Forest Fires Devastate Chile’s Valparaíso Region

Posted on by Christine Frapech

Over the weekend, Chile’s coastal Valparaíso region was hit hard by forest fires, leaving thousands of burnt homes and an uncertain death toll. Over 100 people have been reported dead and hundreds are still missing. Residents and firefighters worked together to battle the flames and clear the wreckage. This is likely the biggest tragedy to hit Chile since the 2010 earthquake that killed hundreds.

People watch the fire spreading from a hillside in Valparaíso, Chile

Residents of a Valparaíso neighborhood look at the cloud of smoke produced by forest fires in Viña del Mar on February 2, 2024. A huge mushroom cloud of smoke hangs over tourist areas in central Chile, including Viña del Mar and Valparaíso, where a forest fire broke out on Friday, threatening hundreds of homes and forcing the evacuation of residents. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Residents being evacuated from their homes as wildfire spreads in Viña del Mar, Chile

Residents are evacuated from their homes during a fire in Viña del Mar, Chile, on February 2, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Vehicles and homes engulfed by flames

Vehicles and homes burn during a fire in Viña del Mar, Chile, on February 2, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Houses burning in Viña del Mar, Chile

Houses burn during a fire in Viña del Mar, Chile on February 3, 2024. The region of Valparaíso and Viña del Mar, in central Chile, woke up on Saturday with a partial curfew to allow the movement of evacuees and the transfer of emergency equipment in the midst of a series of unprecedented fires, authorities reported. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Helecopter flies over Quilpué, near Valparaíso Chile

A helicopter works on the zone of a forest fire in the hills in Quilpué comune, Valparaíso region, Chile on February 3, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Woman working to put out fires near a home in Quilpué

A woman puts out a forest fire affecting the hills in Quilpué comune, Valparaíso region, Chile on February 3, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Arial view of fire moving through the Las Pataguas sector of Viña del Mar

Aerial view of the forest fire that affects the hills of the city of Viña del Mar in the Las Pataguas sector, Chile, taken on February 3, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Burnt houses in Los Olivos commune in Viña del Mar, Chile

View of burnt houses after a fire that affected the hills in Los Olivos comune, Viña del Mar, Chile on February 3, 2024. (Photo by RODRIGO ARANGUA/AFP via Getty Images)

Man putting out fire in Quilpué

A man puts out a forest fire on the zone of a forest fire in the hills in Quilpué comune, Valparaíso region, Chile on February 3, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Residents helping firefighters in Valparaíso, Chile

Residents help firefighters during a forest fire affecting the hills in Quilpué, Valparaíso region, Chile, on February 3, 2024. (Photo by RODRIGO ARANGUA/AFP via Getty Images)

Aftermath of the fire in Villa Independencia

Aerial view of the aftermath of a wildfire in Villa Independencia, Valparaíso region, Chile on February 4, 2024. The death toll from the forest fires in Chile rose to 112 people this Sunday, while 40 active outbreaks are being fought, the Ministry of the Interior reported. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Burnt houses on the hills of Viña del Mar

View of burnt houses after a fire that affected the hills in Viña del Mar, Chile on February 3, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Aftermath of the forest fire in Viña del Mar, Chile

Aerial view of the aftermath of a fire at the hills in Viña del Mar, Chile on February 3, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Firefighters work during the aftermath of a forest fire in Viña del Mar

A firefighter works at the Botanical Garden after a forest fire in Viña del Mar, Chile, on February 4, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Woman and baby walking past burnt cars in Quilpué

A woman with her baby walks past burned vehicles after a forest fire in Quilpué, Viña del Mar, Chile, on February 4, 2024. (Photo by RODRIGO ARANGUA/AFP via Getty Images)

Burnt homes and cars in Quilpué, near Valparaíso, Chile

Aerial view of burned homes and vehicles after a forest fire in Quilpué, Viña del Mar, Chile, taken on February 4, 2024. (Photo by RODRIGO ARANGUA/AFP via Getty Images)

People walk past burnt cars in Quilpué

People walk past burned vehicles after a forest fire in Quilpué, Viña del Mar, Chile, on February 4, 2024. (Photo by RODRIGO ARANGUA/AFP via Getty Images)

Neighbors work to clean their land and burnt homes after the fire in Villa Independencia

A Chilean flag waves as neighbours clean their lands and burnt homes in Villa Independencia, Valparaíso region, Chile on February 5, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

