Skip to content

Just following orders

Tuesday, September 19, 2023

I suppose it was only a matter of time until one of Trump’s co-criminals trotted out the “just following orders” defense that didn’t quite work for the Nazis at Nuremberg:

… former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark is now claiming in Fulton County court that he only took the actions he did because Donald Trump instructed him to in his role as then-President.

I wonder if Clark’s lawyers will cite to Richard Nixon’s pronouncement that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal”.

The thing is, he’s got at least an even chance of prevailing on this argument if he can get it to the Supreme Court. Of course the court will have to come up with a way to change the precedent a bit, to “when a Republican president does it, that means it’s not illegal”, because after all, we have to preserve the possibility that we can put Joe Biden in jail for crimes we still can’t define.

It is a bit ironic that Jeff Clark is the first, to my knowledge anyway, to plead the “just following orders” defense, inasmuch as from everything that we’ve heard about the way these crimes went down, he pretty much pushed his way forward and begged for the chance to follow those orders after even Bill Barr refused to do so.

Filed in Trump Crimes | | Comments (1)

Impeach him!

Wednesday, September 6, 2023

From what I’ve been reading, I understand that poor Kevin McCarthy is in a quandry. You might say he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place. He knows that holding the economy hostage at the behest of the crazies in his caucus is a losing proposition for the Republican Party. He also knows that bowing to their demands that he impeach Biden and inflict economic pain on millions of people in order to get their votes is also a losing proposition. But, alas, he also knows that he gave them the tools to boot him out as speaker when he was elected in the first place, so what’s the poor idiot to do?

There are probably more vulnerable Republican “moderates” from districts that Biden won in 2020 than there are members of the crazy caucus, but they can’t bring themselves to make common cause with the Democrats, for they too are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they do the responsible thing they may win some votes from swing voters, but they will lose more of the whackjob vote than they gain of the sane vote. So they must sit back and do what they’re told, in the hopes that no one will notice that they allowed the economy to be held hostage.

If the past is any guide, they could probably get away with that. But if the past is any guide, they can’t get away with what will be expected of them when it comes to impeachment. The pressure will be on them from the MAGAs and the crazy caucus to vote to impeach. If they refuse to do that, they lose the support of the MAGAs in their district, who will either simply not vote or will vote for a third party. If they do vote to impeach, which most if not all of them will do if it does come to a vote, they will alienate a huge plurality of those legendary swing voters. When Clinton was impeached it was the Republicans that paid at the polls, and they at least had a facially somewhat existent case. This time they will have nothing, and that fact will be known to everyone who doesn’t watch Fox, and even to some who do!

So I say, Kevin, proceed with the impeachment. That way you will preserve your speakership until January of 2025, at which time you will be consigned by all concerned to the dustbin of history, a place you surely belong.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

A quick glance at my crystal ball

Wednesday, September 6, 2023

I received the latest issue of Church & State today. It’s a publication of Americans United for the Separation of Church & State, an organization which should not even have to exist, but alas, it is sorely needed.

The lead article is about a challenge that Americans United, along with other usual suspects like the ACLU, is bringing against the State of Oklahoma for chartering a religious public school.

There may have been another era in our history when such a challenge was likely to be unsuccessful, but I tend to doubt it. In point of fact, there’s never been a time, at least not in my lifetime, when the idea of funding a religious school would be seriously advocated by any politician, so the case was unlikely to arise. I could be wrong about that latter point, but I’ve no doubt that if some legislature, likely in the South, ever tried such a thing it would have been struck down by the courts.

Today is a different story. My guess is that the supreme court (it just doesn’t deserve capital letters) will uphold the law, using a specious argument, of course, but as they’ve demonstrated, speciousness is perfectly fine when they engage in it. The challenge will come when they have to find a rationale for allowing legislatures to pick and choose among the religions they choose to establish. Once the court upholds the Oklahoma law there’s no doubt that religions other than right wing professed Christians (professed, since they don’t agree with Christ on just about anything) will step forward and demand some of that money. How will the court justify withholding funding from Muslims, Jews, Rastafarians, Satanists, and Pastafarians, many of whom will surely put their hands out either because they actually want the money or wish to expose the hypocrisy.

