home

Sarah Palin Would Consider Running as Trump's Veep

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Thu Apr 21, 2022 at 01:41:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Is Sarah Palin using her current run for Congress as a stepping stone to a repeat of her 2008 failed bid to catch John McCain's Hail Mary Pass and become Vice-President under Donald Trump in 2024?

Seems that way. She's now saying Trump called her after Rep. Don Young died and asked her if she was open to running for his seat. And that while he hasn't asked her specifically to run in 2024 on a ticket with him, that she is open to it.

Palin said if Trump runs for president in 2024 and asks her to be his running mate, she’d consider it, though she said he could choose anyone and they haven’t had such a candid conversation.

The only worse ticket I can think of is Donald Trump and Ivanka.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Macron Wins Re-Election in France >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sarah Palin Would Consider Running as Trump's Veep | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorne, etc. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 22, 2022 at 10:57:23 AM EST
    I do not believe that the "insurrectionists are ineligible to run for Congress" challenges -- invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3 -- in state (or federal) court can succeed, nor that a person can be disqualified on this basis for their votes on the floor to reject states' Electoral College reports. The Constitution itself (Art. I, sec. 5) says that each House of Congress "shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." I think this bars any court from ruling on those questions, either before the election or after. And as for whether voting against accepting the official returns can qualify as "insurrection" (as opposed to participating in [including planning or materially assisting] the actual Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol and disruption of the proceedings), I would point out that Article I, section 6, provides that "for either Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." I happen to believe strongly that the Constitution applies to people I loathe as well as to those I support.

    Sorry, minor typo to correct (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 22, 2022 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    Article I, section 6, states that "for any Speech or Debate ..." (not "either" speech or debate) the Member cannot be questioned in court. I do not understand how compelling today's testimony by MT Greene can be squared with the Speech or Debate Clause. This protection is so strong that it prevents evidence of how the Member voted from being used even at a criminal prosecution for bribery involving that vote. (The Supreme Court case I linked involved the Congressman from the district where I grew up; I volunteered for him when I was in high school and college. I can remember stuffing envelopes in the basement of his home.) I have to assume her lawyer raised this question.

    Parent
    One way (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 22, 2022 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    to view this is:  how would we like it if anti-war protestors were thrown out of Congress?  

    MTG is despicable but not letting her run for office is a perhaps a bridge too far.

    Parent

    This is a tough one, (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 22, 2022 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    but I believe it is necessary not to both-sides  or conflate protests with plotting or carrying out the overthrow of the government by violent or other unlawful insurrection.  

     This, of course, is the stance on the Republican National Committee calling Jan 6-- legitimate political discourse.  The Constitution should not be a suicide pact,  protecting those who hate the liberal underpinnings of the Constitution and act to destroy them.  The Fourteenth  Amendment seems like a reasonable eligibility screener for federal office for those with a known track of trying to overthrow constitutional government and with a likelihood of trying to do so again.

    Parent

    1 minute on google (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    identifies the serous nature of the assault on our capital on 1/6.

    A few highlights:

    More than 225 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including over 75 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.

    Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted Jan. 6 at the Capitol including about 80 U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department.
    ...
    Over 75 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
    More than 45 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and over 30 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
    ...

    At least 275 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
    Approximately 40 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.
    ...
    Six of those who have pleaded guilty to felonies have pleaded to charges related to assaults on law enforcement. Four face statutory maximums of 20 years or more in prison as well as potential financial penalties. Two face statutory maximums of eight years in prison as well as potential financial penalties.
    doj

    Anyone indicating that this was a minor, nonviolent event is purposely distorting the documented facts.

    Parent

    People keep saying I am purposely (none / 0) (#11)
    by ladybug on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    distorting the facts. More than 725 people were arrested. The majority was for parading and trespassing. The dangerous weapons were flagpoles, crutches, mace, etc. Of course the riot was serious. Only a few individuals were charged with seditious conspiracy and their cases have not been adjudicated yet.