A cat is rescued after forest fires in Villa Independencia

A cat is rescued after the forest fires in Villa Independencia, Viña del Mar, Chile, on February 5, 2024. (Photo by JAVIER TORRES/AFP via Getty Images)

Deliver app workers donate and distribute food to firefighters in Villa Independencia

Delivery app workers distribute lunches and water donated by themselves to firefighters in Villa Independencia, Valparaíso region, Chile on February 5, 2024. The death toll from central Chile’s blazing wildfires climbed to at least 112 people on Sunday, after President Gabriel Boric warned the number would rise “significantly” as teams search gutted neighborhoods. (Photo by PABLO VERA/AFP via Getty Images)

Deliver app workers donate and distribute food to firefighters in Villa Independencia

Delivery app workers distribute lunches and water donated by themselves to firefighters in Villa Independencia, Valparaíso region, Chile on February 5, 2024. (Photo by PABLO VERA/AFP via Getty Images)

Florida Chief Justice Pushes Fetal Personhood At Argument For Abortion Amendment

Posted on by Kate Riga

During Wednesday’s arguments over the language of a proposed ballot initiative to protect abortion rights, Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz kept returning to a well neither side had briefed.

Continue reading “Florida Chief Justice Pushes Fetal Personhood At Argument For Abortion Amendment” →

More Than 78 ‘Friends’ Of The Supreme Court Offer Advice On The 14th Amendment And Trump’s Eligibility

Posted on by John Light

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.

Members of the U.S. Capitol Police targeted with “brutal violence” on Jan. 6, 2021, 25 historians of the U.S. Civil War and Reconstruction, the San Francisco Taxpayers Association and dozens of other parties have weighed in at the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinions about the case that has the potential to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election.

The justices will hear oral arguments in that case, Trump v. Anderson, on Feb. 8. 2024. The plaintiffs, a group of Colorado voters, claim that under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Trump is not constitutionally qualified to run for president because he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. Constitution. When the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump could not appear on that state’s ballot, Trump appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the Supreme Court will ultimately determine Trump’s fate, the numerous parties who have chimed in aim to add context and additional arguments for the justices to consider.

78 amicus briefs

As with many cases before appellate courts, and especially those before the Supreme Court, outside interested parties can file what are called an amicus brief. The filers are referred to as “amicus curiae,” Latin for a “friend of the court.” They are not a party to the case but rather someone or a group who volunteer advice in a case before the court.

The purpose of amicus briefs varies. They can be used to share specialized knowledge with the courts. In their Trump v. Anderson amicus brief, constitutional law scholars Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School and Vikram David Amar of University of California, Davis, School of Law write about the history and significance of the first insurrection, which occurred in the 1860s. They describe this as an effort to “prevent the lawful inauguration of duly elected Abraham Lincoln.”

Others file amicus briefs to advance or further an argument. Some may discuss the potential effects of possible decisions. All share a common thread: Amicus briefs are filed to help the court shape the ruling in the case.

In Trump v. Anderson, the amicus filers who support Trump filed 34 briefs. Filers who support Anderson, the plaintiff whose name is on the case, filed 30 briefs. In addition, 14 briefs were filed in support of neither party.

The total of 78 amicus briefs filed is lower than other recent and controversial cases before the Supreme Court. For instance, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that ultimately overturned the constitutional guarantee of a right to abortion, there were approximately 140 amicus briefs filed. In a recent affirmative action case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. Harvard, which concluded that universities cannot use race as a consideration in admissions decisions, amici filed approximately 100 briefs.

While the total number of briefs filed in this case is notably lower, it is important to note that the Supreme Court expedited Trump v. Anderson, almost certainly because the presidential campaign is well underway. While normally there is a period of months to file amicus briefs in cases, the court’s expedited timeline directed amicus filers that they had less than four weeks to file their briefs.

Constitutional or unconstitutional?

In his amicus brief, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas and former presidential candidate himself, argues that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Trump from its ballots was an unconstitutional encroachment on Congress’ powers

Former U.S. Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig was part of a group of amicus filers made up of “former officials who worked in the last six Republican administrations, senior officials in the White House and Department of Justice, and others who support a strong, elected Presidency.” Their brief argues that the Supreme Court is well within its constitutional authority to determine the constitutional qualifications of the presidency, and that “Mr. Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly elected President.”

