Skip to content

Trump admits guilt

One thing that’s little remarked among the punditry, perhaps because it’s so hard to make a both siderist case about it, is the Republican habit of projection. If they’re doing it, they’re loudly accusing the Democrats of doing it. They even had the chutzpah to claim that the Democrats were trying to destroy Medicare. They claim that voter suppression is all about stopping rampant voter fraud when the only recent cases of voter fraud involved Republican operatives (See this, for example).

So it’s not surprising that no one among the pundit class or in the reportorial ranks is pointing out that Trump is loudly proclaiming his intent to steal the election. He is doing so in the usual way, by accusing the Democrats of trying to do it. This is from the on-line edition of the linked article.

The president also continued his monthslong assault on voting by mail and repeated unfounded accusations that it was part of a plot by Democrats to hand the election to Mr. Biden.

But this, from the print edition we got this morning, which has apparently been “updated” and which I can’t find online, is more to the point:

President Trump was formally nominated for a second term on Monday, and immediately accused Democrats of leveraging the coronavirus crisis “to steal the election” using the first day of the Republican convention to level the sort of inflammatory, and often misleading charges he has increasingly turned to as he tries to make up ground against Joseph R. Biden.

So, we’ll definitely be seeing at least attempted robbery. Whether it will be successful is another question.

By the way, notice that despite the mostly negative tone of the article in the Times, they won’t go near the “L” word when it comes to Trump and his enablers. “Misleading” or “unfounded accusations” will have to do.

Update: Looks like the theft has begun. The Trump folks are trying to create fraudulent voters.

A simple solution

This should come as no surprise:

In an apparent effort to make his daily news conferences even more like campaign events than they already are, the White House press office has been packing the briefing room with supporters of President Donald Trump from far-right media outlets who can be relied on to toss him softball questions and initiate attacks on his political rivals.

Full details at the link above.

The article notes:

Unlike the original, freewheeling coronavirus task force briefings — which came to a sudden halt in April when Trump mused that doctors should “check” to see if injecting patients suffering from Covid-19 with bleach or isopropyl alcohol, or exposing them to ultraviolet light, might cure them — the president’s current news conferences are much shorter and seem designed mainly to get his lengthy, written opening statements on the air and get him out of the briefing room after taking just a handful of questions.

There is actually a very obvious solution to this perversion of the press conference: the major media should simply stop attending. If Trump wants to continue getting softball questions from conspiracy theorists, he can continue holding them, but if they are only covered by Fox, they will be doing him no good.

For the most part, Trump’s 2020 campaign has been mainly playing to the base, as if he needs only their votes to win. In fact, it could be easily argued that he’s gone out of his way to alienate whatever fence sitters may be out there. It’s an odd strategy that only a mentally ill person ands/or someone planning on stealing an election would employ. Should the major media refuse to cover these “press conferences” they will be facilitating that strategy, which, under the circumstances, is a good thing. It’s not at all clear that Trump can successfully steal the election, given the fact that the military, and even the courts, are unlikely to render assistance. As things stand now, the media, despite what the linked article says is its irritation at having these press conferences invaded by whackos, is simply giving these people credibility by putting them on the air on an even keel with actual journalists.

Thanks for the memories, internet

One of the things about the Trump regime is that there are so many atrocities that any particular atrocity is down the memory hole in no time. I may have mentioned that I try to document those atrocities day by day in a journal I keep, but it only skims the surface. By the way, do you recall that on this day two years ago Rudy Giuliani let it be known that “Truth isn’t Truth”?

Anyway, on to my main point.

Steve Bannon has been arrested for defrauding true believer Trumpers. What a surprise! I guess grifters just have to grift. This morning the genius said that he, himself, was against the “We Build the Wall” project from the start. Since he lies all the time any rational person would have concluded, based on said denial, that he was in on it too, but it’s always nice to have evidence.

