Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Thursday, August 31, 2023

Clarence Thomas definitely not corrupt, say former clerk sycophants

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 21: Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2021 in Washington, DC. Clarence Thomas has now served on the Supreme Court for 30 years. He was nominated by former President George H. W.  Bush in 1991 and is the second African-American to serve on the high court, following Justice Thurgood Marshall. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) 
What a wonderful, jovial man Coke Can Clarence is according to those who sucked up to him as former law clerks, including some pretty unsavory characters in their own rights.

Oh, very big news, everyone. Over 100 former clerks to Justice Clarence Thomas have signed an open letter announcing that Thomas is just great, nothing to see here, no corruption so everyone needs to shut up about that.

But the Clarence Thomas Is Great Club skips all of that. Instead, most of the letter is a retelling of Thomas' entire life story. It’s a story of hardship and more hardship and being inspirational until now, finally, he's at the top of the American hierarchy and gets to be friends with people who own yachts.

Fox “News” is boosting the story, and it helpfully includes the actual letter itself, which is ... wow, a whole lot of not much, actually. In general, when you're defending someone against charges of accepting improper favors from people who, say, purchase his mother's house, fix it up and let her live there rent-free in preparation for turning the site into a museum of Why Clarence Thomas Is Great, you'd want to include some actual defenses.

Trump pleads not guilty, waives ar Pin Point, among the Gullah-Geechee and oysters and marshlands. His father left. And a fire too” It's just paragraphs of that rather than anything about the vacations or the yachts or the inability of the Catholic-educated ex-seminary-student-turned-lawyer to properly fill out a gift disclosure form to save his life.

It's all pretty obviously cribbed from a pre-written obituary sitting in a drawer somewhere, but it brings to mind one of the sappier introductions cookbook authors use to tell the story of how they found their favorite recipe.

"When I was seventeen, I was attacked by an ax murderer, who cut off one of my arms. Using the severed arm as a club, I beat him senseless and ran to the nearest house for safety, but the house turned out to be owned by the granddaughter of an old-timey gangster and was haunted by the spirits of three Girl Scouts who refused to let me leave until I purchased all their remaining Thin Mints. After returning home and getting my arm reattached, I was subjected to an IRS audit, which made me so distraught that I drove to the ocean to throw myself off a pier. After tying cement blocks to both feet, I jumped, landing on the sandy seabed. It was there I discovered, lodged between two rocks, the most delightful recipe for this astonishing raspberry tart."

Instead of a recipe, though, the former clerks close the section off with an insistence that this is "a story that should be told in every American classroom, at every American kitchen table, in every anthology of American dreams realized.” I get that some people have endured more hardship than others, but the notion that legal dinosaur Thomas is among the most amazing of them all is the sort of claim that will get your lights punched out during Hagiographers Society bruncheons.

More to the point, as historian Kevin Kruse points out, the letter's focus on Thomas' history rather than his conduct is "a rehash of the Bush White House's plan for his confirmation, what they called 'the Pin Point strategy.'" That makes it sound suspiciously astroturf-y.

Not to worry, though: Just look at the names of the former clerks vouching for Thomas. Among the great American legal minds defending Thomas’ integrity are John Eastman, who is currently under indictment in Florida and listed as co-conspirator in the Jan. 6, 2021 attempted coup, as well as prominent war crime proponent John Yoo. If you can't trust Eastman and Yoo to tell you who's got integrity and who doesn't, there's just no pleasing you.

Anyway, after that we get a paragraph reminiscing about how Thomas is just a damn fine fellow to work with, a real pal. "His chambers become our chambers—a place fueled by unstoppable curiosity and unreturned library books, all to get every case just right," wax his old clerks, just casually dropping an anecdote of the oozing-with-integrity Supreme Court justice who can't even return his library books.

It's only at the tail end of the letter we finally get to some vague references to the rude questions the public keeps asking about Thomas and the rest of the court: "Lately, the stories have questioned his integrity and his ethics for the friends he keeps" is the closest the open letter gets to even hinting at the current scandals.

Well, yes. That's accurate, if impossibly opaque. Outside critics are indeed questioning his integrity because of the friends he keeps, most specifically "friends" who are 1) known conservative megadonors linked with Republicanism's long-term plans for packing the courts with hard-right loyalists like several of Thomas' junior peers, and 2) who started plying him with unusually expensive gifts that include lavish vacations and future Museums of Clarence Thomas only after he was presented with his long black robes.

So, fine, let's turn this around: Where were these Republican yacht owners back when Thomas was in Pin Point, among the Gullah-Geechee? Where were they when his home burned down, or when he was in segregated schools, or when he was doing hard farm work, or in the seminary, or working to gain entry to law school?

Oh. Right. They were nowhere. The billionaire class now giving the Supreme Court justice free yacht rides and renovating his mom's house didn't give a flying shit about Thomas through any of that. It was only when Thomas landed his ass in a position of ultimate American legal authority that boy howdy did he make so many new friends. Very, very rich friends with statuary gardens who would have had their security teams shoot Thomas in the head if he appeared on their property during any time of his life when he was not a Supreme Court justice.

This isn't like returning library books, you know. When you're on the Supreme Court, surrounded by supplicating clerks that have fought tooth and nail to be your own personal servants and who will absolutely return your library books for you if you told them to do it, you're supposed to at least pretend to follow the same ethical guidelines as every other last sodding person in government. Even if you, by a strictly technical reading of the laws, don't really have to.

That one vague sentence is the end of talking about the thing Thomas is actually being criticized for. Then we're back to gauzy references to his life story and how even coup plotters like Eastman and international war crime defenders like Yoo find Thomas just so damn "unimpeachable" that it brings tears to their eyes to think anyone would doubt him.