Constitutional law scholars such as Berkeley’s Erwin Chemerinsky and Yale’s Bruce Ackerman argue in their filing that Trump’s rhetoric is not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, they write, the First Amendment should not affect how the court interprets and applies Section 3.

And the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People argues that the court should give consideration to the 14th Amendment’s commitment to equal protection and multiracial democracy because the drafters of the amendment had a “practical concern about how insurrectionists would respect the rights of those whom they did not believe were entitled to rights.”

A large crowd of angry-looking people in front of the U.S. Capitol, a white-domed building.
Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol on Jan., 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. A pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with police officers. Jon Cherry/Getty Images

Unexpected friends

Although legal scholars and politicians frequently file amicus briefs in cases, this case also generated significant interest from nontraditional amici.

An unspecified number of Capitol Police officers who fought against the rioters on Jan. 6, 2021, to protect senators and representatives argue that the First Amendment should not apply because Trump’s speech was “integral to unlawful activity”.

The San Francisco Taxpayers Association’s brief claims that Trump is disqualified because, in addition to engaging in an insurrection, Trump also engaged in a “rebellion against the Constitution, by knowingly disregarding the presidential oath of office.” This rebellion, as they note, is a separate basis for disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

And international scholars who study democracies, political violence and the rule of law write that Trump’s actions following the November 2020 election “are alarmingly similar to activities that have destroyed democracies in other countries.”

Even voters who say they “have a constitutional interest in a ballot” filed amicus briefs in this case. Voters in New Hampshire argue that all Americans have a constitutional right to “a ballot free of such an insurrectionist” as Trump.

‘Great peril’ for the nation

Most of the amicus briefs in this case, however, reiterate the litigants’ core arguments. Trump’s supporters argue that Section 3 does not apply to the office of the president. Even if it did, they assert, Trump’s speech should be protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, they argue that Section 3 requires an act of Congress to enable its enforcement.

Anderson’s supporters who seek Trump’s disqualification argue that Section 3 does apply to the president. They also argue that Trump engaged in an insurrection as evidenced by the violence on Jan. 6, 2021. Further, they argue that Section 3 automatically applies unless Congress acts by removing the disqualification disability.

And both sides argue that the Supreme Court must decide the issue now because any delay will “place the Nation in great peril”.

Whether the Supreme Court relies on any of the amicus briefs is up to the justices’ discretion. But without any doubt, this case is monumental – likely more consequential than Bush v. Gore, which decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election in George W. Bush’s favor. While the court’s self-imposed deadline to release its decision is the end of June, it is reasonable to expect a decision in this case sooner rather than later.

The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Republicans Are Flailing Like Never Before And It’s Amazing To Behold

Posted on by David Kurtz

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

The Speaker Has No Clothes

The House GOP under Speaker Mike Johnson is flopping around like a fish in the bottom of the boat.

In a nearly unprecedented failure, Johnson brought articles of impeachment to the House floor and lost. He lost! He didn’t have the votes! He couldn’t do the math!

It was a spectacular and unexpected failure. The impeachment was bogus to begin with. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had not committed any high crimes or misdemeanors and hadn’t even been accused of doing so. This was purely a political impeachment, designed to front the border issue for the House GOP and Donald Trump in an election year. So even on its own terms as a political hatchet job, Johnson was unable to get the job done.

House Republicans insist they can bring the impeachment back to the floor later and win because Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) would have been the deciding vote last night but was absent for treatment for cancer. We shall see.

As a fitting coda to the day, Johnson brought up an Israel funding bill right after the impeachment vote, and it failed, too.

Not All Heroes Wear Hospital Gowns

Recovering from emergency surgery, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) left his hospital bed to head to the Capitol where he was rolled onto the House floor in a wheelchair to cast the decisive vote against impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas:

After he arrived on Capitol Hill, Green was taken to the attending physician’s office, where a bed and other preparations awaited him. “I stayed there, until I went upstairs for the vote,” he said.

Following the vote, Green returned to the hospital.

The Key GOP Votes Against Impeachment

The difference makers on the GOP side were:

  • Ken Buck (CO)
  • Mike Gallagher (WI)
  • Tom McClintock (CA)

With such a narrow majority, that’s all it took. (One GOP member later changed their vote to preserve the option to bring the articles of impeachment back up, but that’s a procedural move that doesn’t change the political dynamic.)

