Tag Archives: Trump

Who Was Samuel Johnson?

Leave a reply

Doesn’t much matter. If you must know, Wikipedia has an extensive article on his life as “poet, playwright, essayist, moralist, literary critic, sermonist, biographer, editor, and lexicographer.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson That’s a lot of jobs for one life.

One of Johnson’s most well-known attributed quotes is: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

I thought of that when reading the reports that Jenna Ellis, an unknown lawyer until she joined forces with Donald Trump to overthrow the government and install him as president/king/despot/rule-for-life, had turned on her liege lord. And make no mistake, overthrowing the government and anointing Trump was the plan.

Of course, it failed. Miserably. Not only was the incitement thoroughly documented on video and otherwise, but the attack itself was also filmed by multiple people, including some of the participants themselves in one of the great self-owns of all time. One of the best videos of the attack was produced by the New York Times:  https://tinyurl.com/4btuf4y5

For her efforts, Ms. Ellis has earned the distinction of being indicted, along with Trump and many others, in Georgia. For reasons currently unknown, she was not indicted by the Special Counsel Jack Smith but that could still happen.

Reports now indicate that Ms. Ellis, like some of the other insurrectionists, has had a change of heart. Jenna Ellis Denounces ‘Malignant Narcissist’ Trump, Publicly Distances Herself From Former President,https://tinyurl.com/km4z7v8b:

I simply can’t support him for elected office again. Why I have chosen to distance is because of that, frankly, malignant narcissistic tendency to simply say that he’s never done anything wrong.” The most notable component of Ellis’ remarks was her criticism of Trump supporters. She claimed that some of them had elevated Trump to the level of “idolatry” and were prioritizing their devotion to him over their dedication to conservative ideas, the Constitution, and the country. She challenged Americans, particularly conservatives and Christians, to reconsider their voting and allegiances.

… And the total idolatry that I’m seeing from some of the supporters that are unwilling to put the constitution and the country and the conservative principles above their love for a star is really troubling. And I think that we do need to, as Americans and as conservatives and particularly as Christians, take this very seriously and understand where are we putting our vote.

And in the Guardian, it is noted that “in 2020 Ellis rose from relative obscurity to become part of what she called an “elite strike force team” working to overturn Trump’s defeat by Biden.” https://tinyurl.com/bsk4rjyp

Covering all her bases, Ellis, while rejecting Trump as a candidate to vote for, hastened to assure him that, “I have great love and respect for him personally.” Trump, being the great transactionalist that he is, will not likely find such professions of affection meaningful if she’s going to withhold her vote.

Reading those reports reminded me of some of the defenses offered by Proud Boys and others like them who conspired to pull off the insurrection and have been sentenced to long prison terms.

One popular one was “I was just following the direction of my commander-in-chief,” an apparent reference to the Constitutional provision (Article II) that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States….” The problem with that defense, of course, was, among other things, that the Proud Boys were not inthe Army, Navy, or a Militia of the any state called into the actual service of the United States.

But, as the Samuel Johnson quote reminds us, the mind concentrates when faced with hanging and the Proud Boys being sentenced to decades in prison is the functional equivalent of being hanged. The defense has been uniformly rejected by the courts, as it should be.

As for Jenna Ellis’ sudden “awakening” to Trump’s “malignant narcissism,” her statements smack of performative timing inspired by being indicted for multiple felonies for which she has few, if any, realistic defenses. If she had been awake during the months leading up to January 6, she would already have been aware that Trump a cancer on American democracy. Many of the tear-shedding insurrectionists in their pleas for leniency have, once sentenced, reverted to type, and continued to declare their allegiance to Trump and the false-flag “stolen election” nonsense. One can’t help wondering if Ellis won’t do the same thing once she knows just how high her hanging will be.

A Group of Election Pundits Walked Into a Bar ….

Leave a reply

And they began to debate the Republican debate and, just like the real debate, they agreed on almost nothing of importance.

After reading several “expert” analyses of the debate, it’s clear the “experts” are as uncertain as the candidates. Not surprising, I suppose, given that this was the first debate and Trump, the most prominent criminal in American political history, decided to debate from another location where he could not be called to account for his endless lies, incompetence, and criminality.