"A bust of his grandfather—himself raised by a grandmother born into slavery—watches over his office," goes one of the closing lines, a line that's both inspirational and that is a reminder that there are very few families in America who can afford to commission a freakin' bronze bust of a grandparent. But there's no actual content to the letter other than, “He's a great guy to work with,” say the people whose careers he helped start.

Just ask Trump Deputy Legal Adviser John Eisenberg, who moved to improperly classify the transcript of the Trump call to Ukrainian officials that would lead to Trump's first impeachment. Just ask Bush-era waterboarding defender Steven Bradbury, or Harlan Crow-linked 5th Circuit Judge James Ho, the judge who recently made news for a laboriously crackpotty dissenting opinion claiming that Catholic doctors had standing to block abortions they had nothing to do with because they suffer an aesthetic injury when women take mifepristone without their permission.

Yeah. Yeah, let's ask all of these people to vouch for the integrity of the guy getting yacht trips from billionaires, said Clarence Thomas' closest allies. That'll work out great.



Sunday, August 27, 2023

Trump, moments after surrender: 'Never surrender'

no image description available

Thursday evening, Donald Trump surrendered and was processed in his fourth set of criminal charges, and had his first-ever mugshot taken. As soon as that picture became public—Trump, head lowered, brow furrowed, glowering in front of the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office insignia—his campaign started fundraising off of it. “NEVER SURRENDER,” the $34 T-shirt reads below a copy of the mugshot.

Many have already rolled their eyes at the idea of running with “never surrender” to accompany visual evidence that you did, indeed, surrender to the authorities. (For the fourth time.) Trump’s team will doubtless argue that he didn’t really surrender, because he’ll fight in court until his options run out—and he hopes to use the 2024 election to get rid of all those pesky criminal charges. But … he literally surrendered himself to have that picture taken. He could have waited past the Friday deadline and been arrested. That would have been fundraising gold.

Trump’s glower in the mugshot is presumably an effort to pose for the T-shirt he knew his campaign would be marketing. He’s trying to look like a tough guy, and to his fans—the ones who believe that he has the height and weight of a professional athlete or an action movie star—it probably works. But to others, he looks scared, furtively hunched over. Or like a deranged movie villain. The idea of putting this picture on a shirt with a “never surrender” message is hilarious, but try not to point and laugh if you see one walking around in the wild. That person probably has a gun and a case of seething rage.

Let’s not forget that this wasn’t the first time Trump surrendered himself to face charges, it’s just the first time he was treated somewhat like a regular criminal defendant.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - APRIL 04: Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 04, 2023 in New York City. With the indictment, Trump becomes the first former U.S. president in history to be charged with a criminal offense. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

In April, Trump was arraigned in New York on felony charges of falsifying business records. As the police walked him from processing to the courtroom, they didn't even hold the door for him, the poor man.

MIAMI, FLORIDA - JUNE 13: Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. United States Federal Courthouse where he is scheduled to be arraigned on June 13, 2023 in Miami, Florida. Trump is scheduled to appear in federal court for his arraignment on charges including possession of national security documents after leaving office, obstruction, and making false statements. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Federal officials protected Trump from having pictures taken inside the courthouse when he surrendered for arraignment on felony charges including willful retention of national defense information and conspiracy to obstruct, because there are two systems of justice, and Trump is in the one where powerful people get treated with kid gloves. Trump tried to turn it into a circus with a visit to a restaurant filled with supporters following his arraignment. But make no mistake: He was a man showing up when and where he was told to face serious criminal charges.

Walt Nauta, aide to former US President and 2024 hopeful Donald Trump, hands an umbrella to Trump while arriving to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, on August 3, 2023, after Trump's arraignment in court. Trump pleaded not guilty Thursday, August 3, to historic charges that he led a criminal conspiracy seeking to defraud the American people by overturning the 2020 election. The 77-year-old Republican told magistrate judge Moxila Upadhyaya he was pleading "not guilty" to all four counts against him. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump was again protected from anything making him look like an ordinary criminal defendant when he was arraigned on federal criminal charges relating to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, but he did not want to be in federal court in Washington, D.C., that day. His presence there was a surrender.

However many T-shirts they print it on, the mugshot is just another confirmation that Donald Trump is a criminal defendant—in New York court, in federal court in two jurisdictions, and in Georgia court. And while he’s certainly not pleading guilty or making any kind of a deal, he does show up—and surrender—when he’s told.

Saturday, August 26, 2023

The Mug Shot Is a Warning

 The Mug Shot Is a Warning  Donald Trump’s booking photo. (photo: Fulton County Sheriff's Office/WIRED)

 

Megan Garber / The Atlantic 

Donald Trump’s booking photo was supposed to be an exercise in humility. He turned it into a threat.

The Greek myth of Medusa takes many forms, but the most common is this: Medusa was a woman who, having angered the goddess Athena, was made into a monster. Athena punished Medusa by turning her hair into a writhing tangle of serpents, and then by ensuring that anyone who looked into Medusa’s eyes would be turned to stone. In shaping their story of a gaze made violent, the creators of that early democracy were prescient about the man who has tried to destroy ours. Donald Trump’s head may be covered in spray rather than snakes, but he is a Medusa all the same, reconfigured for the age of mass media: Once you look at him, your fate is already sealed.

Last night, the 45th president became inmate number P01135809 of Georgia’s Fulton County Jail. Trump had his mug shot taken. It was shared with the public. We looked, of course. And he was prepared for our gaze: hair, makeup, angle, pose. In the portrait—it is a portrait, in the end—Trump glares directly into the camera. He seethes. He glowers. He turns in a studied performance. Photos like this are typically exercises in enforced humility. Trump’s is a display of ongoing power. He treats his mug shot as our menace.