How It Played

The coverage was one big ouch for Johnson and the House GOP:

  • “an embarrassment for the party”
  • “truly one of the most embarrassing days in recent House GOP history”
  • “Republicans in Congress suffered a humiliating series of setbacks on Tuesday on critical elements of their agenda, turning the Capitol into a den of dysfunction.”
  • “The failed vote was a stunning rebuke of a months-long investigation into Mayorkas that had raised concerns among legal experts and even some Republicans.”

LOLOL

Rep. Marjorie Greene (R-GA) bemoans getting outplayed, out-mathed, out-smarted, and outgunned by House Democrats:

What A Collossal Mess

Meanwhile, things aren’t looking any better in the other GOP imbroglio on the Hill. The Ukraine aid-border bill package that Republicans insisted on for months then immediately abandoned is now in ruins.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is expected to force a Senate vote today on the package, which will fail, in order to get Republicans on the record opposing it. Then he plans to vote on the foriegn aid elements separately. It’s some classic twisting of the knife for maximum political gain, but it was all invited by the Republican double cross, captured nicely by this tweet:

Beep … Beep … Beep …

That’s the sound of the bus that took out Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the senator tasked with negotiating the Ukraine-border package for Senate Republicans:

Asked jokingly by a reporter how he felt being run over by a metaphorical bus by GOP colleagues opposing his work, Lankford scoffed, “And backed up [over].”

Boom! We May Yet Get A Trump Jan. 6 Trial This Year

The DC Circuit’s immunity decision struck a decisive blow against Trump’s argument that the president is above the law. In doing so, it reaffirmed the basic constitutional order and gave the rule of law a fighting chance.

But timing is still critically important.

If the legal system can’t prosecute Donald Trump for his attempt to steal the last election before the next election takes place, it’s a fundamental failure of the system. As I’ve said before, if the legal system cannot rise up in a timely fashion to defend itself against an existential threat like Trump, then we have foundational problems that go beyond one man or one movement.

The appeals court ruling now provides a fighting chance to try Trump for election subversion before November. We’re not out of the woods yet. A lot will depend on what the Supreme Court does. But the DC Circuit acted quickly enough to open up a path to starting trial somewhere between the late spring and late summer.

The folks at Just Security have mapped out plausible timeframe scenarios:

Music To My Ears

For rule of law aficionados, some of the choicest quotes from the DC Circuit ruling that the president does not enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

Instead of inhibiting the President’s lawful discretionary action, the prospect of federal criminal liability might serve as a structural benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior

It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.

Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of the Congress.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.

More Immunity Coverage …

Can’t get enough? Me either:

What A Week For Trump!

If yesterday’s consquential loss on immunity at the DC Circuit and tomorrow’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the Disqualification Clause aren’t enough, Donald Trump looks ready to take another big hit, this time in the New York civil fraud case that could cost him millions of dollars in penalties and his business empire.

Responding to a NYT report that former Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg is poised to plead guilty to committing perjury on the stand in the civil fraud case, the trial judge wants to know from the parties WTF is going on and how this should effect the verdict he is preparing. Recall the judge has set a Jan. 31 deadline for his ruling, but that’s been delayed, perhaps in part because of the Weisselberg news.

Among the bad signs for Trump, the trial judge openly pondered in his letter to the parties whether he should deem all of Weisselberg’s testimony unreliable if he did in fact commit perjury. The parties have until 5 p.m. ET today to respond to the judge’s queries.

MUST READ

TPM’s Hunter Walker: The ‘Nuclear’ Election Conspiracy Doc Trump Cited In Court Is A Sign Of Things To Come

Standby For Report From Biden Special Counsel

Special Counsel Robert Hur, who has been investigating Biden’s mishandling of classified documents from his time as vice president, is set to release imminently a report on his findings that is expected to be critical of Biden and his aides but not lead to criminal charges against anyone.

D’oh!

Prosecutors in the case against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) have revealed in a court filing that they have a confidential source who made recordings during the investigation.

NH Investigates Voter Suppression Calls

New Hampshire’s attorney general has opened a criminal investigation into those robocalls that used a fake Biden voice to urge Democrats not to vote in last month’s primary election – and has identified a Texas telecom company as the source of the calls.

Gobsmacking

If you’re a connoisseur of the absurdist oeuvre of the ratfuckers Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, then you’ll want to add a new federal lawsuit against them in Virginia to your collection. It accuses them of defamation, conspiracy, invasion of privacy, tortious interference and racketeering, among other things, in a hare-brained scheme that will gobsmack you. Truly.

