Skip to content

Tom Paine to get his due

Sunday, January 1, 2023

I just stumbled upon this article, which I consider somewhat shocking (given our current march toward fascism) but great and long past due news.

The Thomas Paine Memorial Association (TPMA) is pleased to announce that on December 27, 2022, President Biden signed a congressional bill to endorse a monument dedicated to the life and work of Founding Father Thomas Paine.

Under the leadership of Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) and Congresswoman Victoria Spartz (R-Indiana), House Bill 6720 was included in the 2022 Omnibus Package. The package was passed by both the House and Senate in late December 2022.

TPMA will now begin working with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) on advancing the project with a goal of unveiling the monument in 2026, which would coincide with the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

First, a digression: When I was in fourth grade the nun at Our Lady of Sorrows School told us she’d give a prize to the person who submitted the most book reports in the course of the year. Whenever you submitted a report she’d put a little book shaped piece of paper next to your name on one of the walls in the classroom, so you could see where you stood in the competition.

I knew I’d be in a tough fight to win the prize, as there was a girl in my class who I knew would be stiff competition. I think I read at least 60 books in the course of the year, just barely edging her out (if memory serves). I think in the end both of us got a prize-a holy picture or something, hardly worth the effort. The next year, after summer vacation, I got back to school and couldn’t read anything on the blackboard. All that reading got me my first pair of eyeglasses.

But back to Tom Paine. At some point during that year I found a copy of Howard Fast’s Citizen Tom Paine amongst a number of other books in a cabinet in our basement. I don’t think any other book I’ve ever read had anywhere near the impact on me as did that book. In retrospect I wonder if the nun was a little unhappy that I had read a biography of the guy that Teddy Roosevelt dismissed as that “filthy little atheist”. It certainly reinforced my already considerable religious doubts. Within a few years I’d read all his major works, including Common Sense, the Age of Reason, and The Rights of Man.

Fast’s book is one of my most treasured possessions. I’ve kept it with me ever since, though I would hesitate to read it again, as who knows if it would live up to my memories. In any event, from the day I read it, Tom Paine has been my political hero, a guy who was consistently right (in the sense that he was consistently politically left) who had the courage to buck not only the British government but the prevailing religiosity of his times. He wasn’t an atheist, but he likely would have been had he the benefit of today’s science. He endured imprisonment in France because he refused to back the execution of the king and was ostracized when he returned to the U.S, despite all he had done for this country. He stuck to his principles, refusing until the end to disavow The Age of Reason despite the numerous religionists that hectored him on his deathbed. (I should add that while this is something I remember from Fast’s book, I don’t vouch for its historicity.)

Besides pushing the nation toward independence, and opening the minds of the educable to reason, he proposed a system of benefits akin to social security, was against slavery and unlike others who questioned slavery never owned one (looking at you, Jefferson), and was for women’s rights. No one deserves a memorial in Washington more than does Paine. Of all the Founders, he most closely practiced what he preached. I can only say I’m surprised that any Republican signed on to the memorial, but perhaps that speaks to their historical illiteracy. I recall being livid when Reagan quoted him, which he did on many occasions, because I was absolutely sure that Thomas Paine would have abhorred St. Ronnie. In any event, it’s good to see that the Confederate statues that are coming down in the Capitol may be replaced by that of at least one person who truly believed in human equality, religious freedom, and democracy.

By the way, if you want to donate to the Memorial Association, you can do so here.

Filed in History | | Comments (0)

A liar of Trumpian proportions

Saturday, December 31, 2022

I confess to being somewhat fascinated by the saga of George Santos. If we discover much more, we have to confess that he makes Trump look like a truth teller.

If you’ve been following the story you already know that one of the lies drawing the attention of prosecutors is his claim on financial disclosure documents that he “loaned” his campaign $700,000.00, despite the fact that there is ample evidence that he does not have access to anywhere near that amount of money.

This article is somewhat speculative to be perfectly honest, but it is more probable than not that it will turn out to be true. Santos, who has spoken out against aid to Ukraine, has in the past benefitted from Putin connected money:

And it emerged this week that Santos was the recipient of some $56,100 in various campaign contributions from Andrew Intrater and his wife. Intrater is or has been an investment adviser to his cousin, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Vekselberg was sanctioned by the U.S. government in 2018 for his ties to Putin and the Russian computer hacking group indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for interfering in the 2016 election. Vekselberg was stopped by FBI agents at Teterboro Airport in 2018 and questioned about his ties to the Russian government. His cell phone was also seized.

The article goes on to make the case that the source of that loan may very well have been that Russian connection. Bear in mind that if the Santos campaign repays the “loan” to Santos, it becomes, in effect, a $700,000.00 bribe.