So it’s good to have the internet, because whenever Trump lies, there’s alway someone who remembers a relevant atrocity, and here’s one that’s relevant to Trump’s claim that he was against the “We Build the Wall” project from the start:

Donald Trump’s former longtime henchman Steve Bannon was arrested this morning for raising millions of dollars for an imaginary “We Build the Wall” border wall project and allegedly pocketing the money. Trump then claimed during a press conference that he had always disapproved of Bannon’s project. But the money trail says otherwise.

Last December the Washington Post reported that the Donald Trump administration had steered a $400 million government contract toward a firm which had “partnered with right-wing activist group We Build the Wall to construct fencing on private land with millions of dollars raised through online donations.”

This was an ugly enough scandal at the time, but it fell by the wayside as other scandals grabbed the headlines. But after the news today that “We Build the Wall” was nothing more than a phony scam, multiple people across social media dup [sic] up the old WaPo article…

Don, Jr. is implicated as well, and it would be ever so nice to see him join Steve on the docket, along with the general counsel Kris Kobach and advisory board members Erik Prince, former CO congressman Tom Tancredo, Sheriff Dave Clarke and former pitcher Curt Schilling.

Just as a side note, it is interesting that these grifters can’t seem to be discreet about things. If you’ve promised to plow every nickel you raise into building a wall, it just doesn’t seem like such a good idea to skim millions of dollars and then spend a million of it on a yacht that all the world can see.

Sounds familiar

I’m currently reading a book Alaric the Goth, An Outsider’s History of the Fall of Rome, by Douglas Boin, a history professor at Saint Louis University. It’s a history of the sack of Rome from the Goth’s point of view, and is, of necessity, somewhat speculative in the details, though what I’m about to pass on is apparently fairly well documented.

It seems that in response to various pressures on their society, the Goths congregated at the Roman borderland near the Danube, not to conquer, but to avoid those pressures. The Romans responded. In or about 377 the “border patrol began indiscriminately separating Gothic boys from their parents”. “The young Gothic boys were identified, processed, and sorted, the impersonal nature of the border guards tasks little different from the inhumanity of the colonial-era Dacian slave trade.” Then:

State resources were soon allocated to implement the border separation policy in full. An office of the Roman government was set up to oversee the relocation program, and a military appointee received a government salary to manage it. The rugged plateaus and cities beyond the Taurus mountains were identified as suitable holding pens for the children. Gothic children were forced to say good-bye not only to a familiar landscape of childhood memories but to their actual parents, grandparents, and siblings. No documentation was ever kept, as far as historians know, that would have identified the children or helped reunite them with their families. An obvious paper trail, in fact, is quite likely what the Roman government wanted to avoid. Cruelty was the intention. Many Gothic parents never saw their sons again.

We here in America can be proud that our border separation policy is not sexist like the Roman. So far as I’m aware, we separate the girls too. Beyond that, there doesn’t seem to be a lot to distinguish the two, except, of course, that our policy was implemented by a devout Christian (according to our evangelical brethren) rather than a pagan.

The book was written this year, so one must assume that the current situation on our border was very much on Boin’s mind when he wrote the words I’ve quoted above.

One thing I’d like to see, if Trump doesn’t steal the election, is for Joe Biden, or better yet, Kamala Harris, to bring the press to one of our concentration camps on January 21st, and open it up to full public display. We have to be confronted with the full ugliness if we’re going to put a stop to it, not just now, but forever.

Bruce chips in for Biden

My wife sent me a link to this video, which I thought was great.

One of the things that Republicans are good at is hitting Democrats in their strong spots and making many of them believe that they have to back away from a source of strength. For instance, the Republicans have often attacked Democrats because they have lots of support in Hollywood and the entertainment industry generally. As a perverse result, Democrats have sometimes de-emphasized their Hollywood support. Meanwhile, the Republicans do all they can to take whatever advantage they can of the few entertainers who support them, but there’s only so much mileage you can get out of people like Ted Nugent, Scott Baio, or Dennis Miller. Let’s face it, all the good guys support us.

So it’s good to see that the Biden campaign has put Bruce front and center. I told my wife recently that I thought the Democrats should turn their convention into a rock concert, with big name acts in between the speeches. Lots of folks would tune in. Also, it would get the genius apoplectic, which would be fun.