The public imagined the picture long before we actually saw it, spending months before yesterday discussing and anticipating it. The preemptive attention was fueled by the fact that the first president to be indicted has also been indicted, at this point, four times. Each new legal proceeding has inspired more talk of the image: Would there be a mug shot? What would it look like? What would it feel like, to see it? The Fulton County sheriff promised that his office would do its part to provide the answers. “We’ll have a mug shot ready for you,” he said, like a paparazzo making his assurances to TMZ.

Once it became clear that the officer would make good on the promise, the speculation turned into giddiness. Last night, CNN led a countdown to Trump’s appearance at the Atlanta-area jail, its chyrons announcing when Trump’s plane had departed for Georgia, when it had landed at the airport, and when its passengers had been deposited into the vehicles that would take them to the facility. Trump was given a motorcade, which made its way through the city like a parade of lights and sirens. MSNBC shot it all from above, using the footage as B-roll while its commentators discussed the belated satisfactions of justice.

Even as Trump was held to account, then—even as he was, in theory, brought low—he was elevated. Last night, as so many times before, viewers’ gazes were directed Trump-ward. Medusa’s curse is also the curse of anyone in her path: Whatever the consequences, she compels us to look.

In the process, though, the event that should have been a show of accountability for Trump became an act of concession to him. The typical mug shot, usually taken after the subject’s unexpected arrest, bestows its power on the people on the other end of the camera. The alleged criminal, in it, tends to be disheveled, displaced, small. But Trump, trailed by the news cameras that confer his ubiquity, found a way to turn the moment’s historical meaning—a former president, mug-shotted—into one more opportunity for brand building. He might have smiled, as some of his alleged co-conspirators did, making light of his legal jeopardy. He might have assumed an expression of indignation, the better to channel one of his preferred personas: the innocent man, victimized.

But he did neither. Instead, he looks straight at the viewer, seemingly incandescent with rage, taking the advice he has reportedly given to others: Perform your anger. Turn it into your script. Make it into your threat. His menacing glare gives a similar stage direction to the people who follow him and do his bidding—both in spite of his disrespect for democratic processes and because of it.

Welcome to the age, then, of mug-shot rule. Trump, evidently pleased with his portrait, broadcast it on social media. (The platforms he used included X, formerly known as Twitter, which had once banned him for spreading violent lies to its users.) The image he shared is doctored, of course. Its background is stripped of the Fulton County seal, as if it were a mere headshot for an actor seeking the role of “autocrat.” The caption Trump appended to the shot suggests that, in this elemental legal document, questions of legality are beside the point. And it attempts to turn the language of the accusation against itself. (“election interference,” it says, baselessly suggesting that the indictment is its own attempt to interfere with the results of the 2020 election. “never surrender!” it adds, applying the same tactic to the photo that existed precisely because of Trump’s surrender.)

Mug shots have long been used to make political messages: See, for example, the booking images of John Lewis, of Jane Fonda, of Tom DeLay. Trump’s version, though, is less a piece of wordless rhetoric than it is a reminder to all who see it of the threat embodied by a vengeful Trump. One of the logistical purposes of the mug shot is to create a visual record of the arrested person should they be accused of committing another crime later on. Trump’s booking photo is, in that way, a symbolic gesture—we needed no further documentation of the most inescapable face in the world—but also something of an omen. This will never be over, it suggests. That face, with all its dangers, will only become more difficult to avoid. Trump, reportedly, orchestrated the logistics of last night’s surrender so that its melodramas would play out on prime time.

As the image dropped last night—just before 9 p.m.—the Fox host Jesse Watters asked his guest, Ned Ryun of the conservative political-training organization American Majority, to comment on its meaning. Ryun complied, discussing the photo as evidence of Trump’s political persecution by the administrative state and reducing the facts gathered in the indictment to mere political gamesmanship. The only appropriate response, he suggested, would be for Republicans to counter with their own indictments.

“You’re saying Republicans should promise mug shots of Democrats,” Watters said.

“One hundred percent,” came the reply.

Sean Hannity began his Fox show with the same idea, as he broadcast Trump’s portrait to his viewers. “You are looking at Joe Biden—oh, I’m sorry, Donald Trumps—official mug shot,” the host said. He paused for dramatic effect before clarifying the point: “Joe Biden will be soon enough anyway.”

For all of you mug shot aficionados: Remember when the Virgin Mary appeared in a tortilla?  The Donald doesn't have much use for virgins, but he is not about to be outdone - even by the mother of Jesus.  So he recently appeared in this piece of toast. Mug shot.  Piece of toast.  Take your pick.

Friday, August 25, 2023

Nobody won the first Republican debate; Fascism is always this pathetic, by the way.

 BEDFORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE - APRIL 26: Attendees look on as Republican presidential candidate and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks at a town hall event in New Hampshire on April 26, 2023 in Bedford, New Hampshire. Haley is the first, and thus far, the only female candidate to announce a 2024 run for president, a field that includes frontrunner and former President Donald Trump. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) Attendees look on as Republican presidential candidate and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks at a town hall event in New Hampshire on April 26, 2023 in Bedford, New Hampshire. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Hunter for Daily Kos

Daily Kos Staff

Daily Kos

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

If you were looking for the first Republican debate to be anything but the usual dismal fare, consider this a life lesson. The state of political debates has been trending toward all-night vapidity every year since the invention of television, and you can blame the network heads for that. 

You usually need only the first two minutes or so to judge how much of a car crash any particular evening will become. The more the opening song-and-dance looks like the introduction to a sports broadcast complete with a drone zipping around the auditorium, the worse the questions will be. The moment any commenter begins talking in metaphors like "tale of the tape" or "punching above his weight," you know that that talking head is going to be a big bag of uselessness.

We have real-time dial technology, you know. There's no good reason why the pundits brought in between debate segments can't be wired up so that a powerful electric shock is dispensed to anyone who thinks choosing national leaders is just another game of nerd football. If a running back drops the ball it might cost a game. If an incompetent blowhard is elected to the presidency, it could lead to the deaths of 1 million people and a new grassroots movement to bring back polio.

