Sarah Palin Would Consider Running as Trump's Veep

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:
    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

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


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.    


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.  


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

    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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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.

    "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.

    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.


    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.

    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 side of the defendants. I have sympathy for many of them and am bewildered by the hard stance of many, which is why I read the posts here, hoping for enlightenment.

    I appreciate argument over personal attack, so thank you for the reply. You once told me that people here would be open to debate issues. I try to present the opposing view.


    You may be a linguist (as you say you are) (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 10:52:28 AM EST
    but you have no knowledge or training in reading or interpreting criminal statutes. A statute that says "rebellion or insurrection" is not providing a synonym for either term. There is a strong presumption against surplusage in construing criminal statutes. Instead, this grammatical construction sets forth an equivalency; these two things are to be treated the same in the law. Nor can you declare either term "vague" because you don't readily apprehend its meaning. Every undefined term used to describe a crime is to be interpreted according to the meaning that it bore, to a legally-educated person aware of U.S. tradition and history, as of the time of enactment. This statute has been in the federal laws, in the same terms, since July 17, 1862. If you want to dispute the meaning of those terms, you have to start with dictionaries and treatises that were available to members of Congress in 1862.

    You are correct. As a linguist, I am much more (none / 0) (#28)
    by ladybug on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    familiar with synonyms and dictionaries than the law, but have learned something about the law through you. I am more familiar with linguistic relativity and critical pedagogy, and view many issues through those lenses.

    It is very hard to define a word in a dictionary without using synonyms, and words naturally evolve new meanings over time as well. Even the words "woman" and "sanitation" have been contested recently. It's natural that language evolves and that words change their meanings as words are simply a reflection of our minds and cultures.


    Not in criminal statutes, words don't evolve (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    That would violate the due process clause, at least if the accepted meaning of the word were to "evolve" to broaden its scope. The governing rule is as I stated it. I said nothing about the use of synonyms in dictionaries.

    Language evolution is simply language (2.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ladybug on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    change. The word "girl" originally referred to both boys and girls.  I was speaking from my own expertise about synonyms in dictionaries. Words may not evolve or be broadened in the law but they are interpreted.

    Although there is nothing (none / 0) (#32)
    by ladybug on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    objectional in this comment I agree it is time to stop. There will always be two sides to a debate and all we can do is present our sides. I am seriously considering all the points you have made. Now, on to the day.

    While 225 were charged with assault, (none / 0) (#13)
    by ladybug on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 11:33:52 AM EST
    out of 725 plus arrested, only 75 were charged with having a dangerous or deadly weapon and no guns were used, although one or two might have been carrying one. "Insurrection" is one of those slippery words that we disagree on.

    If she did actually plan (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 05:15:35 PM EST
    or directly orchestrate the physical assault on the Capitol, then maybe.  

    Not sure they have the evidence of that.  I would be happy to be wrong....


    Section 3 (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 07:09:07 PM EST
    of the 14th Amendment does not expressly require a conviction and historically did not do so.  However, my comment only addressed your worry about how we would feel if an an anti-war protest was a bar to office once having taken an oath of office.

    But, the bar only involves insurrection or rebellion or aiding the enemy in time of war.  Moreover, my prime concern was equating protest, no matter how odious, with insurrection, for which there is a definition under the Insurrection Act (the Constitution mentions insurrection but does not define it but, in effect, gave Congress authority to do so which it did). And, my comment did not specifically deal with the case of Taylor Green rather, , being cast more widely.


    Perhaps when the cases for those charged (none / 0) (#7)
    by ladybug on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    with seditious conspiracy are finished, and they are in prison, we can argue that those individuals conspired to "overthrow the gvmt," but most of the charges have been trespassing, parading as well as some violence (in the form of hitting, kicking, spitting, etc.)

    Correction: Sorry, I forgot to add the most (none / 0) (#8)
    by ladybug on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 09:51:45 AM EST
    serious charge against them: obstructing and delaying the vote count.

    I hope you have not misunderstood (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    any of my posts to disagree with your comment, Dan. I totally agree that section 3 of the 14th Amend added an additional, enforceable condition of eligibility. At no point have I suggested that participating in the January 6 insurrection is equivalent to First Amendment-protected protest activity much less to "political discourse." My posts have addressed only whether a court (rather than Congress itself) has authority under the Constitution to apply and enforce the 14th Amend rule. The full 73-page federal court opinion rejecting Taylor Greene's attempt to block the state election board's hearing is embedded into this blog post. Only a small part of the decision, toward the end, addresses the issue that interests me. The judge ruled that the state was exercising its power under Article I, section 4, to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives," effectively giving the states (according to Judge Totenberg) the power to decide who can be a candidate, and Congress the power only to say whether a person who was elected can be seated.  I do not find that very persuasive.

    Your argument (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 23, 2022 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    is straightforward and clear.  My comment relates to concerns
    such as those expressed by MKS wherein, say, the record of an anti-war protester could impact eligibility for federal office.  

    Firstly, it does not appear that a reading of  the Fourteenth Amendment's language would be applicable to such cases, and, more importantly in the context of my comment, that there needs to be discernment between protest, no matter how odious, and violent or non-violent acts to overthrow the federal government. The Constitution.needs to be protected from those who have demonstrated willingness to do violence to it.


    The cases to consider (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 22, 2022 at 08:32:39 PM EST
    are Bond v. Floyd (1966) (Georgia Legislature violated First Amendment when it tried to bar seating of civil rights activist Julian Bond for his outspoken opposition to war) and Powell v. McCormack (1969) (House could not refuse to seat duly elected member except for failure to satisfy one of the reasons expressly set forth in the Constitution as qualifications, and court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Resolution excluding Powell was lawfully based on one or nore of those reasons).

    The judge only makes a recommendation (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 24, 2022 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    to the Georgia Secretary of State. A Republican.

    So this case is going nowhere, anyway.


    I had not realized that (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 24, 2022 at 08:01:38 PM EST
    So, very good point, Towanda (as usual).

    TBH (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 25, 2022 at 06:29:45 AM EST
    it kinda depends on how much damage Greene is currently doing to the GOP. If they think getting rid of her is going to help them in November they will do it. However the SOS is definitely not going to do anything before the May primary and if he loses his primary, he may be more than willing to cut Greene loose.

    Oh please (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 21, 2022 at 07:05:44 PM EST
    Oh please oh please.

    Sarah Palin would do anything (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mimi Haha on Sun Apr 24, 2022 at 08:04:53 AM EST
    ...to remain relevant.