Skip to content

Trump’s subpoena

Friday, October 14, 2022

I spent part of Thursday afternoon watching the January 6th hearings. One of the pundits on PBS felt that it was a bad move on the committee’s part to subpoena the genius, because-guess what- the Trumpers will criticize them. I think it may work out well in some ways, though I doubt that Trump will ever testify.

If I understand the procedure correctly, the next step will be a vote in the House about whether to hold Trump in contempt. I assume that the vote can be scheduled prior to the election. If not, the subpoena becomes a bit of empty theater. If a vote can be scheduled, it puts some, though not all, of the Republicans in Congress in a difficult position. If they vote against the contempt citation, they risk alienating the ever shrinking pool of rational people (well, somewhat rational) who have still not faced the reality that the Republican Party has completely gone over to the dark side. Voting for a finding of contempt risks pissing off the nutjobs without whom they can’t win anywhere.

My guess is that the committee members, even the two Republicans (both of whom will soon be ex-Congresspersons) have something along those lines in mind. They’d all like the committee to continue in existence, which means they all (though Kinzinger and Cheney can’t say this out loud) would like to see the Dems keep control of Congress.

Here in my state senatorial district we have a Republican incumbent senator who is so afraid of speaking about national issues that she refused to debate and talked the sponsoring chamber of commerce into blackballing any questions (which were all pre-screened) about national issues. I think she’s symptomatic of what a lot of Republican politicians would like to do: avoid talking about stuff like voter suppression and insurrectionists while throwing red meat to the insurrectionists while nobody is looking.

If there is a vote before Election Day I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the Republicans find a reason not to cast a vote at all. Quite likely they’ll settle on some sort of talking point like “the subpoena is just the Democrats playing politics”. I’m sure Fox has already come up with something.

I could be wrong about this, that’s for sure. It may very well be that the Republicans will be loud and proud about backing the crime boss that is now their leader. And it could be that a majority of people in this country are too (is stupid the right word?) to see where the Republicans are taking us.

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

The Onion has its say

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

I get most of my news from an RSS app, and when I peruse the Unread Items, I often come across an article title that I just can’t believe, until I see that it’s from the Onion, and that I shouldn’t believe it. But, the fact is, that a lot of their articles are, in these dizzying times, initially easy to believe are true. That’s a depressing observation when you think about it, but hardly the Onion’s fault.

Today I read about this brief that the Onion has filed (and this has really happened) with the US Supreme Court – – you know, the Court people used to respect.

The Onion is supporting a case brought by a man that was arrested for operating a parody website making fun of his local police department. He was found not guilty, and he brought an action against the cops for violating his free speech rights, he rather foolishly thinking that free speech applied to him, and not just right wing fanatics. His case was thrown out because the court ruled the cops were entitled to qualified immunity, which should actually be phrased as unqualified immunity, but we must preserve appearances.

Anyway, the Onion’s brief is a masterpiece, howlingly funny but also legally correct, though no doubt the 6 nutjobs on the court will not see it that way.

Here’s a small example:

The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.

,,,

,,, The Onion’s keen, fact-driven reportage has been cited favorably by one or more local courts, as well as Iran and the Chinese state-run media. Along the way, The Onion’s journalists have garnered a sterling repu- tation for accurately forecasting future events. One such coup was The Onion’s scoop revealing that a for-mer president kept nuclear secrets strewn around his beach home’s basement three years before it even happened.

…

Americans can be put in jail for poking fun at the government? This was a surprise to America’s Finest News Source and an uncomfortable learning experience for its editorial team. Indeed, “Ohio Police Officers Arrest, Prosecute Man Who Made Fun of Them on Fa-cebook” might sound like a headline ripped from the front pages of The Onion—albeit one that’s considerably less amusing because its subjects are real. So, when The Onion learned about the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in this case, it became justifiably concerned.

The brief even rightly mocks the Supreme Court. No doubt Elena, Sonia and Ketanji will get a kick out of it (and agree with it).