Speaking of which, most of the Republican “contenders” did agree on one thing: if Trump wins the nomination, they’ll support him against Joe Biden. There is little doubt that if George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were to rise from their graves and run as a Democratic ticket, the Republican contenders would support Trump for president over them. Trump’s hold on these people tells you all you need to know about this collection of losers. They will say nothing to offend the MAGA crowd that, perfectly happy with a fascist criminal like Trump, will determine the Republican nomination. Even Mike Pence, who has “boldly” observed the obvious – that Trump had demanded he raise Trump’s ambition over the Constitution — raised his hand when asked if he would support Trump as the nominee.

Profiles in courage, these are not.

One of the more substantive treatments of the debate was produced by Vox.com, seen in full at https://tinyurl.com/2bw44t8y. The author noted that the early part of the debate was a simulacrum of a Republican-style debate from yesteryear in which issues like abortion bans (they all want to control women’s bodies and health decisions, the reality of climate change (they all agree with Trump that it’s a hoax), urban crime (we need more guns), K-12 education (education is for libtards – ban the books!), immigration (furriners, keep ‘em out), the Russia-Ukraine war (appease Putin with Ukraine’s territory – communism bad, Putin OK), and the rise of China (COVID, the gift that keeps on giving).

The Vox view was that an absent Donald Trump still won the debate. The moderators, despite their Fox “News” credentials, also came in as losers (they always lose control of “debates,” apparently even when Trump is absent–remarkable).

How any of these folks expect to win much support from the MAGA crowd, or indeed any remaining “Republicans,” if they’re not willing to say anything bad about the MAGA love child remains a complete mystery. Is this just some kind of “show” designed to fool people into thinking the Republican Party is legitimate and has real options in its ranks to the fascism promoted by Trump? It’s a mystery. Seriously, why bother going through the motions when anyone there with a plausible case to make (?) is terrified of speaking ill of the poll leader?

As noted in the USAToday report, https://tinyurl.com/34bt8suy, Vivek Ramaswamy, the other billionaire candidate (do we need another billionaire president??), called Trump “the best president of the 21st century.” One positive thought about Ramaswamy: if he became president, the aliens hanging out at Area 51 would break out and immediately head back into outer space, never to return to what will remain of Earth after its habitable phase ends at the hands of climate change (I know, I know, climate change is the Democrats new hoax – Trump said so and therefore it must be true, nothing to worry about, move along).

A clear example of what we could expect in the way of logical thinking from a President Ramaswamy may be found in this quote:

Your claim that Donald Trump is motivated by vengeance and grievance would be a lot more credible if your entire campaign were not based on vengeance and grievance against Donald Trump.

Think about that for a moment: Trump can’t be “motivated by vengeance and grievance” because their campaigns are based on “vengeance and grievance against him.”

But then, of course, the great moralist Mike Pence scolded the only woman on the stage regarding a national abortion ban by offering this beauty: “consensus is the opposite of leadership.” What he meant to say was “when I’m president, I won’t care what people think; I’ll tell you female hussies what to do and you’ll do it or else.”

All in all, it was a rough night for rationality. And history, as always in Republican circles, took a back seat to ideology. While there was minority support for continuing to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression, there was much sentiment for the old “America First” claptrap: appease Russia with a big piece of Ukraine and hope the Russian Bear’s appetite for conquest is sated. Isolationism in another wrapper. It has never worked but, hey, Republicans need to have something to say, so ….

What’s left of the Republican Party thus has only this to offer: a multiply-indicted criminal lunatic or one of a cast of confused, ignorant wannabes who haven’t got the courage of their, or anyone’s, convictions to challenge the lunatic. Elect one of these beauties and it’s game over.

Questions the Media Should Ask Republican Defenders of Trump

Leave a reply

It’s past time that the media did its job.

Have you read the federal and Georgia indictments? Answer yes or no.

If no, why not? How can you defend someone against serious criminal charges you haven’t even read?

If yes, do you think the factual allegations are correct?