But have no fear, the Supreme Court will find a way. The only constitutional amendment that they can’t find a way around is the Second, though even in that case they must ignore the introductory clause.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Book review

Monday, August 28, 2023

A few weeks ago one of my few (only?) remaining readers sent me an email after reading this post, in which I pointed out that yet another example of Never-Trumpers ignoring history, and pretending that the decline of the Republican Party began only when Trump descended that escalator.

He suggested I read Profiles in Ignorance, by Andy Borowitz. If you’re familiar with Borowitz’s work, you know that his satire is all made up, but usually rings true. In the book, however, everything he relates is true, though if you’d predicted some of the stuff he relates 40 years ago you’d have been referred to a psychiatrist.

He documents the process through which the Republican Party embraced stupidity and mendacity as a winning political strategy. He posits three steps: Ridicule, Acceptance, and Celebration.

His prime example in the Ridicule stage is Dan Quayle, whose gross stupidity and cluelessness he documents. Quayle was relentlessly criticized, not so much for his ignorance, which was no greater than the ignorance displayed by Ronald Reagan, but for his inability to put a gloss on it so that it would be ignored by the media, as was Reagan’s ignorance, which Borowitz also documents.

The prime example of the Acceptance stage is George W. Bush, whose ignorance is also fully documented in the book. Bush simply scorned the entire idea that he should know anything, and was totally upfront about the fact that he knew almost nothing about anything. He also, of course, made stuff up when convenient.

The Celebration stage, in which politicians are loud and proud about their ignorance, begins with Sarah Palin, reaches its apex with Trump, and continues with the likes of Boebert, Greene, Gaetz, Gohmert, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, et. al. In some cases, such as Hawley, they are probably not actually ignorant, they just pretend to be because it now works perfectly to advance their political careers.

As I said, some of the things these people have said or done are truly unbelievable in their utter stupidity. The astounding thing is that as you read the book, you realize you’re not reading about anything you hadn’t heard before, but all of them have been thrown down the memory hole in one way or another, often by a media that really does have different rules for Republicans than Democrats. (I should add here that Borowitz explains that all of his examples are Republicans because there are no Democrats that compare with them.)

The book should be required reading for anyone who repeats the lie peddled by the likes of David Brooks that the decline of the Republican Party started the day that Trump descended that escalator. Borowitz, like Driftglass before him, convincingly demonstrates that he was the natural outgrowth of a movement within the party that began more than forty years ago.

I highly recommend it for those who have been fully aware that that decline started more than forty years ago. It’s always a good idea to refresh your recollection of the multiple examples of Republican ignorance and/or mendacity that have vanished from our collective consciousness.

Filed in Book reports, Republicans | | Comments (0)

New Front runner (if you disregard Trump)

Friday, August 25, 2023

Vivek Ramaswamy

He’s the guy who will get the Republican nomination if Trump doesn’t.

Like just about everyone else in America I never heard of the guy until recently, and up until today I simply classified him as a Republican rich guy with a big ego, but after Wednesday’s debate, and reading this article at Hullabaloo, I’m willing to bet he’ll be the guy we have to beat in 2024 to preserve the Republican, again, assuming Trump has been removed from the equation.

He’s a grifter like Trump, but based on the linked article, one would have to conclude that he’s a lot smarter than Trump, meaning he’d be even more dangerous if he wins the presidency. He’s good at appealing to the bigotry and ignorance of the Trump voters, and he obviously has no scruples, an absolute requirement for Republicans these days. I’m not saying any of the others have scruples, though Christie and Hutchinson are faking it somewhat.

So look for Ramaswamy to start to overtake DeSantis in the polls, followed shortly thereafter by Trump attacks on Ramaswamy. That’s when you’ll know if this prediction has come true.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Republicans | | Comments (0)

A hypothesis

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

Like many rational types, I was a tad surprised at a recent poll that showed that Trump voters are more likely to believe something he says rather than a contrary assertion by a family member, conservative “pundit” (gasp!, but then are they really pundits?) or their religious leaders. But I got over the tad quickly. Let me explain.

Before I go on, let me make clear that I have absolutely no empirical data or substantive proof for what I am about to assert. Let’s call it a hypothesis. You see? When we liberals assert stuff without proof we’re out front about it.

Once again, before I go on, bear in mind that these folks might have good reason not to believe anything their family members, preferred media figures, or grifter religious leaders have to say, but that’s totally peripheral to my main point.

So, here’s my hypothesis. Most, if not all, of the folks who said they believe everything the genius has to say were lying!