Also, why am I not surprised that he lied about the one thing some people have figured was the only thing he hadn’t lied about: his name.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars, Republicans | | Comments (0)

January 6th transcripts-Roger Stone

Tuesday, December 27, 2022

This is my third post reviewing, one by one, the transcripts released by the January 6th committee. This time it’s Roger Stone.

This will be short and sweet. I think at some point that I’ll get to the transcripts in which witnesses give substantive answers. Stone took the fifth to each and every question he was asked, except those in which he admitted that he was the Roger Stone to whom the subpoena was directed.

All of the observations I made about John Eastman’s use of the fifth apply here, so I won’t repeat them. I’ll just end with this laughable quote from Stone’s lawyer, Grant Smith:

May I just say something?

Mr. Stone is here to answer each and every question that you may have. You may not appreciate the answer, but he’s here to give a response to each and every question. So, if you have more questions, I don’t want it to be deemed that he’s giving a blanket answer to a series of questions. He’s here to answer each and every question.

This, after both he and Stone had made it clear that Stone would answer each question by taking the Fifth, after Stone and he had made clear that they would not state the grounds for which they were taking the fifth, followed by Stone taking the fifth to each and every question he was subsequently asked. So in other words, he’s saying: Don’t just assume we’ll take the fifth to each question, make us do it.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars, Republicans | | Comments (0)

January 6th transcripts, John Eastman

Monday, December 26, 2022

Much to my surprise I have gotten through the second transcript recently released by the January 6th committee.

This is an easy one. It was the deposition of John Eastman, the lawyer who came up with the bullshit theory that the Vice President could throw out the electoral votes of any state he chose in favor of electors not certified by the various states.

Eastman basically pled the 5th in answer to every question, including questions in which it was clearly inapplicable.

Stepping back a second, it might be a good idea to replicate the text of the fifth amendment which is at issue. The amendment provides that no person shall “be compelled in any criminal proceeding to be a witness against himself” (Emphasis added).

So, going purely by the text, in a non-criminal proceeding such as the committee’s hearings, the fifth amendment does not even apply, though for reasons that are fairly obvious, the courts have ruled that one can seek it’s protections in a civil proceeding since any testimony from such a proceeding could be introduced in a criminal proceeding. However, it is also the case that an “adverse inference” arises in any civil proceeding if a party or witness takes the fifth. In other words, a civil jury can assume that someone who relies on the fifth to refuse to say whether he rammed his car into the plaintiff probably did, in fact, ram his car into the plaintiff. So, it quite follows, at least in my opinion, that Eastman did in fact attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, given the nature of the questions he refused to answer.

What I found amusing was his lawyer’s implied argument that one should not apply such an adverse inference, because an innocent person could take advantage of the fifth as well as a guilty person. Theoretically true, but….

He and Eastman also appeared to argue that he did not have to say that an answer to any given question might incriminate him, because the constitution provides merely that he can not be compelled to be a witness against himself. That sort of misses the point, because by taking the fifth he is necessarily stating that by answering the question he would be a witness against himself.

He also said that he was taking the fifth in order to protect himself in disbarment proceedings in California. Again, disbarment proceedings are not criminal matters, and my guess is that a refusal to answer gives rise to an adverse inference.

It was also the case that he took the fifth in response to questions to which it clearly would not apply in a court of law. For instance, he refused to say whether a Vice President “has ever exercised unilateral authority to reject electoral college votes coming from a particular State before in American history”.

He also claimed that he could take the fifth to avoid saying why he was taking the fifth.

It seems to me that he’s ripe for picking by the Justice Department. He’s one of the folks the committee referred for prosecution. My guess is that once he’s indicted the fifth will no longer be an impediment to his testifying, so long as he can cut a good deal to testify against the genius.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars, Republicans | | Comments (0)

January 6th transcripts, Jeffrey Clark part 1

Friday, December 23, 2022

I have set myself the task of reading and digesting each of the newly released transcripts from the January 6th committee. We’re I a betting man I would bet that I’ll never complete the task, but one never knows.

It’s my understanding that the released transcripts are a subset of all the transcripts from the committee depositions. I’m not sure about the selection criteria employed to determine the early releases, but I’m guessing at least one consideration is to illustrate the extent of criminality in which Trump and his cohorts were engaged.

Each transcript’s title is prefaced by a number such as 20211105, meaning that the deposition in question was taken on November 5, 2021, so I’m taking them in chronological order based on the titles.

