transcripts of its interviews with the FBI whistleblowers they’ve spoken with. “I worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years alongside a lot of FBI special agents and their biggest concern and the most damage to the morale of the FBI occurred after Donald Trump started attacking the FBI because he was being attacked by the FBI. And that is what this subcommittee is all about,” he said.

>>18315864

>>18315898

>>18315379

CORRECT. Trump saved over a billion people by turning into the bioweapon instead of allowing [them] to refine it's killing potency.

Trump is our anointed leader. He is not a God. Trump is a flawed human who was sent by God to lead humanity to the light.

>>18316019

Prophetfagging? America prayed. God delivered. No prophecy to it. Trump is the answer to prayers… MANY prayers.

Trump seen praying with South Carolina restaurant employee during campaign stop

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-seen-praying-with-south-carolina-restaurant-employee-during-campaign-stop/ar-AA16Sq31

Anon don't give a shit about the trolls. Trump is the schizzle. Trump works 120 hours a week (or more) to save America. This anon is going to praise and thank God for giving America and humanity a way forward, as prayed for by GENERATIONS of Americans and world citizens.

>>18316086

Anons are here till 2026 MINIMUM. Get comfy anons. Concentrate on your health and on the long game. Anons aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

>>18316112

Don't EVER give up on Trump because Trump NEVER gives up on you. Unity is anon calling card, even when we disagree.