Well worth reading. Absolutely legally correct. A sure loser.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Climate deniers line up for disaster money they vote against

Sunday, October 2, 2022

It is, of course, no surprise to learn that Ron DeSantis, along with a huge majority of Republican Congresspersons and Senators, opposed financial aid to the Northeast when it was hit by hurricane Sandy, while voting for such aid when it was a red state that was affected. Biden, of course, and the Democrats as well, have done the right thing by rushing aid to Florida, though I have to say that I personally might have given a lot of thought, were I Biden, to expressing my hesitation to send aid to Florida, since the governor there thought such aid was an “irresponsible boondoggle”, though I’d be glad to send the aid if the governor requested it, accompanying his request with an explanation about why it was no longer an irresponsible boondoggle. Something along those lines, anyway, to make DeSantis have to beg a bit.

But there is, of course, a larger issue at play here, one that I’ve not seen much comment about. Not only are the folks from the red state’s in particular, but the Fascist Party generally, likely to oppose aid when it comes to helping blue states, but they are also opposed to doing anything about climate change, even though its most devastating impact is likely to be on their own red states.

If you’ve seen pictures of Fort Myers, it’s pretty clear that the town was almost totally destroyed. Years ago, you could write off a storm of this magnitude as a once in a century thing, and rebuild with the expectation that you could go back to normal for a reasonable amount of time. That’s no longer the case. There’s a better than even chance that storms of Ian’s magnitude will be annual events, meaning that any rebuilding efforts will be incomplete before there is renewed devastation. You have to wonder whether the funds that will be sent to Florida will be spent in such a way as to minimize the impact of future storms on whatever the money is used to construct. In the case of Florida, you have to wonder whether it’s even possible to save the state from the inevitable. The highest point in Florida is a mere 345 feet, and most of it is close to sea level. As Floridian politicians continue to join forces with other climate deniers, sea levels will only rise. If this does become an annual thing, it won’t make much sense to keep pumping money into the state, especially if people like DeSantis remain in control, as they’ll do nothing to make sure the money is spent with future disasters in mind. It might behoove the Biden folks to attach some fairly long strings to the money they send Florida’s way.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

One cheer for the 11th Circuit

Thursday, September 22, 2022

Back at the end of 2019 I made some New Year’s predictions. One of them was to the effect that after he lost the election, Trump would vanish down the memory hole into which George Bush had leaped (or was shoved) in 2009. I was wrong, as Trump insisted on being worshipped, and the Republican Party establishment had painted itself into a corner such that it had no choice but to cater to his wishes.

Which brings me to some thoughts after reading the Appellate Court decision that makes mincemeat out of Judge Aileen Cannon’s lower court decision. Two of the three judges who decided the case were appointed by Trump, but both chose to actually follow the law in these very limited circumstances.

I would argue that they did so because it was convenient for them, and they don’t have the same pressures on them as do elected Republicans. Don’t expect them to feel the need to respect precedent when it gets in the way of their political objectives.

The Federalist Society (James Madison must turn in his grave every time that name is verbalized) got what it wanted out of Trump. They got to name all the judges, who are now busily at work destroying the republican form of government that the actual Federalists helped create. They don’t need him anymore, and, except for some over the top outliers like Cannon, feel no need to protect him. Their performance in cases trying to overturn the election was indicative of that. Trump can hardly complain, inasmuch as they are doing to him exactly what he typically does to the people who do his dirty work.

It follows from the above that the Supreme Court will decline to step in and save the genius. Thomas might dissent, as he has his wife to worry about, but the others will likely follow the 11th Circuit’s lead. What better way to prove that the Supreme Court is indeed a legitimate institution? If they let Trump go to jail the media will buy into Robert’s bullshit, and say not another word about legitimacy as the court strips away our voting rights, establishes a state “Christian” religion devoid of any of the teachings of Christ, grants rights to Republicans that disappear when Democrats try to use them, and legitimizes the fascism arising from the political party that put them in their seats. They don’t need Trump anymore because, after all, someone like DeSantis will serve perfectly well, and they can always assist in stealing an election for him if he can’t garner the votes on his own.

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

What are the odds this bill will pass

Monday, September 19, 2022

If I were a betting man I wouldn’t think twice about how I’d bet on the prospects of this bill actually becoming law:

Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) have introduced the Presidential Election Reform Act to prevent Trump from stealing 2024.

According to NBC News, the bill would “The 38-page bill would make clear the vice president’s role in counting votes is simply ministerial and raise the threshold for objecting to electors from one member of the House and Senate to one-third of each chamber. It would require governors and states to send electors to Congress for candidates who won the election based on state law prior to Election Day, according to an official summary, meaning states couldn’t change their election rules retroactively after an election.”