First up is Jeffrey Clark. For reasons that will become apparent, Mr. Clark had occasion to return to the committee, but I shall cover his second appearance (if I ever do) as it comes up chronologically.

Clark, you will recall, is the guy Trump wanted to elevate to acting attorney general as he had indicated a willingness to commit treason in Trump’s behalf, a plot frustrated by the threat from a host of Justice Department folks that they would all resign in protest.

I’ll begin by noting that once again I am stunned by the sheer audacity of the lawyers that have become involved in these cases. Clark was apparently noticed for his deposition for a week prior to the date it was held (November 5, 2021), but the committee gave him a week’s continuance because he had just gotten a new lawyer, a fellow named Harry MacDougald.

Minutes prior to the deposition, MacDougald gave the committee a letter in which he explained that Clark simply could not answer any of their questions because any question they might ask would involve some sort of privilege. Among the questions raised by the committee in response to this rather startling assertion:

  • What specific privilege are you citing in response to, for instance, Congressman’s Schiff’s query about the aspects of your January 6th involvement that Clark divulged to a reporter but about which he refused to testify to the committee?
  • What specific privilege prevented him from responding to a question from Liz Cheney asking him when he first met Congressman Scott Perry?
  • Why are you refusing to answer specific questions and delineate the specific privilege upon which you are relying?
  • Why are you claiming a privilege that your superiors at the Justice Department never asserted.
  • Why are you refusing to answer questions about which it is clear that there is no conceivable privilege?

The list goes on. Suffice to say that he refused to answer a single substantive question or to explain the legal grounds for failing to do so, constantly relying on the letter that his lawyer had delivered to the committee minutes before the hearing, a letter that the committee had not had time to review.

When the committee proposed to take a recess to review the letter, Clark, who was under subpoena, declared his intention to simply walk out and not come back when they reconvened, a threat on which he made good. In the world where Republicans are not the subject of subpoenas, such a move would likely land the scofflaw in jail.

The committee’s counsel (his or her name is redacted) sums up the gist of it:

Mr. MacDougald, with all due respect, Mr. Clark has been subpoenaed to appear before this committee. It is a legal obligation, on a date certain, to answer questions. That does not include a legal obligation by the committee to negotiate, or to set forth in advance particular subject matters. It’s a legal obligation to show up and answer questions, or to assert a privilege in response to specific questions. My understanding is that despite that legal obligation and an offer to through the questions and assert a privilege point by point, he’s refusing to answer any such questions. I just want to make clear that is his position.

So, apparently, at least as I interpret it, Clark rather desperately wanted to avoid taking the fifth, and his lawyer came up with a ton of bullshit to help him avoid doing just that.

From a practical if not legal point of view, the entire exercise amounted to an implied admission, given the nature of the January 6th committee, that he had been involved in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Addendum: I just took a quick look at his second deposition, and my surmise was correct. He took the fifth to every question, including some to which it appeared to be clearly inapplicable, such as whether he was working for the Justice Department on January 6th.

Extra added attraction: Back in the day, when the genius was president, I would add a few paragraphs a day to a diary I keep on my Ipad about his latest doings. I thought it might be a good idea for this series (if it continues) to cull some snippets from the “On this Day” feature, just to remind us what these people were trying to inflict upon us. Here’s one from four years ago today. A bit of criminality, and a bit of childishness. Vintage Trump:

On the Trump front, he has demanded that Mattis leave by the 1st of January, rather than the end of February date that Mattis had put in his resignation letter. Apparently, he learned from television that the resignation letter was a not very thinly veiled attack on him, inasmuch as it pretty much alleges that he is acting as a Russian agent.

He probably didn’t read the letter when it was tendered, and, if he did, was not smart enough to read between the lines.

Next episode may be a few days from now, if ever. There’s a holiday coming up.

Filed in Republican Corruption | | Comments (0)

It’s always okay if you’re a Republican

Friday, December 23, 2022

Ever since I started blogging, which was many moons ago, bloggers on our side of the fence have used the acronym IOKYAR to refer to what has become almost a legal rule in this country. It’s simply okay to transgress moral or legal norms if you’re a Republican. It is particularly okay so far as Republicans themselves are concerned.

That’s why I beg to differ with the folks over at the Palmer Report who seem to think there will be some sort of fallout, possibly even a resignation, after the revelations that Congressperson-elect George Santos (R-Naturally) has lied about everything in his past except possibly his name.

