TWGB: Pimping the White House

 

One man's idea of luxury is another man's idea of flypaper tacky; in rather the same way one man's idea of a distinctive hairstyle is another man's notion of a molded drain clog fastened to a moldering skull, but if I squint a bit, I can see what the tastemaker at the White House is going for with his gilded style complete with dance hall:

It's an homage to the Gold Rush brothel keeper who founded the family fortune. You know, a little something of l'esprit de bordel. You or I might cringe at it, but Trump is not one to turn his nose up at wherever his money has come from and has always had a soft spot for pimps. Professional courtesy? Or perhaps what passes for respect.

Some people of course simply note that this glitz is reminiscent of Mar-a-Lago, where former friend Jeffrey Epstein poached pubescents. People do say all kinds of things. For example, when I saw that Trump had the Rose Garden paved over, I might have wondered if there was anyone under the cement, in rather the way a troublesome witness might be deposited underground at one's golf course, but with less fanfare.

I also say all kinds of things, though. 

But then I saw the umbrellas and really understood:

The entrepreneurial vision of the man.

TWGB: Would You Buy a Watch from this Man?

 

So, obviously this thing where Trump is selling watches is a part of the "Trump campaign as business plan" ethos that the media doesn't quite know what to do with. It's at least as good as the NFT racket. It's better than the Trump DC Hotel racket, that Trump even found a new way to lose money at. 

We might not be able to really talk about things like the $10 million that flowed to Trump (allegedly) from Egypt in 2016, probably, or even fully investigate his business interests in China. But we could definitely ask why he's got the Mrs. out here pounding her book (which he hasn't read), her jewelry line, and fucking Chreestmas ornaments as a kind of Trump "lifestyle brand". 

Is this what serious people do? Like, if people can't afford bacon and eggs, is this really how you demonstrate solidarity with them? 

So, here's the thing--back in 2017, Trump trotted out a lawyer and like a pallet of blank paper in file folders to pretend he divested from his businesses, and LOL, no he did not do that. But dipstick MAGA  brainwashed cult members will tell you all about what he gave up to be president. That's right MAGA--he never did spend most of his time between Trump Tower, Bedminster and Mar-a-Lago. He wasn't still CEO of Trump Org when he was directing the payment of hush money from the White House. He didn't direct funds to his various properties from the US government whenever possible. 

SCOTUS and the Conclusions

 

It's really not hard to draw an obvious and unpleasant conclusion regarding the conservative justices' rulings regarding effectively legalizing bribery and privileging the opinions of courts over subject matter experts in government agencies with respects to regulatory matters, and to keep this blog post terribly brief, let me just sum it up this way:

The Republican-appointed justices have shown us what they are, and all that's left is billionaires haggling over the price. I'm sure putting it this way would offend Sam Alito and his missus, so to also keep this blog post brief, I will refrain from suggesting what else they can run up a flagpole if they don't like it.

I really shudder at conservative justices using their slapdash "textural" approach to the law as a "public service" to overrule agency decisions based on science. What this means for climate change, curbing pollution, food and drug regulation....

TWGB: The Hot Stove Lessons of Democracy

 

A couple of days ago, one of the insurrectionists sometimes called "Pink Hat Lady" (government name: Rachel Powell) took to Twitter to complain of her treatment.  She has apparently spent the last three years barefoot and mooning out the window like a princess in a tower...no wait, she was able to move about, but violated her pre-term release and got home confinement. She pretends she has no representatives, but she had lawyers. She exhorted her fellow 1/6 dopes to enter the Capitol that day--why isn't she being looked at as a possible "Fed" provocateur, huh?

She's living in a whole different universe from our reality. She went from saying on social media: “We will do what we want and there’s nothing the gov can do to stop us,” to asking, “Why should I go to jail? Over what? A broken window?”

Burglars break windows, too, and are felons. And apparently, the government actually DOES do something about that. These windows were broken because the stolen-election-believing sheeple who went to the capitol on 1/6 wanted to steal the election back for their Peerless Feeder. 

Will incarceration "fix" Rachel? Who knows? But maybe she educates others as an example to not be her. 