I'm very glad your graphics department put together another peppy song-and-dance to kick things off, every network who ever hosts these things, but how about next time we focus a little more on the polio part and a little less on pep?

There's a push by numerous pundits to declare the absent Donald Trump the "winner" of the debate by virtue of the sheer dullness of everyone else's performance, and I'm not seeing it. If anything, debate night proved that Republicanism can trundle along very well indeed without ever mentioning Trump again—which of course raises the question of why they haven't gotten on with that already. 

You want anti-immigrant hate? Republicans have that. You want know-nothing blowhardism? Check out the Elon Musk impersonator. The guy can thumb through a magazine on the toilet and come away thinking he's more of an expert on the things he read than anyone and everyone who does that shit for a living. Predictably, Musk was heaping praise on Ramaswamy after the debate.

If you're an insufferable godbotherer then you've got Mike Pence, who's willing to channel Jesus Christ Himself at the drop of a hat so Jesus can tell you all about how brilliant Pence is while Mother looks on with adoration. 

If you want a rough-and-tumble asshole, Chris Christie is your guy. Nikki Haley is for the fans of tactical evasiveness, and Ron DeSantis is the jackass who grew up thinking he would be America's Julius Caesar, only to learn that the general public already has a lot of people like that in their family and at their workplace and aren't particularly interested in adding in another.

What Trump brought to the party last time was racism, lies, and penis jokes, and it turns out the party can still do just fine without the penis jokes. If Trump were silenced tomorrow, either by a bad cheeseburger or an inability to abide by his bail conditions, the Republican base would soon forget he ever existed. Nobody was buzzing about Trump's supposed counterprogramming when it was all over. The man buffooned his sloppy way through a question about a new civil war on Channel Elon and still, nobody cared.

Oh, but Trump did contribute to the debate even in his absence. His name and his snarling, violent coup attempt brought us the debate's highlight moment: When the candidates were asked whether they would still support Trump as Republicanism's presidential nominee even if he were convicted for the anti-American conspiracy, all but one of these malignant fuckers took sheepish looks at one another and timidly raised their hands. Including, yes, the man who spent a week in an intensive care unit after Donald Trump gave him COVID, and a man who had to flee from the insurrectionist mob that Trump aimed squarely at him.

It again makes a joke of all those flags the candidates scatter around themselves during every public appearance. If it's a choice between insulting the segment of the Republican base that supports violent coup or supporting Trump's supposed right to commit any crimes he wants, then Donald can wipe his ass on every flag in the country and they'll salute him for doing it. Not even Pence thinks sending a violent, police-attacking mob after him is something that should disqualify a person from being granted the power to try it again.

Fascism is always this pathetic, by the way. The reason it hyper-focuses on supposed masculinity is because its adherents tend to be vapid, adrift, and powerless in their own lives. The militancy is a way to redeem themselves by substituting state-sanctioned violence for their own lack of success and courage. You've got a stage full of the most ambitious so-called patriots in the county. They think if they agree that attempting to overthrow the damn government ought to disqualify a person from the presidency, it would be much too risky a proposition to do so publicly.

So no, none of the hand-raisers will "stand up to" Vladimir Putin, or to Chinese human rights abuses, or take a hard line on dismembering journalists. They can't even stomach turning against a sneering ex-reality television star who's spent his entire life believing that he, personally, can break whatever laws he wants. They would be Oval Office chair-warmers signing their name to whatever their donors' lobbyists set down on their desk.

Mostly the debate continued to show that the problem with Republicanism is that not even Republicans believe in Republicanism. The candidates gave their best lying jabs trying to stoke anti-abortion sentiment, and even the crowd of candidate-provided hyper-partisans mustered up only token applause. It is a small, small set of Americans who have invested themselves in banning abortion, and the party still does not realize that not even their own base wants the sort of theocracy Republican political figures have promised them. 

All the talk of patriotism and freedom and rule of law was nothing but a hollow joke, dismantling itself immediately when the question turned to what to do about the phalanx of Republicans now being booked on felony conspiracy charges.

The question on climate change and necessary response landed with a wet thud and the usual evasions. Fox tried to stoke the usual Fox hatred of immigrants with a question aimed mostly at giving DeSantis another opportunity to say he'd just call them drug dealers and start shooting them all, but the hand-picked audience did not want blood as much as Fox seems to have presumed they did. 

The question of defending democracy in Europe led to Ramaswamy mouthing off with another round of techbro self-praise, which appears to be the precise moment everyone else on the stage decided that they would turn their just-forged hatred of this pompous little twit into a new lifelong passion. 

Fox dutifully performed the Ask a Really Stupid Question to Cap Off the Night task; this time it was about UFOs and was stupid enough that moderators, candidates, and the audience all cringed even as the question came out.

That was a good capper because it emphasized that there just isn't anything else in America left to ask about. Might as well kill off the last few minutes with some fluff.

Again: nihilism. It was all just another evening of dull nihilism, one with a flashy opening and a lot of yelling and no real principles you could plant your flag in. 

This is a party that has lost its way, a set of performances even the most partisan of crowds appear to be tiring of. There should be a lesson there, but there's nobody left in the party who seems capable of finding it.

Ah, memories.  But wait!  Pence has not yet gone to meet his lord.  Pence is ALIVE!!!

Thursday, August 24, 2023

Prigozhin Is Dead, What Happens Now?

Yevgeny Prigozhin serving dinner to Vladimir Putin in 2011. (photo: Pool photo by Misha Japaridze)

Yevgeny Prigozhin serving dinner to Vladimir Putin in 2011. (photo: Pool photo by Misha Japaridze)

 
 

Marc Ash / Reader Supported News 

ALSO SEE: Russian Mercenary Yevgeny Prigozhin's Plane Appeared Fine on Radar Until Last 30 Seconds

Staying glued to chatter in the NATO military analysis community, a few quick points:

Prigozhin is almost certainly dead.