This merely makes him a potential star among Republicans, all of whom routinely lie. (Okay, maybe there’s an exception, but give me an example, please.) His Republican colleagues will simply look the other way for so long as it takes the media to lose interest, and the newly empaneled House Ethics Committee will implicitly rule, if it is even asked, that Ethics rules do not apply to Republicans. The media will certainly play along, as it has long since learned that different rules apply for Republicans, so whereas they would never forget this sort of thing were a Democrat involved, they’ll simply write this off as yet another Republican being a Republican. Stop and think of the tremendous number of long forgotten scandals in which Trump, his family, and his hanger-ons were involved, not to mention stuff like Gym Jordan protecting a sexual assailant.

What’s particularly galling about this is that not only do the same rules not apply to Democrats, Democrats don’t even get to be treated in what would be considered an equitable manner in other circumstances. I still seethe when I think about the fact that Al Franken had to resign due to a cooked up “scandal” in which he was presumed guilty with no chance to prove his innocence. even more galling was the fact that a number of Democrats seized the opportunity to apply the “Democrats are presumed guilty and must suffer consequences” rules in order to further their own careers. (Looking at you, Kristin Gillibrand, who, at least, found that you don’t become president by destroying the career of a popular possible opponent.)

In the case of Santos the only question is how long it will take for his fraud to be forgotten. I’d say a couple of weeks. It may hamper his re-election bid, but it will not affect his treatment by other Republicans. Democrats, being Democrats, will soon stop talking about it instead of harping on it as would Republicans were there a Democratic fraud of that sort. Meanwhile, we must ask, how could the Democratic candidate who lost to this guy in a Dem leaning district have failed to do some fairly basic opposition research that would have uncovered his lies when it would have done some good.

Afterword: I understand from a reliable source that the Democrats were aware that this guy was a serial liar, but apparently failed to act on their knowledge. It almost seems, sometimes, that the Democrats themselves have decided that IOKYAR.

Second Afterword: I know that the Palmer Report is in many respects simply a guilty pleasure. However, I’ll say once again that while I don’t buy into their analyses, the facts they report are accurate.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars, Republicans | | Comments (0)

The January 6th Committee closes up shop

Monday, December 19, 2022

I watched a good deal of the January 6th committee’s hearing and I’ve downloaded their report, which you can find here. I haven’t read the whole thing, but what I’ve read so far is well structured and persuasive, but when you come right down to it, it’s a fairly easy case to prove. Trump is obviously guilty of trying to subvert the constitution.

I’m not as certain as some that the Republican Party’s current disarray will lead to more electoral defeats down the road, but I’d like to hope that will be the case. I’m wondering what effect the inevitable investigation into the January 6th committee will have. Maybe they’ll just concentrate on Hunter’s laptop. They’d probably be wise to do that, because although no one but the whackjobs cares about that issue, it’s also unlikely to cause much of a backlash. Going after the January 6th folks might be a bit different. If and when McCarthy gets his speakership it will be interesting to see how he responds to the inevitable demands for such an investigation.

On a bit of a side note, one of the folks demanding such an investigation will no doubt be Marjorie Taylor Greene. I noted during the hearing that the committee featured a January 6th text message from her to the White House. She was afraid for her own personal safety because she had heard that at least one of the rioters was armed, so she wanted the White House to get them to back off. She’s the person who said if she’d been in control she’d have armed the protesters. Funny how her position changed. Yet another great piece of trolling by the committee.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Does she contradict herself?

Tuesday, December 13, 2022

It’s not exactly an original observation, inasmuch as Republican irrationality is nothing new, but this one really struck me. It seems that Ronna McDaniel wants to know why Republicans are not voting for every single Republican, no matter how half assed or fascistic, or both, that a given candidate may be, as we find when she is confronted even in the friendly environs of Fox News:

“Would you publicly say that Donald Trump bears any responsibility for some of the losses in the midterm elections?” Varney asked McDaniel.

“You know, I don’t like this,” McDaniel said. “I don’t like these parceling out because he supported Ted Budd, who won. And he supported J.D. Vance, who won.”

But why are Republicans going and voting for one Republican and not the other?” she asked.

“Trump,” Varney shot back. “Isn’t that the answer to your question? You actually posed a question. The answer is Trump. Isn’t it?”

“I’m saying I’m not into the blame game right now,” McDaniel replied. “I think we’ve got to do an analysis. I think it’s too quick.”

So apparently McDaniel really wants to blame someone for the Republican’s relatively dismal mid-term performance, but on the other hand, she doesn’t want to blame anyone if that anyone happens to be Donald Trump. There must be a way to blame Democrats for the fact that Republicans aren’t voting for Republicans.

This exchange is enlightening for the fact that Varney pushed her to blame Trump. Fox has apparently made a decision that it’s time for Trump to go down the memory hole, but 99% of Republican politicians are still too afraid to go there.