I miss the good old days

I am now in the midst of my 71st summer, which would be a depressing thought even if there were no pandemic and/or the White House was not occupied by a blithering idiot. But there are advantages to everything, and in this case my march toward senility gives me the right to pontificate about how much better were the olden days. And, for once, I’m not just talking about the fact that our music was so much better than the dreck being produced today, though that remains as true as ever.

In the olden days, politicians of both parties pretended that they stood four square for basic democratic principles, except, of course, for Southern politicians who had to patiently explain that said principles only applied to the white race, and anyway, black people in the South were happy as they were and weren’t interested in equal rights, voting, or any of those other privileges properly reserved to the descendants of Confederate traitors.But we must put that caveat aside, as it undermines my basic thesis.

In the olden days, many politicians would have been happy to engage in voter suppression or in ballot fraud, but they would have pretended to believe that the right to vote was sacred, every ballot should be counted, and every effort should be made to allow eligible voters to cast ballots.

In these modern times, the pretense has been totally abandoned! The person referred to in the press as the President of the United States (never so referenced at this humble blog) has admitted that he is destroying the Post Office in order to suppress the vote. Criminal presidents of the past would never have come right out and said such a thing. Richard Nixon would have used much more subtle and deniable techniques, like, for instance, breaking into his opponent’s campaign headquarters. To cite another example, who knows if Mayor Daley actually stole the election for JFK? If he did, he was principled enough to do it on the QT. That was the American way.

Yes, those were the days.

We’ve seen the present situation coming for a while, though fessing up to election tampering in real time is still unprecedented. For instance, while W and his gang publicly stole the 2000 election from Gore, they got Scalia and the gang to give that theft a veneer of legality, and we’ll probably never know what went on in Ohio in 2004, for even in 2004, the Republicans, who by that time had monopolized election theft, were still observing the proprieties and covering their tracks.

Alas, no more. The irony is that the man who lies about everything else is also the first politician to admit that he intends to steal an election. That would never have been possible in the good old days. In the good old days politicians of both parties would have been aghast at such an admission, particularly those that were stealing elections themselves. They would have presented a united front against such a person, regardless of party, while vociferously proclaiming their own fealty to truth, justice, and the American Way. Today, the boldest (not quite sure that adjective is appropriate) of Republicans tells us she is concerned, while the rest hold their tongues.

In the olden days, election thieves knew what they were doing. They targeted the voters for the other guy. Nowadays, it’s not even clear that preventing vote by mail will benefit the party doing the preventing.

In the olden days a politician might very much want to suppress the opposition vote, but in order to keep up appearances, that same politician might likely vote for bills making voting or voter registration easier. Now, in these days of decline, without suffering any adverse consequences, Republican politicians can be completely upfront about the fact that they have no interest in streamlining the voting process.

I say, when it comes to election tampering, lets bring back hypocrisy.

The real reason for getting rid of the payroll tax

I just finished reading this article, which demonstrates that Trump’s desire to get rid of the payroll tax and fund social security from general revenues is not feasible.

The article demonstrates once again that those of us on the left often, almost always, fail to appreciate that Republicans take the long view of things.

This blog actually started in reaction to W’s attempt to destroy social security, by converting it to a private account system. That didn’t fly.

Getting rid of the payroll tax and using general revenues to pay social security would accomplish more than just making the program financially unstable, and this is something that goes unremarked by most commentators.

Franklin Roosevelt recognized, when he started the program, that funding it by a special tax gave recipients the ability, indeed the right, to claim that they were owed their benefits, that the money in the trust fund was, in fact, their money. If the program were paid out of general revenue it would become a welfare program, and it would immediately be attacked as such by the Republicans, whose Holy Grail has been the destruction of the program since the day it was enacted. W actually thought he could do it, but he was deluded. Only Joe Lieberman, of all the “Democrats”, was willing to consider it. Trump thinks he can do it too. If he’s reelected, he will probably become a dictator, so maybe he will, but I’m inclined to think that he won’t be able to pull off a coup. In any event, that’s the point of getting rid of the payroll tax: to convert the program into a “welfare” program that can be attacked on that basis. Always keep in mind that policy is not Trump’s thing; someone is whispering in his ear about this, and he’s decided he likes the idea. He may be unaware of the long term strategy behind such a conversion, but the propaganda value of converting it to a “welfare” system is a big part of it.