Putin is almost certainly culpable.

The big question is, what happens next?

Ben Hodges former Commanding General USArmyEurope recently wondered out loud why team Biden refuses to use the word “win” when referring to Ukraine’s objectives in the war with Russia. It’s a big source of frustration for Hodges and many of his contemporaries.

One reason Hodges cited as a possible reason why team Biden would not state winning as an objective in the conflict was a potential concern over what might occur in the aftermath of a collapse of the Putin regime. Who would control Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal?

Indeed veteran military analysts see the security situation in Russia in wake of Prigozhin’s apparent murder as anything but settled and stable. Many point to the possibility of a Stalinesque purge sweeping up and eliminating all who are deemed to oppose Putin.

But such a purge is not seen as necessarily likely to foment stability. In fact the opposite is quite possible. There are many in Russia who could be threatened by such a purge. Some of those people could be fairly powerful and might feel threatened by the specter of such events. One group that could be effected would be Prigozhin’s Wagner fighters. If they feel targeted they might be inclined to take countermeasures.

In Ukraine, while the death of Prigozhin isn’t seen as likely to have a direct effect on the fighting it could easily further erode Russian troop morale. Chuck Pfarrer former SEAL Team Six Squadron Leader and Twitter military blogger yesterday noted that the biggest single problem for Russian troops in Ukraine is morale, and this isn’t likely to help it any.

Prigozhin is gone but Putin’s problems appear only to be getting worse.

 Shades of Stalin: Putin gets his man.

Wednesday, August 23, 2023

Donald Trump is absolutely definitely not thinking about fleeing to Moscow to live with ‘Vladimir’


By Hunter for Daily Kos

Daily Kos Staff

Daily Kos

at 12:34:37p MDT

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

On Monday, former President Donald Trump posted the following message to Truth Social:

The failed District Attorney of Fulton County (Atlanta), Fani Willis, insisted on a $200,000 Bond from me. I assume, therefore, that she thought I was a "flight" risk — I'd fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir, never to be seen or heard from again. Would I be able to take my very "understated" airplane with the gold TRUMP affixed for all to see. Probably not, I'd be much better off flying commercial — I'm sure nobody would recognize me!

Official statement of Donald Trump for president, 2024:

The Fulton County district attorney is again abusing the powers of her office in order to make false accusations against the greatest president in history. It is outrageous to consider Donald Trump a flight risk; he cannot even jump very high. And while it may have been standard procedure for the bond in this case to be set according to predetermined per-felony standards, asking President Trump to pay $200,000 to remain out of jail is, given the president's well-known preference to not part with his money, a transparent ploy to force the president into a jail cell.

As members of the Donald Trump campaign, we would like to emphasize that to our knowledge, President Trump does not daydream about living in a gold-domed suite with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has never dreamed of President Putin, whom the president calls Vladimir, galloping towards him shirtless on a white horse, through fields of white and golden flowers, ready to carry Donald off to a new life in a Moscow suite. The president does not let his mind wander during campaign events, wondering where he and Vladimir would spend their time on cold Moscow nights, or what it might be like to pick out draperies and furniture for an elaborate gold-domed apartment built to Vladimir and Donald's precise specifications.

While news reports suggest that a certain document detailing United States military attack plans against Iran was once in the president's New Jersey resort and is yet to be recovered, that document is absolutely not still in President Trump's possession. President Trump has never contemplated how valuable that document would be to Vladimir, who if given that document could reveal America's military strategies to Iran in exchange for Iranian drones and munitions that his country desperately needs in order to not be badly stomped by Ukrainian defenders now wrecking Vladimir's military forces. The president is absolutely not still hiding that document specifically as a bargaining chip with Vladimir should the day come when the president wishes to flee to a country that will resist American demands for his return.

President Trump remains devoted to his spouse Melania (whereabouts unknown) and spends very little time wondering if his daughter would move to Moscow with him, along with her strange but obedient husband. He never considers whether Eric and Donald Jr. would make for passable serving staff and food tasters if all other candidates fell through. He does not imagine what dinner small talk with Vladimir might be like after the Russian leader returns weary from a long day of governing, or Vladimir's laugh as the two exchange ideas for what to do to Russian journalists who have irritated them.

Above all, it is outrageous to believe that President Trump would spend even a moment considering how he would flee the country if he wanted to. The president would never weigh taking his own private intercontinental jet, brazenly daring law enforcement to attempt to stop him from leaving, against the odds of being able to successfully disguise himself and sneak himself onto a commercial flight. This is not something the president would ever ponder, no matter how offended he was by the notion of having to pay a $200,000 bond. Anyone who suggests that he has thought of such things is Fake News.

The Trump campaign calls on the failed district attorney of Fulton County to reverse her demand that President Trump pay a $200,000 bond, thereby giving the president no concrete reason to want to flee the country, which he has never thought about doing, to live a new life with Russian strongman Vladimir, which he has never dreamed of. President Trump will win the 2024 presidential election and will visit Vladimir as often as possible, but only for official presidential reasons. There will be nothing untoward about it, and the president will not cry during those meetings or afterwards.

no image description available  US President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin attend a joint press conference after a meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP) (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

GOP base really are deplorables: New Trump poll proves Obama and Clinton were right

And these guys got their feelings hurt because they're called deplorables? 

Story by Amanda Marcotte

REPUBLISHED BY:

"Hurt dogs sure do holler." That was the saying that came to mind in 2008 when then-candidate for president Barack Obama drew outrage from Republicans because he described their voters as "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." The phrase came to mind again in 2016, when Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton used the memorable phrase "basket of deplorables" to describe supporters of Donald Trump. Since a cardinal rule of politics is "insult your opponent, but never their voters," the mainstream media picked up and amplified the umbrage-taking from Republicans.

