President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 06, 2024 12:15 AM UTC
25 Comments
Maybe this will get it out of their system …..
Group in Michigan Urges Protest Vote Against Biden Over Israel-Gaza War – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
They can express their dislike for Biden's policy on Gaza by voting against him in the primary, then hold their noses and vote for him in November.
But somehow, I think that is wishful thinking.
The Republican Party is a Failed State, Part 99. David Kurtz at TPM.
There will be a few changes made ….
Aurora Sentinel reported
Arapahoe County DA John Kellner won’t run for re-election in 2024
No way Kellner would win the 18th in the 2024, with Douglas, Lincoln, and Elbert voters gone. Padden creamed him in Arapahoe, by more than 50,000 votes.
I thought Kellner either lived in, or was moving to, Douglas County to run there.
I’m guessing that Boy George will name Kellner Assistant DA or Chief Deputy.
I think you're right, LBIAWPOS, and I suspect that a deal between Brauchler and Kellner is already in place.
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Finally ….. next stop, SCOTUS unless Trump’s lawyers want to play it really safe and file for rehearing en banc.
Rehearing en banc will buy him some more time in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals so that it doesn’t reach SCOTUS until sometime in April or May. That would push briefing into the summer and arguments in late summer or early fall.
The one-page judgment issued with the opinion said the mandate would not be stayed if Trump files a petition for rehearing (panel or en banc). The clerk of court was directed to delay issuing the mandate until Monday (2/12): "The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate through February 12, 2024. If, within that period, Appellant notifies the Clerk in writing that he has filed an application with the Supreme Court for a stay of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending the Supreme Court’s final disposition of the application. The filing of a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc will not result in any withholding of the mandate, although the grant of rehearing or rehearing en banc would result in a recall of the mandate if the mandate has already issued."
So if trump files a PRH, the court is likely to rule on that quickly. It'll take 6 of the 11 active judges of the court to grant rehearing en banc, so trump will need 6 of the remaining 8 active judges to get rehearing en banc. That vote can take place quickly, most likely be email, if the DC Circuit's procedure is anything like the 10th circuit's. Trump can get a stay of the issuance of the mandate by filing for a stay in SCOTUS. I would hope that SCOTUS would deny the stay, which would force trump to probably petition for certiorari sooner rather than wait until day 90. I wonder if Jack Smith will petition for cert. on something quickly to force the issue earlier. I predict trump will seek a stay at SCOTUS in the first instance.
In looking at the lineup at SCOTUS, I would say there are probably four votes clearly against the immunity claim, two votes (Thomas and Alito) for whatever bullshit Trump brings before them, and three that could go either way (the three Trump appointees).
Of the three Trump appointees, I see Gorsuch as being the most likely to buy in to the bullshit Trump will present and Coney Barrett as the most likely to reject it.
It takes 5 to grant a stay and 4 to grant cert so we could have the anomaly of SCOTUS taking the case but denying a stay.
Remember the old days when Warren Burger actually got an 8-0 decision on Nixon's tapes? Those days are gone.
Gone indeed. Though Burger's inital draft opinion was not well received by his colleagues, and a lot of retooling went into it. But the final decision was the death blow for Nixon.
Having said that, I could see the Court looking at this case and saying "no need to review it" and simply denying cert.
Yammie-pie can appeal the decision of the D.C. Circuit panel if he wants to. Still, according to ALL of the federal attorneys who appeared on MSNBC this evening, the panel would have spoken to their fellows on that bench before writing such an assertive denial. So he can ask for a different panel or an en banc hearing, but he’s likely to get the same answer. I also don’t think he can get 4 SCOTUS Justices to agree that there was anything wrong with the D.C. Circuit’s decision.
Yammie-pie can appeal the decision of the D.C. Circuit panel if he wants to. Still, according to ALL of the federal attorneys who appeared on MSNBC this evening, the panel would have spoken to their fellows on that bench before writing such an assertive denial. So he can ask for a different panel or an en banc hearing if he wants, but he's likely to get the same answer. I also don't think he can get 4 SCOTUS Justices to agree that there was anything wrong with the D.C. Circuit's decision.
H/T Liz Cheney
Tina Peter's trial has been continued again. It's now set to start July 29th. She fired her lawyers (Richards Carrington firm) and new counsel is an attorney in Carbondale, Michael Edminster. She claimed irreconcilable differences with her now-fired lawyers. She also claimed she has COVID. Regardless, the judge granted the continuance. Absent something extraordinary happening, the trial will not get continued again. But it is now set to take place after the GOP convention. https://coloradosun.com/2024/02/06/tina-peters-trial-delayed/#:~:text=A%20judge%20postponed%20a%20criminal,with%20tampering%20with%20election%20equipment.
How could she have COVID since those people believe it was just a hoax?
I wonder if those irreconcilable differences had anything to do with the lawyers wanting to get paid and she thinking otherwise?
Then again, she may have been trying to tell them to run her theory of defense based on her crackpot fantasies and delusions.
I suspect that may have been the case, at least in part. Knowing her and also the Richards Carrington firm, I'm unsurprised that a conflict arose. I suspect that if she tries to fire her new counsel and get another continuance this summer that she is unlikely to succeed, absent really compelling circumstances.
And let's not forget that today is Impeachment Day in the House …..
Mayorkas Impeachment Vote: House to Vote on Impeaching Mayorkas Over Border Crisis – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
This should fix the crisis at the border.
Update on Mayorkas impeachment ….
It ended in a 215-215 tie so one Republican changed his vote to "No", then they moved for reconsideration, and there will be another vote tomorrow.
Scalise was the one missing member. I'm guess they'll wheel him in tomorrow for the re-vote.
There Republicans made good on their threat to vote "No."
Update on the update!
Feb. 6, 2024, 6:45 p.m. ET7 minutes ago
7 minutes ago
Karoun Demirjian
The final vote is 214 to 216, which means one more Republican flipped to no.
The honest 3 Republicans: WAPO said "The vote had unexpectedly come to a tie after three Republican lawmakers bucked party lines to vote against the measure. Two of those lawmakers — Reps. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) — had previously said publicly that they would not support the measure. But a third, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) had stayed mum about how he would vote."
On that next vote. The last vote changed in order to have a member of the Republican leadership be able to ask for a reconsideration. (215-215, then 214-216 to allow reconsideration)
Absent – Steve Scalise
Vacancies:
Since Trump's lapdogs in Congress are uninterested in governing, in favor of political showboating, file this one under Trump's Stupid Pet Tricks:
Thank you Buckles for your Mayorkas vote.
In bigger than our state.
"The US Justice Department won’t file charges against President Joe Biden over his handling of classified documents found in his private home and office, but an investigative report will be critical of his actions, a person familiar with the matter said Tuesday"
So he gets a scolding for carelessness. That's a far cry from what's coming to The Screaming Yam for willfully keeping and attempting to conceal similar material. One's absent-minded and disorganized, the other's a thief and perhaps a spy.
The House Government/Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee will take the report and begin their own "investigation" into Biden's conduct a la the notorious Benghazi Committee, after which they will recommend that Biden be impeached for his conduct.