    Parent
    They "keep saying it" for a reason (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    Because you are.  You're now trying to minimize the Jan. 6th insurrection and suggest it doesn't meet the definition of insurrection because the majority of them have not been charged with a violent crime, or because no guns were used?  Tell you what ... when you find a definition of "insurrection" anywhere on this planet that includes the use of a firearm as an element of the definition ... or one that requires a threshhold number of acts of violence.  Then, and only then can your transparent attempts to minimize Jan. 6th be taken seriously.  Until then, it's just more winger nonsense and trolling ...

    ... as usual.

    Parent

    There is a legal definition of (1.71 / 7) (#18)
    by ladybug on Sun Apr 24, 2022 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    insurrection but it has not been charged. Guns are ubiquitous in our country and if it was a planned insurrection you would expect at least some guns to be present on site. It was a protest that turned into a terrible riot and all riots are terrible. But for it to be an insurrection, planning and intention are key.

    The fact that opinions break along ideological lines shows what a fuzzy concept it is.

    The majority of people were charged with entering a restricted area. I am very sympathetic with the good Americans who were caught up in prosecutorial overreach by the gvmt and disappointed in other Americans who don't care.  

    Some people hope to "save American democracy" by simply disqualifying candidates and preventing voting.

    Just presenting a contrary opinion.

    Parent

    I believe there lots of evidence (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Apr 24, 2022 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys did ample planning. And there has been testimony they they had plenty of guns stockpiled and at the ready.

    Parent
    That is correct. (none / 0) (#23)
    by ladybug on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    Eleven people have been charged with seditious conspiracy along with other charges. It will be interesting to see if they plead or go to trial. Most of them are also charged with trespass, obstruction, and unlawful entry and one is charged with "assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers."  A couple of them never entered the Capitol or participated in the riot. None of the eleven who were charged brought their guns to the Capitol.

    The assault on the Capitol was terrible. Many crimes were committed. Insurrection has not been charged for any of the 725+ who were involved.    

    Parent

    One last (I hope) try (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    What a prosecutor thinks can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt under the criminal code and procedural rules is not the test, for political or even historical-fact purposes, for ascertaining or describing what actually happened and what people actually did. Nor is a prosecutor obligated to charge every offense that they believe might be established, if charges that are easier to prove will generate sufficient penal exposure to serve society's purposes. "I have never been indicted" is not another way of saying "I did nothing wrong."
      "Insurrection" is a rare charge, but the statute fully encompasses -- and provides the same ten-year maximum sentence for anyone who -- not only "engages" in "rebellion or insurrection" but also who "incites, sets on foot, [or] assists" an insurretion, or even who gives "aid or comfort" to those who do.

    Parent
    I think you are wasting your (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    valuable time. The self-proclaimed  professor of linguistics has stated that the people who stormed the capital were guilty of participating in a parade, that prosecuting the 1/6 participants and their organizers is government overreach and implied that since officers were stabbed by fence posts rather than shot it is not too serious. While the government has charged people with the use of deadly weapons, the professor has redefined "deadly weapons" to only include guns. A whole new dictionary and criminal code is being created right before our eyes.

    Parent
    Not me--many of the charges are for (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by ladybug on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    "parading." The deadly or dangerous weapons are listed in the charges (hockey sticks, baseball bats, crutches, flagpoles, fire extinguishers, bear spray, stolen police batons). It doesn't sound like they planned to take over the Capitol building and install a different gvmt with those.

    No officer was killed in the riot. We can compare the January 6 riot to the "mostly peaceful protests" in summer 2020 in terms of damage done and people killed or injured, but that is taboo because those riots were for a good cause.

    Parent

    You are either incredibly (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    ignorant or incredibly naive. Or just a troll.

    They built a gallows. They chanted "hang Mike Pence". Many sought out Speaker Pelosi with the stated goal of doing her harm.

    I watched the, yes, insurrection, in real time as it happened on Jan. 6, 2021. It was attempted overthrow of the legislative body of the United States. There was a stated goal of replacing duly elected electors with slates of "fake" electors. That sounds everything like an intent to install a government other than the duly elected one.

    It was NOT just like the protests in the streets over police violence. No one targeted the seat of government and tried hang anyone. Also, no one here, to my knowledge, EVER condoned violence or riots at those protests. Rioting and looting NEVER helps a cause. And those acts are usually perpetrated by opportunistic thieves who have nothing to do with the protests at hand.