If the factual allegations are not correct, how are they wrong, precisely and factually?

If the factual allegations are correct, do you believe it is acceptable to elect to the presidency a criminal who tried to steal the 2020 election? Answer yes or no.

****

We can reasonably anticipate from past behavior that Republicans will try to deflect with their customary “weaponization of the justice system” claims. Or the “what about Hillary” claims. Or the “what about Hunter Biden” claims. Or any of the other deflections that they use to avoid addressing difficult truths about Donald Trump and his co-conspirators.

The media, if they were to do their jobs, would demand in the strongest terms possible that the above questions be answered and that deflections be rejected. They should ask these questions every day until they get an answer. An actual answer, not a lecture on some other topic.

The job of journalists is to report the news. Ask questions, find and report information. For reasons I don’t pretend to understand, most of the political stories I read in mainstream media and obviously slanted sources are a mix of factual reporting and opinion, speculations, implied messages, what-about-isms and other misinformation and deflection. Headlines are frequently written as click-bait when the actual story is about something else.

Ask good questions and report the answers. If the person is lying or deflecting, report facts that show that but leave the commentary out. Just like Joe Friday used to say, “just the facts, ma’am.”

Just to be clear, the same rules should apply to Democrats.

Is Trump Disqualified?

Leave a reply

The New York Times reports that:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office.

https://tinyurl.com/yh38rjyd

Oh, Lordy, I wish they were right.

But are they?

The NYT article says:

The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

Upon reading that, my first thought was Groucho Marx’s infamous saying that, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” But I digress. I do not adhere to such absolutist thinking about most things, and I suspect there’s a club somewhere that I might want to join, though whether there is one that would have me is another question for another day.

Returning to my new-found idols (if and only if they’re right) in the Federalist Society, they summarize their conclusion this way:

Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.

Affirming what I and many others have been saying since at least January 6, 2021, the esteemed authors of a forthcoming law review article state there is:

“abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.

“It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction,” ….

Abundant evidence. Yes. Unquestionably fair. Without a doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

But is saying it enough? What about innocent until proven guilty, etc. Right to a fair trial. All that.

The relevant sections of the 14thAmendment to the Constitution state:

No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The central question is, I think, whether the provision is self-executing or requires a judicial finding that the person in question has engaged in insurrection, etc. The least relevant question is whether Congress would give Trump a pass. Two-thirds of “each House” means what it says (originalists are stuck with that) and that’s not happening.

According to the Times, the article concludes that:

essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.”

It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

I’m fully down with that so far but the question remains, I think.

The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president.

“Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said.

In an interview, apparently, Professor Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, said those administrators must act:

“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so.

Therein lies the rub. Republican secretaries of state, many of whom are abjectly committed to support Trump no matter what, cannot be assumed to perform the asserted duty, no matter how forcefully that obligation is confirmed by Federalist Society professors. Some enterprising journalist should immediately put the question to each of the fifty secretaries of state, starting tomorrow. What they say will not, of course, be binding but still would be good to know their answers in fashioning a way forward.

As much as I desperately want to believe that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing, the cynics among us (me) do not believe anything so simple could possibly work in the political world Trump has handed down to our country. Lawsuits are going to be necessary, complicated, I suggest, by the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith elected not to charge Trump with insurrection under the relevant statute:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [18 U.S. Code § 2383-enacted June 25, 1948]

Why Smith did not bring that charge has not been, and likely will never be, explained, but Trump will try to drive his denial truck through that gap and, typically, more litigation will ensue if anyone tries to disqualify him through legal action.

A final observation. I just read that Alan Dershowitz, ready to defend Trump’s criminality at every turn, has reportedly declared that the 14thAmendment applies only to “those who served the Confederacy during the Civil War.” Reported in the Daily Caller (where else?) but published only in the SmartNews app, apparently. The piece notes that the “the text does not authorize Congress—or any other body or individual—to impose the disqualification in the first place.” Further, the article claims, “It wasn’t intended as a general provision empowering one party to disqualify the leading candidate of the other party in any future elections.”