Now, right off the bat, that’s not really so hard to believe, considering we’re talking about Trump voters. After all, if you insist on being lied to by your politicians, your media figures, and your religious leaders, you probably aren’t too reluctant to lie yourself.

But, let me go on. I have been polled occasionally, and I consciously tailor my answers to push the poll results in the direction I want, even if I have to, let us say, skew the truth a little bit. If, for instance, I’m asked about the performance of a Democratic politician about whom I’m lukewarm, I’m still likely to give them an A+. I would submit that Trump voters are likely to do this in spades, because the are still loyal to the guy they know is an habitual liar (but he tells lies they like to hear!), and, if the poll shows lots of them agree, then the libs have been owned yet again!

As a further argument in support of my hypothesis, again without hard data to support it, but you know it’s true, these same Republican voters will tell a pollster they believe the election was stolen when they know very well it’s not true. But what’s truth got to do with it anyway?

So, again, I couldn’t prove this in a court of law, but no one could prove the contrary.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars, Right Wing Idiots | | Comments (0)

I don’t think it works that way (or at least it didn’t use to)

Friday, August 18, 2023

I practiced law for many years, but as I’ve confessed countless times, I know very little about the areas of the law that usually crop up in the news. Never handled a RICO case, for instance. But here’s a case in Nashville that I do know something about:

People already struggling to make ends meet are being hit with a double whammy: Their former apartment manager is accused of stealing their rent payments.

Now, their former property manager, Casey Oiler, is under investigation. Oiler is accused of taking those payments, and it isn’t just in Manchester. WSMV 4 Investigates has confirmed that Oiler has also been charged in Warren County, and is under investigation for stealing rent payments in Decherd.

The Jackson, Tennessee-based company recently admitted in a letter to tenants that it isn’t their fault their rent payments are stolen. However, the company still wants residents to pay up again.

One tenant interviewed for the underlying article complained:

Making Wilear angrier was the letter that Volunteer Management sent to tenants last month. In it, the company told renters that they have until the end of the year to repay what the company admits was stolen.

A portion of the letter reads, “I understand this is difficult times, and this was not your fault, but this is the way Corporate and our lawyers want to handle this.”

I started out in legal services representing scores of low income tenants. In private practice I represented both tenants and landlords. One of my landlords was a Housing Authority, and we tried hard to realize our mission, which was to keep people housed. If they weren’t paying their rent we worked out repayment agreements. My largest private landlord was a guy who always amazed me since he bent over backwards to try to help his tenants.

In any event, at least in the days before the right wing took over our judiciary, this landlord would have been laughed out of court. If I make a rent payment to a person authorized by the landlord to take said payments and the payment is accepted, then I owe the landlord nothing. You would fail first year contracts if you tried to make a contrary argument on an exam. I can understand why in this case the landlord’s “lawyers want to handle” it this way, but I can’t quite understand how they figure they can get away with it. I refuse to believe that even the judges in Tennessee will refuse to enforce basic contract law.

The article to which I’ve linked, at Crooks & Liars ends like this:

Those poor people need a lawyer.

Indeed they do. Back when I was at legal services I would have jumped at the chance to take a case like that. I’m not sure there’s all that much left to the Legal Services corporation given our current Congress, but hopefully there’s somebody out there who will make mincemeat out of this landlord’s lawyers.

As a side note, the law firm for which I worked had a bookkeeper who embezzled some of our funds. It never occurred to us to double bill our clients for the losses. Also, that’s what insurance is for. If you have employees handling your money, you should have insurance to cover such losses.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Fun reading

Tuesday, August 15, 2023

I just finished reading the Georgia indictment. A bit of a slog, since you have to go through so much boilerplate legal language, but still a fun read. I didn’t practice criminal law, and RICO wasn’t a thing when I took criminal law in law school, but it looks like a pretty strong case to me. As I understand it, the theory of the case is that the parties entered into a conspiracy to steal the election, which made many of what might otherwise be seen as legal acts illegal, as they were taken in furtherance of the conspiracy.

I haven’t read a lot of reaction to the indictment, but what I have read hasn’t, so far, emphasized the fact that there are 30 unindicted co-conspirators. One must assume that a number of them must be co-operating witnesses. Just based on the overall story told in the indictment, I’d guess that many of them are the fake Georgia electors, some of whom must have felt, in retrospect, that they were being used (which they were).