    Parent

    It's C (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    And the funny thing about arguing with a troll is that if you reply, it wins.  Period.

    That's all it wants.  

    Parent

    Just look (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    at this thread.

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    pegged this one right off, a passive aggressive breed, particularly annoying not even worth a drive by, sometimes can't help myself.

    Probably the most uneducated "educator" I have ever communicated with, so there's that.

    Parent

    Agreed. I refer (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    commenters to a very humorous book entitled "Lazlo's Letters", by  comedian,Don Novello, aka Father Guido Sarducci (gossip columnist for the Vatican Newspaper) and, for this book, the pen name, Lazlo Toth, the namesake of the deranged vandal of Michelangelo's Pieta in St. Peter's.

    The ongoing gag was for "Lazlo" to write letters to famous politicians, celebrities and CEO's of Fortune 500 companies. With exaggerated politeness and obsequiousness, Lazlo brought suggestions for new and improved products, gave attaboys to a besieged President Nixon(the best president ever, keep  up the good work), movie stars,  and the like.  But, always written in a way that called for a reply.  And, reply's there were. And, one reply begot another. And, another.  

    The book was a compilation of the letter(s) and authenticated replies.  A great airplane read, although you may disturb your seat mate with laughter.


    Parent

    I'll bet every one if them (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    Thought their responses contained critical info "that may be of interest or of use to the group at large."

    Simple truth of trolls.

    If you don't respond it stops. Something that might actually have use to the group at large.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 03:17:15 PM EST
    Look at this thread.

    Parent
    Yes, "Lazlo" (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 03:27:45 PM EST
    made sure he came across as a serious, but obtuse, correspondent.  The exercise landed Novello a job on SNL, and guest appearances on Colbert and Jon Stewart's shows.

    Parent
    "Lazlo's Letters" is a very funny book. (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by fishcamp on Tue Apr 26, 2022 at 08:45:20 AM EST
    Once in Venice, Italy, on a job,  I filmed Don Novello walking out of a church, switching his priest hat to a gondolier hat,  getting into a gondola and proceeding down a canal with Angie Dickinson as the passenger.  Needless to say he was not a gondolier and started spinning in circles when they rounded the corner into the Grand Canal causing serious mayhem.  I hadn't met him yet, and while setting up my tripod and camera I called out "hey Lazlo, Lazlo Toth".  He spun around, came over and we shook hands and chatted for a minute until the director told us to get back to work.  Unfortunately I never saw him again as he had to go to Rome for some nefarious reason.

    Parent
    Novello's (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 26, 2022 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    Father Guido Sarducci character was very funny--his Romanesque clerical trappings including an Ida Lupino floppy hat set the tone.  He had many skits, on SNL and guest appearances elsewhere.

    Among my favorites was as care-giver to the infirm "Cardinal Fungi", who slept a lot so Father Sarducci would administer "just a teensy bit" of Quaalude" to perk the Cardinal up.  And, then there was his game of guessing the "popes in the pizza".  All so irreverent, all so comical.

    Parent

    I don't argue with them (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    (or at least I try not to). But I do post "responses" when I have the time, and I think that I have information to share, based on my particular expertise, that may be of interest or of use to the group at large.

    Parent
    Exactly. The law also rests on words (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ladybug on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    which can be ambiguous and open to interpretation. The law is fallible but it is the best we have. And we are a great democratic and liberal country based on rule of law. Politics and history are written by people with viewpoints, no matter how objective they try to be. Although the word insurrection is vague and it has not yet been charged, people still use it to support political narratives.

    The statute you cite repeats the word insurrection and gives rebellion as a synonym but after that it is vague. As most words are. It is like most contentious issues.

    Different people see the world differently, partly due to how we interpret words based our experiences in the world.    

    As I have said, I do not think that delaying the vote count is overthrowing the gvmt, although many do. I find it hard to believe that the intent was to overthrow the gvmt when no guns were brought (although a few may have been concealed). If the Capitol police had been more prepared the riot may have been averted.

    I also try to see the s