States would also be banned from extending the election or refusing to certify the results. The legislation also requires that if there is an objection during the count to a state’s results, that objection must be based on specific constitutional grounds.

Okay, so the bill makes perfect sense, but it is not, as the fellow at Politicus writes, “bi-partisan”, in that Liz Cheney has been expelled from the Republican Party.

It is plain as day that a substantial portion of the Republican Party intends to steal every election they can, and that includes the presidential election. I’m sure Lindsey and Ted, among others, will be able to come up with some talking points proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bill is just a blatant attempt by Democrats to enable voter fraud, which the media will present as a “both sides” issue and the bill will die in the Senate. After all, Joe and Kristen continue to believe that the filibuster is more sacred than democracy.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

Open criminality is the new norm

Saturday, September 17, 2022

Sometimes things move much too fast for someone who isn’t paid to blog. When I first heard about the stunt DeSantis pulled sending migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, it seemed to me that there was something, you know, illegal about it. My first thought was that it was kidnapping. I didn’t practice criminal law, and even had I done so, I probably would have no experience with kidnapping cases, as they are fairly rare, but this seemed to have all the elements. Apparently, DeSantis imported these people from Texas and shipped them to Martha’s Vineyard, inducing them to go along by a series of lies.

I was glad to see that people with more knowledge than I agreed with my conclusions, though it did prevent me from presenting the idea as original with me. Also, apparently, people who lie for a living had a hard time avoiding the conclusion that this was an illegal activity, though of course Ted Cruz would baselessly claim that Joe Biden is a far worse human trafficker than DeSantis.

Gavin Newsome has asked the Justice Department to investigate and bring criminal charges if warranted, and we can only hope that this will happen. Meanwhile, of course, some in the media are doing their best to normalize what is truly outrageous behavior. After all, it’s just a minor stretch on the road to Fascism.

I suppose the Republican Jesus would approve of what DeSantis did. (Check out the video of the Republican Jesus at the link. I don’t know how to embed TikToks, so head on over to Digby’s blog.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Republican Corruption | | Comments (0)

One born every minute, or should that be “every second”

Monday, September 12, 2022

I have to admit that I can’t help but think that the folks who fall for this sort of stuff deserve what they get:

While running Money Magnet Platinum Membership Initiative LLC, [Lakenya] Hopkins promised astronomical — and unrealistic — rates of returns on investments…. Hopkins claimed to investors she would get them \(8,000 in monthly returns for every \)1,000 they invested by pooling the money and putting it into a hedge fund that guaranteed a 3-5% daily returns, the feds alleged.

A 3-5% daily return amounts to, let see, a 1095% to 1825% (not taking compounding into account) return on a yearly basis, which seems sort of, shall we say, unrealistic. I’d like to think these suckers all also fell for the grifter-president, as this will reduce their ability to fall for his latest grift and line his pockets.

Filed in Grifters | | Comments (0)

A righteous rant

Thursday, September 8, 2022

I was perusing my RSS Reader this morning, and came upon this post, in which the blogger at Above the Law righteously rants about various parties objecting to a settlement in an antitrust case against Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), which, based on the description in the post, was engaging in some heavy duty violations of the antitrust laws, though, of course, the government itself did nothing about it. The case was brought be private attorneys who negotiated “the largest antitrust award ever secured in a case where the government never participated”.

It’s entirely possible that some of the objectors are doing the dirty work for BCBS, but it at least it appears that this is yet another instance of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

Which brings me to my own righteous rant. Joe Courtney has a Green Party opponent who just happens to live a short distance from me. I won’t bother to provide a name, but I will say that his main issue is, when viewed in the context of the dire straits in which this country finds itself, infinitesimally unimportant. Our candidate for state representative, who is running to replace Joe DelaCruz, likewise has an opponent from somewhere on the alleged left, though I don’t think he’s running as a Green. This is not necessarily an instance of the perfect being the enemy of the good, because neither of these guys comes close to being perfect.

Neither of these candidates has a chance to win, but both could possibly draw enough votes from the Democratic candidate to send a Republican to Congress and/or the state legislature.