That’s an odd claim for an ultra-originalist to make. That fact, moreover, undermines Dershowitz’s argument. If no mechanism for applying the law was created, the most reasonable conclusion is that Congress thought it was self-actuating. And, if it were true that the law was only to apply to ex-Confederates, it would be most reasonable to expect that the statutory text would have been explicit to that effect.

The contrary position states that

it was fairly evident who participated in the Civil War on the part of the South. No formal mechanism was needed for making that obvious determination. If the disqualification had been intended as a general rule applicable to all future elections, it would have been essential to designate the appropriate decision maker, the procedures and the criteria for making so important a decision.

That argument ignores that Marbury v Madison was decided by the United States Supreme Court establishing the principle of judicial review, that the Constitution was indeed the supreme law of the land that Congress could not by itself change. While the article lists all kinds of mischief that might ensue without explicit mandates of who decides what, the reality, I suggest, is that the claimed disabilities are overcome by the fact that judicial review of all actions inconsistent with the plain intent of the statute would be available. As with many other laws in which judicial oversight is not expressly mentioned, the supremacy of federal law and the even greater supremacy of the Constitution are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Congress did not have to established a specific enforcement mechanism for the operative sections of the Amendment. The courts were available to adjudicate any conflicting claims.

Thus, the absence of an explicit provision for judicial review does not support the speculation that the courts “might regard as a political question” the issue of whether a candidate had engaged in insurrection. No reason exists to think of that as a political question beyond the courts’ purview or that “if the controversy were not resolved by the Supreme Court, there would be a constitutional crisis.” Such imaginings are the product of an overactive ultra-originalist imagination.

Dershowitz gives himself away in the ensuing argument that,

Interpreting this post-Civil War amendment as a general provision for disqualifying candidates who some people may believeparticipated in what they regard as an insurrection or rebellion—as distinguished from a protest or even a riot—would create yet another divisive weapon in our increasingly partisan war. It would be used by Republicans against candidates who may have supported (gave “aid or comfort” to) riots such as those that followed the killing of George Floyd or other violence-provoking events. [boldface added]

The Constitution articulated limited qualifications for presidential eligibility. Beyond those neutral criteria, the decision should be made by voters, who are free to consider the participation of a candidate in activities with which they disagree. Unless an amendment was clearly intended to further limit these qualifications, the voters are the ones to decide who is to be their president.

Quite clearly, Dershowitz is fine if “the voters” decide it’s acceptable to elect a criminal who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power and who has threatened violence and further insurrection if he is elected. That is not the argument of a “constitutionalist,” at least not the one that laid the foundation for the United States. No basis exists, I suggest, for interpreting the Constitution or any federal statute as permitting the overthrow of the government if a bare majority use the ballot box rather than armed revolt to accomplish it.

That said, I believe it is entirely appropriate for lawsuits to be instituted to present to the courts for adjudication the question whether January 6 was an unlawful insurrection and, if so, whether Donald Trump inspired, incited, and directed it. If yes, he’s out. Period.

Let’s get on with it. Somebody (ACLU?) sue to bar his candidacy for the presidency and let the future of our democracy be decided.

What Are the Chances …

Leave a reply

that Donald Trump will comply with the Protective Order issued by Judge Chutkan in the January 6 case?

Near zero, I think. And his lawyers will be falling all over themselves to explain away or justify his violations when they are called before the judge, as they surely will be, to determine whether Trump should be held in contempt and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.

Trump will, I believe, continue attacking the judge, the justice system, the law, and anything else he believes will get attention in the media (who will duly report every outrage) and prepare his cultish supporters for what he hopes will be their next move, namely, a violent challenge to the law and order across the country. Trump likely believes that short of fleeing to a non-extradition country he may be out of options that his usual tactics of delay and obfuscation have achieved in the past. There is no reason to doubt that the carefully constructed evidentiary case against Trump for the January 6 insurrection will be persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt to any jury that fairly assesses it.

Trump’s trump card (sorry) is to force the judge to the edge of considering having him incarcerated, without his phone, pending trial. This prospect arises because no monetary penalty alone will suffice to control his behavior as long as he has free access, as he has in the past, to donated funds from his PACs and his rich benefactors. Money is literally no object to him in this circumstance.