What wasn't discussed very much in all this media coverage: The truth value of either Clinton's or Obama's comments. And what a shame, because both of them were right.

New polling out this week from CBS News proves, as many feared, Trump's fourth set of indictments — he now faces 91 felony charges across four jurisdictions — has only caused the GOP to rally around their seething orange leader. (And let's not forget this comes after a jury recently found him responsible for sexual assault.) Trump has surged to 62% support in the Republican presidential primary poll, and 73% of those backing Trump say it's because, not despite, of his massive criminal exposure. 

And, in a poll finding that really is astonishing, Trump voters claimed they trust the notorious fraudster more than anyone. A whopping 71% of Trump voters claim "what he says is true." Only 63% of them say that about family and friends, 56% about conservative media figures and 42% about religious leaders. 

The word that comes to mind is "cult." 

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

"Cult leaders must be dynamic, charismatic, and convincing because their goal is to control their members to acquire money or power-related advantages," said Joe Scarborough on MSNBC in response to the poll Monday.

Political scientist Brian Klaas tweeted, "you need to understand what an authoritarian cult of personality is, because that's what it has become."

Even Trump's primary GOP opponent, Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis, got involved, telling an interviewer, "A movement can't be about the personality of one individual," and that it's not a "durable movement" if it's just "listless vessels."

MAGA is a cult, but it's a mistake to view Trump followers like DeSantis does, as "listless vessels" for Trump. Take this poll with a strong grain of salt, as it's unlikely that so many people are so delusional as to truly see an honest broker in the chronic liar and criminal that is Trump. Instead, the poll is a reminder that Trump backers are both deplorable and bitter clingers. 

When a MAGA-American picks up the phone and hears a pollster from the hated "liberal media" ask them questions about Trump's indictments and general trustworthiness, they aren't answering the question asked. What they're really hearing, over and over: "Are you ready to admit that you were wrong and liberals were right all along about Trump?" And the answer is a big, fat "hell no," because the first rule of MAGA is to never, ever, under any circumstances, admit that liberals might be right about something.

That poll doesn't measure a sincere belief in Trump's trustworthiness. It measures people who, consumed with bitterness towards the more liberal majority, are clinging to Trump even harder in a pathetic bid to save face. Which, as anyone who has studied cults can tell you, is a surprisingly strong factor in why people squelch their doubts to stay in the cult. They were warned so many times that this was a mistake that they stick around, hoping to prove the skeptics wrong. 

The rally-round-Trump effect is fundamentally an eff-you-liberals response. This is demonstrated by the way this sentiment surges around every embarrassing reminder that the man is a criminal, and an idiotic one at that. There's a pattern emerging to the MAGA reaction to Trump indictments. 

The first swell of emotions is a tantrum, full of "how dare you" screaming, as they metaphorically (or literally in some cases) follow their leader's ketchup-throwing ways. Once that crybaby reaction fades, however, you can see concerns about betting it all on a profligate criminal start to seep in. 

As a Washington Post analysis of the polls before the Georgia indictments show, the overall trend shows Republicans more willing than ever to admit Trump is a bad person and a criminal. But that willingness dries up temporarily in the face of new indictments, as their ascendent emotion is defensiveness. Plus, when pollsters word questions more carefully to avoid provoking Republican spite, Trump's indictment bump disappears. 

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

It's unsurprising that the conniption fit is especially strong after the RICO charges against Trump and 18 co-conspirators were announced in Atlanta because the face of these indictments is Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. A Black woman having the power to charge Trump triggers both the racism and the sexism that fuels the Trumpist movement. 

When the prosecutor reading charges is Jack Smith, a stern-looking white man from the Justice Department, it's a lot harder for Republicans to tap that bitter clinger energy that makes them so deplorable. But now they're in high dudgeon because they refuse to accept a world where a Black woman has the right to make accusations against a rich white man. 

It would be funny if these folks weren't a massive threat, and not just to democracy. As Obama said, they bitterly cling to their guns. Violence is the inevitable result of all this rage. They may not be rioting at the courthouse, but, as I wrote in March, the MAGA fury is being redirected at women, LGBTQ people, and racial minorities, the people that MAGA believes they shouldn't have to share power within a democratic system. 

There was yet another reminder this weekend of how bad things have gotten when a California store owner named Lauri Ann Carleton was murdered by a 27-year-old man. The reason the 66-year-old mother of nine was shot in cold blood? Because, police say, she flew the LGBTQ pride flag outside her clothing store, Mag.Pi.

The irony of all this is, if you read both Obama and Clinton's comments in context, they were actually far more charitable than the media coverage would lead one to believe. Obama was lamenting that "the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them" in Pennsylvania and the rural Midwest. That, he said, is why it's "not surprising then they get bitter" and are attracted to hateful rhetoric "as a way to explain their frustration." 

Similarly, Clinton was sympathetic, saying that while half of Trump's supporters are just ugly people, others "feel that the government has let them down" and are "desperate for change."

"Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well," she said of people who, in turn, were chanting about her: "Lock her up!" 

For the sake of brevity and sanity, I'll take a pass at relitigating ye ol' "economic anxiety" debates here. (If you're interested in digging in, though, I recommend Zack Beauchamp's recent analysis at Vox.) But whatever the cause, we can see the result in the polling: Millions of people whose hackles are raised far too high for them to even start to calm down and ask themselves if Trump is really the hill to die on. 

Trump is barely literate, but, likely due to his own narcissism, he's especially adept at manipulating people's ego defense mechanisms. He's managed to get his followers to believe that, if they admit he sucks, it's as good as saying they also suck. That's hard for anyone to do, but especially people who have spent their whole lives being told they're the only "real" Americans. 

The irony here is that this stubborn unwillingness to face the truth about Trump is a big factor in the MAGA deplorability. Having the humility and grace to let liberals be right about Trump would crack open the door to the possibility there are other things liberals are right about, from the facts of history to vaccines to climate change. 