McDaniel is right that Republicans need to figure out why they are becoming unpopular with the non-fascists who still cling to the “R” label, but it’s unlikely that any analysis they do will come up with reasonable answers. If they astound us and do come up with reasonable answers, you can bet that Republican politicians will pay no attention. In the next two years, for example, we can expect the Republicans to do all they can to wreck the economy so they can blame it on Biden, pursue pointless “investigations” that will make Behngazi look statesmanlike, and prove beyond doubt that if given the opportunity they would strip Americans of rights that have been seen as basic for generations. One thing we can not expect is any significant number of Republicans putting the constitution, country, or the public interest over party.

Alas, they may get away with it, since there’s every reason to believe the Supreme Court will give them the right to legally steal elections and legislative majorities through voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

More legal illogic coming down the pike?

Wednesday, December 7, 2022

This is sort of a follow up to one my recent posts, in which I wondered what type of pretzel logic the Supreme Court would use to reject a case brought by Jews who claimed that they had a right to abortion services as their religion does not hold that life begins at conception. So, here’s another case discussed at Lawyers, Guns & Money:

A restaurant in Richmond last week canceled a reservation for a private event being held by a conservative Christian organization, citing the group’s opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

“We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision,” read an Instagram post from Metzger Bar and Butchery, a German-influenced restaurant in the Union Hill neighborhood whose kitchen is helmed by co-owner Brittanny Anderson, a veteran of TV cooking shows including “Top Chef” and “Chopped.” “Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”

…

I mean, if it’s all about personal values and freedom and such, why can’t we just refuse to serve Christians if we find them outrageous to our value system? I do however await the legal “logic” by which the Supreme Court finds this illegal but refusing to serve gays totally legal.

I’ve read a bit more about the court’s deliberations in the case in which it just heard arguments, so I’ll predict the “logic” they’d employ.

The case they just heard involves a website designer who has never been asked to design a wedding website for a gay couple, but brought a preemptive action seeking to enjoin the state from maybe applying an anti-discrimination law to her just in case anyone ever asked her to design such a page. In the olden days (5 or 10 years ago) the case would have been dismissed for lack of standing, but times have changed.

The court will likely rule that requiring her to design such a site (even though she apparently just sells pre-made templates) would violate her rights of free speech, as it would in essence be requiring her to engage in speech (designing the website) in which she does not want to engage. In the case of the restaurant, it will be easy enough for them to rule that there’s no speech involved, that they are merely selling a product and they aren’t allowed to discriminate among potential customers for that product based on religion, race, or sex. They’d be right, by the way, so far as the restaurant goes, but they’d still be wrong about the web site designer. Their problem, of course, is that such a decision would also bar anti-LGBT bigots from denying restaurant services to gay folks, so they’d have to come up with some anticipatory logic to allow that.

I should add that if the anti-LGBT case came to them first, they could easily find that speech was in fact involved, since the restaurant could argue that merely allowing the group to meet there could be considered an endorsement by the restaurant of their lifestyle, etc. But that same logic would apply to the fundamentalist Christian group, so if they were to bar the gay folks first they’d have a tougher time when the Christians showed up.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

An additional bright side to yesterday’s election

Wednesday, December 7, 2022

We can certainly celebrate Senator Warnock’s victory over the former football player. The country has come to a bad place when a major political party sees fit to nominate someone who is obviously brain damaged, in addition to all his other issues.

There is yet another bright side to Warnock’s victory, besides the political. At least it’s a bright side for those of us who contribute to political campaigns. I would estimate that for the past 6 months or so I received about 30 emails and texts a day soliciting money on Warnock’s behalf. It takes time to delete them all, so over that time period I’ve probably spent a couple of hours doing exactly that. In the process, from skimming the subject lines (I never read the emails) I learned that 1) things were looking terribly down from the Senator, and 2) things were looking great for the Senator. I also learned that he was being outspent by a lot, even though the newspapers seem to say that the reverse is true. I understand that they do what they think they have to do to raise money, but it is some time a little irritating to see emails on the same day with contradictory subject lines.

Don’t get me wrong, I contributed to the guy several times, which is probably why I received so many emails and texts. It does get a little over the top, though.

I do think that a little too much has been made of the fact that his victory assured the Democrats of an expanded majority. My guess is that Sinema and Manchin will now be even worse, though it’s possible that Sinema will mend her ways a bit to stave off a primary challenge, but not until the current Democratic House majority is gone, so she can make sure that the Republicans in the House can hold the debt ceiling hostage.

Postscript: Looks like PZ Myers, over at Pharyngula, had a similar reaction.

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)