Can She Use Her Real Name Again?

Ronna Romney McDaniel, who famously dropped “Romney” from her name in deference to Donald Trump’s antipathy toward her Uncle Mitt, is widely reported to be on her way out as RNC chair.

2024 Ephemera

  • Biden wins Nevada Democratic primary.
  • Nikki Haley loses to ‘none of these candidates’ in Nevada GOP primary.
  • Biden vows to make collapse of border bill a campaign issue.

School Gunman’s Mother Convicted

The mother of the then-15-year-old gunman who killed four people at Oxford High School in Michigan in 2021 has been convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter after a two-weel trial and 11 hours of jury deliberations. Her son previously pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

The ‘Nuclear’ Election Conspiracy Doc Trump Cited In Court Is A Sign Of Things To Come

Posted on by Hunter Walker

The true believers were buzzing. 

Continue reading “The ‘Nuclear’ Election Conspiracy Doc Trump Cited In Court Is A Sign Of Things To Come” →

Too Much Winning

Posted on by Josh Marshall

Truly remarkable. After a year of threatening, House Republicans finally voted to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas. And they failed. It’s just basic vote counting. And they failed. Then their standalone Israel bill failed too.

I’m a little unclear on what comes next. Steve Scalise was apparently not there because of his on-going treatment for cancer. It was unclear whether Rep. Al Green would be there but he was. He was apparently wheeled in from the hospital. I’d heard suggestions that they’ll hold another vote. But unless I’m missing something adding Scalise’s vote won’t change the result.

Doesn’t really matter. It’s the pratfalls that are the most amazing part of this.

Late Update: Apparently one additional Republican flipped from Yes to No after it became clear the impeachment would fail. This is procedural move which allows the vote to be held again. It also means that the “real” vote was 215-215, rather than 214-216. Thus Scalise returning and voting Yes would put it over the top.

Texas GOPers’ Border Cosplay Becomes Target For Violent Extremists And Grifters

Posted on by Nicole LaFond

A Tennessee man was arrested on gun charges late last week after the FBI alleged that he was scheming to violently attack immigrants and Border Patrol agents at the southern border.

While the man, Paul Faye of Montgomery County, Tennessee, had allegedly been plotting a potential attack for the past year, he was spurred on by talk of an “invasion” at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the FBI — the very rhetoric Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has been using publicly to justify his standoff with the federal government there.

Continue reading “Texas GOPers’ Border Cosplay Becomes Target For Violent Extremists And Grifters” →

What Does Today’s Immunity Decision Mean For Trump’s Delay Strategy?

Posted on by Josh Kovensky

Tuesday’s long-awaited ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals roundly rejected Donald Trump’s claim that presidential immunity barred his Jan. 6 criminal trial from going forward.

Continue reading “What Does Today’s Immunity Decision Mean For Trump’s Delay Strategy?” →

Wow

Posted on by Josh Marshall

Okay, this is getting … well, interesting? It’s now 100% clear the border deal is dead. In my first post an hour or so ago it was 98% dead. The ambiguity has now been removed. That’s no big surprise.

What’s at least a bit surprising is the next move. Republicans are now at least saying that Plan B is to strip out all the border stuff and leave in the aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. But the key to remember is that that is how we got here in the first place. Democrats were trying to move an aid bill and Republicans said no aid without a border crackdown. Democrats at first refused linkage but eventually gave way. Then they negotiated this border deal. Now Senate Republicans, at least for the moment, are saying they’ll go back to the aid bill they refused if it didn’t address the border.

LOL.

Continue reading “Wow” →

Who Is the Operator Behind the NH/Biden Voter Suppression Calls?

Posted on by Josh Marshall

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella announced today that Deep Fake voter suppression robocalls aimed at dissuading voters from voting in last months Democratic primary have been traced to a Texas-based firm called Life Corporation, owned by a man named Walter Monk. The calls used a voice like President Biden’s and told voters not to “waste” their vote in the primary, implying that you could vote in the primary or the general election but not both.

Monk seems to have a long and pretty sordid history of low-rent robocall type operations, but at least on first pass not a clear history of involvement in politics.

Continue reading “Who Is the Operator Behind the NH/Biden Voter Suppression Calls?” →