Trump’s winning game therefore is to force the judge to order his arrest and detention, which will prevent him from campaigning, and thus drive his army of fanatical worshippers over the edge and into violent resistance. That is the true meaning of Trump’s social media post, ‘If you go after me, I’m coming after you.’

The judge has some alternatives, but none are going to suffice if Trump is determined not to be silenced. The judge could, for example, impose further restrictions on Trump’s access to the discovery materials that normally must be turned over by the prosecution to assist the defendant in preparing a defense. That approach hands Trump an additional claim that he was denied the opportunity for a fair trial because he could not participate fully in preparation of his defense.

The Protective Order issued by Judge Chutkan is not mysterious. It authorizes the Prosecution to designate various discovery documents as “Sensitive Materials” and imposes tight restrictions on their use [“defendant” replaced with “Trump”]:

Except as provided in this Order, without prior notice to the United States and authorization from the court, no Sensitive Materials, or information contained therein, may be disclosed to any person other than Trump, defense counsel, persons employed to assist the defense, or the person to whom the sensitive information solely and directly pertains and that person’s counsel….

… defense counsel may not allow Trump to write down any personally identifying information as identified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 that is contained in the Sensitive Materials.

Of particular note:

…during any time that Trump reviews Sensitive Materials outside of defense counsel’s presence, Trump must not have access to any device capable of photocopying, recording, or otherwise replicating the Sensitive Materials, including a smart cellular device.

The trial judge has thus clamped the jaws of good order and justice tightly to send a clear message to Trump about what will be tolerated. That, of course, is a challenge Trump is unlikely to take lightly no matter how many assurances his lawyers offer up that he will comply.

Never forget that Trump has declared that “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,” and he thinks he is still the president. People like Trump are unable to recognize that they have brought on themselves the troubles they face, by, in his case, and for example only, removing and mishandling top secret documents from the White House that he has claimed “are mine” and that he declassified just by thinking about declassifying them. He uses his abuses and law violations as a badge of victimization with which his cultish supporters sympathize because they see themselves also as victims. He hates and fears the same people they hate and fear, thus producing the perfect symbiosis.

Trump remorselessly directed his followers to attack the Capitol on January 6 to stop the transfer of executive power from him to Joe Biden. The whole world watched the attack on TV and has sense seen endless film of the assault in brutal detail, all the while Trump resisting calls from within and outside of his administration to call off the attack. Trump dug his own grave on this one, along with the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and has no one to blame but himself. He will, however, always true to his nature, almost certainly try to force the court’s hand because, well, that’s what he does.

Criminal Liar Donald Trump Attacks DC

Leave a reply

Donald Trump’s understanding of “truth” is whatever comes out of his mouth, even when demonstrably false. His adoring followers appear to believe whatever he says even when a moment’s reflection would reveal what a pathological liar he is.

On Trump’s latest involuntary “visit” to the nation’s capital to be arraigned on multiple felony charges for the third time, Trump, as he typically does, lied about his guilt, lied about his “persecution,” and, of course, lied about the District of Columbia. In a post-arraignment diatribe for reporters, Trump said (as reported by Newsweek):

“This is a very sad day for America,” said Trump. “And it was also very sad driving through Washington, D.C., and seeing the filth and the decay, and all of the broken buildings and walls, and the graffiti. This is not the place that I left. It’s a very sad thing to see it.”

https://tinyurl.com/2s32p5by

In case you have forgotten, here are some samples of what DC looked like under Trump:

Major areas around the People’s Houses, including both the White House and the Capitol (that Trump had directed mob to desecrate) were fenced off, with massive police and military presence. DC was effectively an armed camp, armed against the people by Trump, for Trump. Always for Trump.

 

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 2

Leave a reply

Let’s review what has happened most recently.