Who could have predicted the need for this?!

The ACLU has called for the Dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security.

Some people sort of thought from the beginning that if you give something an Orwellian name it would probably start doing Orwellian things. Of course the people saying that were the people to whom the Very Serious People never listen.

A valuable resource

I should probably tweet this, inasmuch as I am really only passing along a link.

McSweeney’s has provided a valuable service. A day by day accounting of the atrocities, since Trump became president, with some preliminary atrocities included for good measure.

My guess is that it’s not exhaustive; that would be impossible, and there’s lots going on out of sight that we won’t know about until we get rid of him, but still, a helpful thing to have.

Something to think about

We are taught to believe that the men who framed the constitution were infinitely wise, but in fact, the government they framed was flawed in many respects. Ben Franklin was quoted as saying that they had framed a “Republic if you can keep it”, but in many ways the constitution itself makes keeping a republic difficult.

The person currently holding the office of president of the United States has exposed many of those flaws, particularly those relating to the office he holds.

We often hear about the things the Democrats should do should they win the presidency and the Senate, but no one, to my knowledge, has suggested that they do whatever they can to limit the ability of the president to abuse the powers of the office.

The following assumes that Trump is unable to steal the election in November.

If our politicians (of both parties) were the rational beings the Framers allegedly expected to jealously guard the prerogatives of their respective governmental branches, we might expect, once the genius is gone, that they would put their collective heads together, and come up with some way, preferably by constitutional amendment, to make sure that the abuses we have witnessed will never happen again. Inasmuch as we can’t expect the Democrats to take the two thirds of each house it would take to pass a constitutional amendment or to control two thirds of the nations legislatures, and inasmuch as the Republican Party has already proven that it does not object to presidential malfeasance as long as it is committed by a Republican, and inasmuch as those same Republicans are secure in the knowledge that the Supreme Court that has largely greenlighted Trump’s authoritarianism will not allow similar behavior by a Democrat, we can’t really expect that a constitutional amendment is likely to pass.

Still, it doesn’t hurt to try to raise the issue, educate the public on the true extent of the abuses, and try, where possible, to address presidential abuse by legislation. There are a number of very obvious things that must be addressed. Perhaps first among them is the question of presidential crime: when and how can it be prosecuted. It is a thorny question, given the fact that it is difficult to see how to get politics in its basest form out of it. Perhaps the Attorney General should be an elected official, but that obviously presents problems of its own if, in the current situation, the president is a Democrat and the Attorney General a Republican. No doubt Bill Barr would easily see criminality where he is blind to it today, and would, in addition, see it where no one sees it now. In any event, that would take a constitutional amendment, and that’s not happening in the lifetime of anyone reading this post.

If the Democrats take over, they will be in a position to hold hearings on what may be the most important issue of our time, since Trump has conclusively proven that a President can avoid all checks, and that there is no balance. Perhaps the only thing that may save us short term is the fact that he is so incompetent he has not been capable of creating the dictatorship he so much wants. Someone as smart as…, say… Hitler, could probably pull it off. We really need to take some preventative measures to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Should the Democrats take over both houses, they will be able to effectively subpoena witnesses to the criminality of Trump, Barr, and the other enablers, and will also have an executive more than happy to delve into the records they leave behind to further inform both the Congress and the people of the extent of the corruption of the present administration. Even if they can’t fix the constitution, which will probably never occur to them anyway, they can pass legislation that may prevent future occurrences of the worst of the things we’ve seen.

One thing’s for sure. We can’t, this time, consign the criminality to the memory hole, as Obama did for the Bushies. We now have proof positive that doing so simply encourages them to commit even greater crimes.