This sort of thing is not infecting the Republican Party, though you have to wonder why the Never Trumpers aren’t running candidates of their own in red areas. They’d actually be doing the country a favor. These two are just advancing the cause of fascism, and if they don’t realize that they’ve got no business running for office because they are almost by definition mentally incompetent. If we had ranked choice voting these kinds of antics could be tolerated, but that is not the case, and both of these candidates are doing nothing but helping the Republicans. But maybe that’s the point. See, e.g., here, here, and here. The Green Party may have given us George Bush in 2000, and if they get their way, they just may give us the very stable genius in 2024.

Filed in Rants | | Comments (0)

Stop me if I’ve bloviated on this before

Saturday, September 3, 2022

My wife and I have a little daily ritual. I read her the on-this-date entries from my diary. While Trump was in office I would normally note his crime of the day, but I usually skip the Trump stuff so far as what I read to my wife. But I read them to myself, and I’m constantly amazed at the criminal activity that occurred every day, most of which the media let pass, and all of which was officially forgotten within at most 48 hours, with less than 24 being the norm. I’ve forgotten most of it too. There’s simply to much to remember. So often I think to myself: you would never have heard the end of this if a Democrat had done it. See, e.g., “but her emails!”.

So I confess that I didn’t recall the fact that Trump had called Democrats fascists, likely because the media didn’t bother to report it, though the old clip is making the rounds on Twitter, from what I gather. This is par for the course for the American media. At the very least they should have noted that he had done this when reporting on Biden’s speech. I don’t have to consult a search engine to feel comfortable with the assertion that when Trump made his speech no one in the press asked Trump or his representatives whether he was doing harm to the republic by branding Democrats with that term, just as none of those who have questioned Biden’s use of the term “semi-fascism”, have called out Republicans for routinely calling Democrats socialists, communists, etc.

There has been only a minimal amount of discussion, in the mainstream, about whether Biden was correct in asserting that MAGA Republicans are “semi-fascists”, but for the most part they’ve run with the Republican’s hypocritical argument that it is simply unseemly to use such terms about your political opponents, unless, of course, you’re a Republican and even more so if you’re Donald Trump, in which case it’s only to be expected and simply not worth mentioning. So we travel the Road to Fascism with a compliant media refusing to read the street signs.

Update: Also how long before they forget this, even if they do bother to report it.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Media, Rants | | Comments (0)

Just wondering

Wednesday, August 31, 2022

Anyone who is reading this is probably already aware of the blockbuster brief that the Justice Department just filed in the case against the genius. I’ve read through it, and as has been reported almost everywhere, it makes a strong case for the former guy’s guilt, as well as implicating some of his lawyers in his crimes, or, alternatively, proving beyond doubt that they are among the most incompetent lawyers on the planet. (I’m going with door number one)

The brief was filed in response to a motion Trump filed in an entirely different court, before an entirely different judge, than the judge that issued the search warrant in the first place. It was a clear case of judge shopping, as they were looking for a Trump appointed judge who would rule in Trump’s favor, regardless of the law, and they may have found one, as she has indicated that she is disposed to grant his motion to appoint a special master. It’s unclear if she’ll stick to that position since, as the Justice Department persuasively proves in its brief: 1) it is clear as day that there is no legal basis for such a ruling, and 2) the Justice Department has already reviewed all the documents because Trump delayed seeking the relief that he should have sought the minute after the warrant was served, so the case is somewhat moot.

I haven’t seen much discussion of the fact that the judge has held on to the case rather than refer it back to the court that issued the warrant. I didn’t practice criminal law, but I know for certain that I could never have gotten away with asking one judge to interfere in a case that was pending before another. The likelihood is that I would piss off both judges, particularly the first judge, to whom the second judge would likely refer my motion. It seems to me that Trump’s motion should have been directed to the judge that issued the warrant.

Why hasn’t this judge referred the case to the appropriate court for a decision? That fact alone makes me think that she’s trying to figure out a way to do something for Trump that will, in one way or another, defy pre-existing precedent, though, of course, precedent means nothing to much of the latter day judiciary. Whether she’ll decide to sully her reputation is at present unknown, but remember that virtually nothing she does can affect her lifetime appointment, and, who knows, if DeSantis gets into the White House, he might reward her intellectual dishonesty with a Supreme Court seat.

She is symptomatic of a huge problem that will fester in the courts of this nation for the next 40 years or so, assuming the republic somehow holds on that long. The courts are now well stocked with”originalists” whose definition of “originalism” is: I get to do whatever I want.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)