Not to be a nit-picker, but the indictment may be vulnerable in light of the legal theories popping up on the right, for after all, it’s always possible that the Supreme Court (really hurts to call it “supreme”) will adopt this spanking new legal theory that making false statements in order to achieve the ends of a criminal conspiracy cannot be a crime (when committed by a Republican), because “free speech!”. I’m sure we’ll be hearing soon that when Rudy lied to state legislators about alleged fraud in Georgia when he tried to get them to overturn the election results, or when other defendants signed official documents asserting that the fake electors were in fact the real electors, that they were merely exercising their right to free speech and any statute that makes it a crime to induce official action by making false statements is simply not constitutional when applied to Republicans. I’m sure Clarence Thomas will see the merits in that position.

If you want a copy of the indictment, you can download it here.

UPDATE: Well, the free speech defense has been raised on Fox, by none other than Jonathan Turley, the guy who used to be a fairly rational legal analyst years ago when my wife and I used to watch him on the Keith Olbermann show. I guess some people will say anything to get on TV. There’s a good explanation at the link explaining why the speech defense is without merit.

Filed in Lawyer stuff, Republican Corruption, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Yet another modest proposal

Monday, August 14, 2023

While reading this post over at Hullabaloo I got to wondering about two things about the Hunter Biden thing. I wondered, first, why it is proper to have a special counsel to go after someone who has never held a position in government and to investigate crimes in which there’s not a scintilla of evidence, if crimes they were, that any public official was involved.

But, putting that aside, I also wondered why 1) no special counsel has been appointed to investigate Jared Kushner’s transition from assistant to the president to immediate recipient, once he was out of office, of 2 billion dollars from the countries with which he interacted while allegedly working on behalf of the American people, and 2) why the Democrats have not been demanding the appointment of such a special counsel for the past three years.

So I decided to write this post. It’s about time that the Democrats started counter-attacking. After all, the Kushner crimes mirror the alleged crimes of Hunter Biden, except for the fact that there’s more evidence of criminality, there’s far more more money involved, and Kushner was in a better position than Hunter to supply some quid for the Saudi quo.

Alas, digby beat me to the punch, and made the same point. Still, it’s well worth repeating. It can’t hurt if we continually expose Republican hypocrisy. We’ll never win over the nutjobs, but there are still a lot of low information voters who aren’t fascists but aren’t yet aware that Republicans are fascists. I read somewhere that Trump has often told people that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it. If it works with lies it should work slightly better with the truth.

Filed in Modest Proposals | | Comments (0)

Movie Review

Sunday, August 13, 2023

Last Night my wife and I, along with some friends, went to see Barbie. I can honestly say that it was the best movie we’ve gone to in years. I can also honestly say it was the worst move we’ve gone to in years, since it was the first movie we’ve gone to in years.

My primary reason for going was to “own the whackjobs”, since bashing the movie has been a thing among the right. I considered it a sacred obligation to help it amass its numbers to get them further riled up.

I believe this is the first time I’ve ever tried to critique a movie, so bear with me. It’s not easy to do so while also not giving away too much of the plot.

The movie got me laughing right from the start, as the opening is a takeoff on the opening of a certain movie that came out in 1968. As I was laughing I was also wondering how many in the audience got the reference. Primarily us geezers I guess.

But it wasn’t all laughter. There were some serious downers inflicted on we of the male gender, like when Ken’s attempt to pull off a coup in Barbieland and establish a “patriarchy” was foiled. By Barbie no less! Likely one of the reasons the movie has drawn the wrath of the right. Whoops, I gave away part of the plot.

Anyway, the people who made the film seemed to have this strange idea that women should be treated with the same respect as men. How woke can you get?

I was somewhat impressed by Mattel’s willingness to be the butt of some of the humor. Just casting Will Ferrell as the Mattel CEO did the job along those lines, but that wasn’t the whole of it. The all male boardroom, each dressed in an identical suit, was a great visual joke. Of course, Mattel will make millions off the movie, and I suppose most people would be willing to be the butt of some jokes if they got a few hundred million for it.

All in all, the movie is well worth seeing. It’s a great mix of comedy and serious commentary on our society. I have to admit I came away a bit mystified by some of it. I’m still puzzling over exactly what was meant by Barbie’s last line. There’s enough hidden away in some of the dialog to justify a second viewing. So I urge you to go see it, if only to get the folks on Fox a bit more riled.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)