Republican voters aren't really the dead-eyed zombies DeSantis invoked. But it may be something worse: Millions of grown adults slamming their hands over their ears and singing loudly, "nah nah I can't hear you."

Mighty Shaman Deplorable number one!

Monday, August 21, 2023

The Mouse Strikes Back

 

The Mouse Strikes Back

DeSantis_Mickey-Mouse_Chases.jpg
Do not underestimate the power of the Mouse side.
 
By Polecat
Community
Daily Kos
 
REPUBLISHED BY:
Blue Country Gazette Blog
Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Disney v DeSantis

In a new court filing Friday, Disney said it wants damages over how the governor has handled rescinding Disney's right to operate as its entity under the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

The Friday document is the latest in the fight between Florida and Disney, stemming from a lawsuit in which Florida has said RCID's plan to give Disney autonomous power should be thrown out.

This gets complicated since the Federal Judge overseeing the case, Allen Winsor, is a Trump-appointee and was passed through the US Senate via Mitch McConnell’s Nuclear Option, killing the filibuster for Gorsuch after preventing Obama from naming a Supreme Court Justice for a year following Scalia’s death.  (And yes, Manchin voted for him.)

Judge Winsor, a member of the Federalist Society — go figure, also dismissed a lawsuit back in February of this year that challenged the “Don’t Say Gay” bill denying that the plaintiffs suffered any injury from the law.

He had formerly been Florida’s Solicitor General from 2013-16 and opposed gay marriage in 2014.  Thus it is clear that he is hardly non-partisan in this dispute between DeSantis and Disney.

Ironically, this week, DeSantis’ Anti-Woke/Anti-Gay/Anti-Life? Presidential campaign has been suffering from many issues, including his lack of charisma, so finally he wants to extricate himself from it.  (IMHO it’s because he’s going to lose badly.)

So…..

DeSantis wants to move on

In a move right from the playbook of little guys who taunt jacked up dudes a bar, Politico reports that Ron DeSantis has said that he’s ready to “move on” from his lawsuit with Disney... but, buddy, that’s not up to you any more, especially not in a legal battle you started.

Disney has sued various elected officials, including DeSantis, alleging that he has used his position as Florida’s governor to violate Disney’s first amendment rights via government retaliation. This all comes from the fact that Disney said they would be politically opposed to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, more officially called the “Parental Right in Education Bill,” which sure sounds nice until you realize that it will harm queer children who might not be in a household that is safe for them to exist.

The irony is that mere hours after DeSantis wants to pretend it all didn’t happen (although he didn’t actually undo anything — just wants Ukraine to accept the new boundaries Disney to walk away without going to court), Disney comes back asking for damages:

Disney asserts Breach of Contract

Disney’s filing states that it has “fully complied with any and all obligations under the Contracts” and that DeSantis’ replacement Ready Creek Development board has “repudiated its duty” and commitments under that contract. 

From the filing:

"The District has a duty under the terms of the Contracts to do such further acts and assurances as shall be reasonably requested by Disney to carry out the intent of the Contracts and give effect thereto and the District has refused to perform its obligations under the Contracts and has instead breached the Contracts by, among other things, declaring them void ab initio...”

Instead they assert that DeSantis’ ad hoc board has caused and will continue to cause “consequential damages” to Disney.  Naturally, Disney wants the court (and there are a lot of questions as to how Judge Winsor is going to dodge on this one) to comply with existing contracts.

The Mouse’s attorneys seem to be at least as competent as “the Nazgul” were for IBM back for 13 years during the Sherman anti-trust suit and 1990’s against SCO.  “They supposedly never sleep, are utterly ruthless, and are completely loyal servants to their master.”  

Next question is how much this is going to cost Florida in terms of money, and DeSantis in terms of political support.  

In the co-opted words of Thanos, I want it to cost him everything.

It's too bad DeSantis is as dumb as Trump.  He was bound to falter.

Sunday, August 20, 2023

OPINION: Entire branch of government sinking into irredeemable Trump-fueled muck of corruption

"What goes around comes around" - Brett "Beerbong" Kavanaugh

Opinion by Thom Hartmann
08/20/2023
 
REPUBLISHED BY:

So now, as expected after decades of taking big bucks for her right-wing work on behalf of America's oligarchs, we learn that the wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Ginny Thomas, was in Trump's January 6th "rally" up to her eyeballs.

Let's just say it right out loud: the US Supreme Court is corrupt. And Americans know it.

No other federal court in the nation would allow a defendant in a case before them to fly a judge on a private Gulfstream luxury jet to a luxury hunting retreat in Louisiana and then, a week later, watch as that judge rules in that defendant's favor.

But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did exactly that when Dick Cheney was sued for allegedly lying about his secret "energy group" that was planning the seizure and sale of Iraq's oil fields as he and Bush lied us into the war that opened those oil fields up to exploitation.

No other federal court would allow a judge to give a speech before a group that was funding a case before them and then rule in favor of that group's openly stated goal, but that's exactly what Neal Gorsuch did when he addressed the Fund for American Studies, itself funded by the Bradley Foundation that was helping fund the Janus v AFSCME case that gutted union protections for government workers.

No other federal court would allow a judge to swear revenge against a particular nonprofit corporation (in this case the Democratic Party), saying in his confirmation hearings that, "What goes around comes around," and then rule in cases directly affecting that organization (like voting rights) but Brett "Beerbong" Kavanaugh did just that.

No other federal court would allow a judge to rule on a case where he owned a half-million dollars worth of stock in the company presenting amicus arguments before the court—it's illegal in many states—but John Roberts did just that in the ABC v Aereo case. As did Roberts, Bryer and Alito in 25 of 37 other cases where they owned stock, according to the good-government group Fix The Court.