  • 6-8-23 Trump is indicted. Finally. Thirty-seven counts. Felonies. Trump is accused of harboring hundreds of classified documents dealing with, defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
  • Classified documents were stored in multiple unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago;
  • On at least two occasions, Trump showed classified documents to persons not cleared to see them;
  • Trump obstructed the grand jury investigation by:
  • suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • directing co-defendant Waltine Nauta to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury;
  • suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully; and
  • causing a false certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced while knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced;
  • Trump was personally involved in causing boxes containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transportedfrom the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club;
  • Trump directed the move of some classified documents to non-secure locations at his Bedminster Club;
  • Despite public statements to the contrary, Trump was fully aware that he had not declassified the documents while he was president;
  • Trump and his co-defendant withheld key information from Trump’s attorneys regarding the location and number of document boxes at Mar-a-Lago;
  • Trump knowingly procured a false certification by one of his attorneys regarding the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago;
  • As a result, Trump was charged with:

Willful Retention of National Defense Information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § (e)

 Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512(k)

Withholding a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2

Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2

Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2

Scheme to Conceal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ lO0l(a)(l), 2

 False Statements and Representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2

 All the allegations are supported by documents, testimony, photographs, and recordings.

TRUMP’S “DEFENSES” [Or “What, Are You, Nuts?]

[Warning: Do not eat or drink while reading this next part]

The willful ignorance of Republican politicians brings to mind Sam Cooke’s anthem song with the perverse (in current circumstances) title of Wonderful World:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book

Don’t know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me, too
What a wonderful world this would be ….

One person who loves Trump is the Republican Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who just hours after the unsealing of Trump’s 37-count felony indictment threatened the U.S. Attorney General, stating that House Republicans “are not going to stand for” the criminal prosecution of the ex-president. McCarthy, in keeping with the observations above, claims Trump is being treated differently than others, even though no one in modern times has committed the treasonous acts for which the evidence against Trump is overwhelming. No one.

The Republican idea of “equal justice” is to treat Trump better than everyone else. Trump had numerous chances to get true equal treatment; all he had to do was return the documents and, if, and it’s a massive ‘if,’ he had a claim to them, pursue it through legal channels. Instead, he chose self-help and then engaged in a coverup. By grossly misstating the legal processes by which the Trump indictment was issued, McCarthy proved he is just as dishonest as Trump himself, a believer in what Kellyanne Conway, acting as counselor to Trump, cynically called “alternative facts.”

McCarthy’s sycophancy is not peculiar to him. In his usual manner of double-talking between law, politics and delusion, Alan Dershowitz produced this preposterous standard for judging Trump’s conduct: “the Richard Nixon test.”https://tinyurl.com/5y6zz4yv (Fox Business. Where else?):

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz said Friday on “Mornings with Maria.” “I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor continued.

Translated to simple English, Dershowitz thinks the proper legal test for Trump’s document crimes is whether Republicans approve of his being indicted. Wow. How the mighty have lost their way. Dershowitz had more to say:

American citizens, Dershowitz argued, should be able to cast their votes for those candidates who align with their social, economic or foreign policy views as opposed to “who’s more criminal.”

The professor argued there “has to be equal justice” served as he pointed out Republicans will likely speed up their investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family foreign business dealings.

“If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that’s now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday,” Dershowitz said, “and let the public judge.

Dershowitz apparently believes that the reality and nature of Trump’s crimes is simply irrelevant to whether he should be president again.

Dershowitz seems to have forgotten about the long history of the Trump family’s foreign entanglements, including massive infusions of cash from Saudi Arabia. But I am for “equal justice” too. If there is evidence of corruption in the Biden family that relates to the president doing his job, bring it.  So far, nothing but phantasmagorical claims based on missing or criminally indicted “witnesses.” It looks a lot like the claims of election fraud that Trump and his cronies repeatedly asserted without evidence. Republicans are the reincarnation of the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

Meanwhile, otherwise responsible media continues to bemoan the fact that a former president is being charged. The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote on June 9 that,

No one should celebrate Thursday’s indictment of Donald Trump in a case involving classified documents improperly stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Something has gone deeply wrong when, in a historic first, federal prosecutors reach the point of filing criminal charges against a former and possibly future president. Yet, in this matter, the defendant appears to have left them little choice.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/]

On the contrary, all patriotic Americans should applaud the fact that “equal justice” means what it says and that one’s political status does not confer privileges to violate the law that applies to others. The Post finds the allegations against Trump “disturbing” as if they related to shoplifting a shirt at Macy’s. And USAToday continues to publish click-bait pieces like this one: Donald Trump was indicted over classified documents. Why aren’t Joe Biden and Mike Pence? https://tinyurl.com/5xv63mjh

Concerns have justifiably arisen about the bizarre fact that the Trump-appointed judge in the documents case is the same judge that was reversed in dramatic terms by the 11th Circuit for gross errors of law and bias toward Trump. Jack Smith is unlikely to tolerate much funny business from her but there are clearly risks in her overseeing a criminal trial like this, given her lack of experience and apparent lack of judgment. Time will tell.

Trump is in serious trouble as his standard stratagems of delay and obfuscation are, one by one, falling apart. He appears to be destined for trial in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and for new indictments related to the January 6 fake-electors scheme and the January 6 insurrection. These cannot come soon enough, particularly since, reports already indicate that Judge Cannon is falling all over herself to stall the case against Trump. https://tinyurl.com/yck42wbt  She should be removed from the case before it’s too late.

If fair-minded juries are chosen and the trials are fairly administered, Trump will surely be convicted of multiple felonies, along with, hopefully, many of his co-conspirators.

Trump will then go down in history – down being the correct word here – as what he is: the worst criminal ever to occupy the White House. He will join the legions of failed putative dictators and other men that fortune falsely anointed as “great men” but whose ignorance and greed undid them. Trump loves to do his form of “dance” at rallies to the YMCA song to show that he’s young, virile, and cool, but his real song should be Send in the Clowns to distract from the reality that his day of reckoning may finally, at long last, be approaching.

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 1

Leave a reply

Watching the descent of Donald Trump from indecent, corrupt, selfish, ignorant, and foolish to deliberate gross criminality that put the national security of his country at risk raises yet again the question of how someone with his alleged wealth, claimed high level of education and all the opportunities for success imaginable falls to such a state. And it’s not just Trump and his constantly grifting family to whom the question fairly applies.

The elected leaders of one of the two major political parties continue to support a candidate for leader of the country and commander-in-chief of the armed forces who has been twice-impeached (the party refused to hear the overwhelming evidence of his guilt) and now twice-indicted for multiple felonies, including threats to national security and against whom the evidence is, yet again, overwhelming. And more felony indictments are virtually certain regarding Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021, and remain in power despite his defeat in the 2020 election. Such is the reality of the Republican Party today that has aided and abetted many of his most criminal and dangerous behaviors.

MAGA Republicans, it seems, can keep multiple inconsistent ideas in their “minds” simultaneously without experiencing disabling cognitive dissonance. They can, for example, treat as “equal” situations that are plainly not “equal.” Examples of this behavior abound. They are masters of deflection: whatever Trump may have done (“who cares anyway”), someone else did something worse and was not punished so Trump should not be held accountable either. And on and on.

Interestingly, none of Trump’s most ardent supporters claim, “he didn’t do it.” Rather, they argue that he should not be punished under the law for what he did because,

            It’s a witch hunt;

            Others are more guilty of something or other;

            The investigations are “politically motivated”;

            Trump did “nothing wrong”;

            It was all antifa and Black Lives Matter

            Or it was the “deep state” out to get Trump

            Trump was framed [my personal favorite].

All very familiar Trump tropes.

Recall that Donald Trump said this: “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” And Trump thinks he is still the president.

As I have ruminated on what is happening here and why, I have, tentatively, come to some new conclusions. While I have never known anyone wholly like Trump, I have over my long life and career encountered many “successful” Type A people, almost all men, who share many characteristics with Trump.

I now believe, tentatively, that most men like Trump began their lives with various advantages that made them “successful standouts” at an early age. This phenomenon may go all the way back to grammar school, when the first genuine socialization behaviors are displayed. These are the boys who, regardless of actual talents, are always deferred to when teams are picked at recess or after school for pick-up sports. They are selected by default to pick the players they want on their side. The selection process is merciless and is repeated over and over day after day.