No other federal court would allow a judge's wife to openly interact with and advocate for the interests of dozens of litigants before the court over decades, and take nearly a million dollars from a group regularly helping bring cases before his court but Clarence Thomas and his wife have done both, as recently revealed in a shocking New York Times profile.

And now the Court is gutting the EPA—the agency Justice Gorsuch's mother infamously ran into the ground before resigning in disgrace during the Reagan administration—using Gorsuch's own BS "textualist" rationale to go after the agency today.

In addition, these Republican appointees are openly shooting down Democratic efforts to fight gerrymandered maps while supporting GOP efforts to impose them on states.

Is there no way, to paraphrase Shakespeare, to rid ourselves of this Court's corrupt behavior? Turns out, Congress has that power—although they haven't used it since Ulysses Grant was president and reorganized the Court.

 Is there no way, to paraphrase Shakespeare, to rid ourselves of this Court's corrupt behavior? Turns out, Congress has that power—although they haven't used it since Ulysses Grant was president and reorganized the Court.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal court system, and gives to Congress itself the power to create the lower federal courts. It also says that Supreme Court judges may only serve on the court if they behave themselves:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour….

It also requires Congress to regulate the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2 says:

[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

 The issue of the Supreme Court needing regulation from the "first among equals" legislative branch (Congress), as specified by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution, has been with us for 101 years.

Most people remember William Howard Taft as the one-term progressive Republican president who followed Teddy Roosevelt into the White House in 1909 and was beaten for re-election by Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

But after his retirement from the presidency, Taft became the first former president to serve as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court in 1921. He was our 27th president and 10th Chief Justice.

In 1921, it came to the attention of the nation and to Chief Justice Taft that US District Judge Kenesaw Landis was taking five times his annual salary as a judge from what was then called "Organized Baseball"—five years after ruling in their favor.

The scandal provoked Congress to pass, in 1922, a law creating a body that would provide advice and oversight to the federal judiciary. It came to be known as the Judicial Conference of the United States.

The scandal also prompted Chief Justice Taft to accept the unpaid chairmanship of The American Bar Association's (ABA) newly formed commission to write ethics rules for federal judges.

Taft's commission wrote, in 1923, the first Canons of Judicial Ethics, which included 34 categories of judicial conflicts and misbehavior that would either disqualify a judge or require their recusal from cases before them. They included conflicts of interest, personal financial investments, and even behavior in the courtroom itself.

Taft, in delivering the Canons, made it clear they should apply to all federal courts, including his own Supreme Court. Within a decade, every state in the union had adopted the Canons for their own courts.

The Canons, however, had no enforcement mechanism, particularly when it came to the Supreme Court. After all, who would judge the highest court in the land? That opened the door for literally a century of the Supreme Court ignoring Taft's work.

The issue came to the fore again in 1969 when Republicans went nuts when it was revealed that Justice Abe Fortas—a very liberal (Republicans called him a communist) LBJ appointee—had taken $15,000 for a summer teaching post, was receiving time-delayed payments from a law former client, and, worse of all, was secretly advising President Johnson.

Under massive incoming fire from Republicans and their friendly media, Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court on May 14, 1969. Over the next three years, the ABA put together a new commission to update Taft's original Canon on judicial ethics.

That commission released their new Code of Judicial Conduct in 1972, and it was adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, in 1973. The Supreme Court, however, chose to ignore it, arguing that they were above such considerations.

By that time the Supreme Court had made itself, as I lay out in detail in The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America, the most powerful of the three branches of government, asserting the power to second-guess both Congress and the President.

Ironically, in his 2011 annual report about the state of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts made lengthy and effusive reference to former Chief Justice Taft and his work with the ABA's commission on judicial ethics. His report, however, conveniently omitted the fact that Taft had loudly and publicly asserted it should apply to the Supreme Court.

Instead, Roberts noted rhetorically, "Some observers have recently questioned whether the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct for United States Judges should apply to the Supreme Court."

I'll spare you extended quotes from Roberts' report, which you can read here, but the bottom line is that in his opinion the Court can tell the 1923 ethics recommendations, and the subsequent ones from 1973, to go screw themselves. The Supreme Court, in his mind, is answerable to nobody but itself.

As Sam Alito said, "I'm not aware of problems on the Supreme Court itself…we would not sit back. We would take action that's appropriate."

Back when Roberts was a young lawyer working for Reagan and trying to come up with a way to overturn Brown v Board and Roe v Wade, he was fond of quoting Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

This gave Congress the power, Roberts wrote, to simply overturn both Brown and Roe by passing a law creating an "exception" that the Supreme Court couldn't rule on issues of race or abortion (his lengthy writings for Reagan are in my book on the Court).

But now that he, himself, is in charge of the Court there's nary a peep from Roberts—in his 2011 Report or anywhere else—about Congress' power to regulate the Court.

In recent years multiple laws have been proposed to pick up the slack Roberts left to his fellow justices. Louise Slaughter proposed legislation in the house in 2015 that would require the Court itself to come up with its own code of ethics.

It went nowhere, and, besides, it would violate the basic premise of law dating back to Publius Syrus in 50 BC, cited by John Locke in the 17th century, and finally quoted by Madison in Federalist 10 that "no man shall be the judge in his own case."

President Biden's commission on the Courts recently recommended that the Supreme Court adopt an "advisory" code of behavior, but Roberts didn't even bother to comment.

Most recently, Senator Chris Murphy introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act that would seek to regulate the Court's out-of-control politicking and conflicts of interest. Predictably, it was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

Public outrage is building: the Court's approval rating is now around 40 percent, a historic low. Congress needs to act, requiring them to adopt and conform to the federal code of judicial ethics at the very least, and expand the Court at best, before an entire branch of government sinks into an irredeemable partisan muck of corruption.

Clarence "Coke Can" Thomas and the "little" lady up to some skulduggery.