These same boys tend to be socially popular with both boys and girls. They exude confidence that is reinforced constantly at home and everywhere else. They are molded into dominant figures, accustomed to having their way, to being favored, to being successful in virtually everything they do. Often, they are rewarded in areas in which they do not excel because of their perceived status in other areas.

This reinforcement continues through high school and beyond. These men are the anointed “leaders” whose merit and status are rarely if ever questioned. They are, to paraphrase a line from the movie, Barry Lyndon, not the smartest, the quickest, the bravest, the most talented. They are, simply, the “best people.” And because they are so regarded, they are beyond reproach even when their behavior would otherwise warrant and even require condemnation and sanction.

Emergent from this process is a sense of self-worth, of self-regard that distorts their understanding of reality. Other men, and many women, are impressed by their self-confidence, their “authority,” that is evident in how they present themselves, independent of any objective reality as to their actual talents or worth.

The end of this process is, however, at least in my experience, almost always the same. Donald Trump is the purest manifestation of it. The hubris that develops blinds these men to the truth of their situation. They see themselves as untouchable, not subject to the same rules that govern everyone else.

How could they not? U.S. Senators and Congressmen (and now women) are fawned over, treated as special in every way, sought after socially, given power unrelated to their intelligence or actual skills. They are, after all, the “best people.” It’s just who they are. Or so they believe. American culture tends to venerate and elevate these men (mostly men).

The same is true of many “successful” businessmen. They may be dolts. They may be corrupt. Doesn’t matter. They are who they are – the winners, the top dogs. Media fawn over their every word, adding to the illusion of their superiority. These men attract money, followers, devotees – passionate supporters who need to share the penumbra of their worthiness.

Until they aren’t worthy. Until the sheen of invincibility is shattered by revelations of the lack of merit that has been concealed for so long beneath the veneer.  Examples are everywhere. Take the Cuomo brothers, Andrew and Chris. The sons of Mario Cuomo, the three-term governor of New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Cuomo Mario Cuomo came from the humblest of circumstances – the family ran a grocery store in Queens. But he was highly intelligent and very ambitious. A powerful, dominating figure.

So too his sons. Yet, both have fallen from their pedestals, for different but related reasons. Then there is Rudy Giuliani, once called America’s Mayor for his post-9/11 “leadership.” By all accounts, he was highly intelligent and ambitious but, he too, fell from grace when he embraced Donald Trump’s brand of “truth.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

Consider the actor Will Smith. Highly talented and successful until he decided, and make no mistake it was a decision, to attack the Oscars’ host on live television for making a tasteless joke about his wife. Smith may recover. The Cuomo brothers and Giuliani may not.

Let’s not forget this: Trump Will Not Apologize for Calling for Death Penalty Over Central Park Five. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/central-park-five-trump.html Presaging his views on the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, involving alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right “militias:  “You have people on both sides of that,” the president said when asked about the wrongly convicted defendants.”

So it goes. Over and over again. A seemingly endless progression of “great men” brought down by their own hubris – defined in dictionaries as ‘excessive pride or self-confidence.’ They come to believe they are untouchable, beyond reproach regardless of what they do. And in some sense their perception is correct, demonstrated by Trump himself in the way he has managed to not only survive but prevail, despite multiple obvious crimes, despite business mismanagement and multiple bankruptcies, and despite multiple credible allegations of sexual abuse and assault.

[to be continued in Part 2]

Moments Later – ABC News Again

Leave a reply

Almost immediately after posting the previous post, I came across this from ABC News:

Once again, the video with the story is about Donald Trump and promotes the idea that he is innocent. The story is about the tragedy of the sinking of the tour boat with loss of life. SHAME on ABC for using this to promote Donald Trump.

ABC News appears to be taking over where CNN left off.

ABCNews — What is Going On Here?

Leave a reply

The headline and story is about a fire and the collapse of the roadway on I-95, the major north-south interstate between, among many others, Washington, Philadelphia and New York. The video is Donald Trump declaring his innocence!

How can this be explained?  What is ABC News doing?