This is why I look at nattering nabobs like David Axelrod with disdain. OOoooooohhhh, taking Donald Trump off the ballot will divide the country, will it? Tell it to the fuckfaces who already thought we were in a Civil War on 1/6. A Civil War, because Trump's election is a Lost Cause that he keeps fighting, and maybe, just maybe, that shit needs to be removed from his grasp, and the people who lived through our bloodiest conflict on this soil understood that very well. 

Justice Thomas and the Supplemental Income

 

You know, until now, stories about the largesse bestowed upon Justice Clarence Thomas almost sounds like he got appointed to the Court, ran the gantlet of his hearing, and then suddenly, he had all these friends he just wouldn't like to disappoint. And yet this story from ProPublica makes a reciprocal point--

There he was, just in debt as heck in 2000 (the year he would decide on Bush v, Gore, as a matter of fact, because that's not something I can refrain from mentioning) he looked over his public servant's salary and said out loud, "Gee, I sure hope my wealthy friends don't disappoint me or they may well get disappointed."

Genuinely:

After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV. 

 At the resort, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference. He found himself seated next to a Republican member of Congress on the flight home. The two men talked, and the lawmaker left the conversation worried that Thomas might resign. 

Congress should give Supreme Court justices a pay raise, Thomas told him. If lawmakers didn’t act, “one or more justices will leave soon” — maybe in the next year.

I'm not calling it extortion. All I'd like to point out is, his public servant salary got supplemented with a good deal of private money--and Thomas was very well aware what it was worth to his benefactors for them to do so.  

 

Menendez Needs to Resign

 

Now, I rarely slam the hell out of Democrats, but here's one hell of an exception: Sen. Bob Menendez of NJ is busted and he needs to resign. To repeat: he is busted, used up, out of credit, persona non grata and a whole pile of bullshit. This man took the little bit of rope he got from a hung jury in his last federal case and made a noose for himself. No sympathy, no nothing. 

The man had close to a half million in cash in his home, some of it sewn into his clothes, and $100K in gold bars.  To me, that spells "BUSTED". What does that tell me? His money isn't in the bank collecting interest because if he took it to the bank, he'd get unwanted interest. And it's also a "to the mattresses" situation. It's around in the eventuality of his needing a reason to not stick around. 

I hear what Majority Leader Schumer is saying when he talks up Menendez' service and his day in court: with respect to his service, he's getting a grace period to figure out what he wants to do before the hammer comes down, so he can go out like it's his own choice. That's respectful, I get it. But if the man doesn't know it's not a "forever" pass, he's a whole idiot. Because the NJ Governor is ready to replace this fool, and he has a rich mine of good people to choose from.  And the Senate doesn't need him so much they will let him fuck around forever:

And that's what his statement is. He really wants to go with: It's because I'm a Latino, huh? 

How about that answer is what makes him seem extra guilty? 

TWGB: The Quality of Mercy is Priced at $2 Million

 

So, lawsuit against Giuliani just got really graphic, and if you want to read the whole thing, I recommend having a sick bag or bucket handy because the parts where he emotionally and physically abuses a female employee is nasty and I wish my read on him didn't feel validated. She says she has texts and emails and even recordings of his abusiveness and more.

But the part I notice is the claim that she can validate that Giuliani was asking $2 million for pardons, because this wasn't new. It's just amazing we have validation now. Also, it appears that as early as 2019, Trump was scared enough of Dark Brandon that he was going to have a plan for losing, but claiming the election was stolen anyway. 

Wow: In *Feb. 2019*, Giuliani had "voter fraud" claim planned if Donald Trump lost the election, according to the complaint.

"Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that Trump’s team would claim that there was 'voter fraud' and that Trump had actually won the election." pic.twitter.com/qU0pDJUwIK

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) May 15, 2023

And if that doesn't remind me of anything?   

Yeah. We knew. It was always about fuckery. Undermining democracy. Damaging what makes our democracy effective and unique. 

The Best Friends You Could Have

 

Yesterday's early news began with word that Clarence Thomas' good friend, Harlan Crow, paid for his nephew's $100K-plus tuition, and this was undisclosed (in the way the gifts of various trips and the real estate transaction regarding his mother's house, where she resides rent-free were undisclosed) and ended with news that he also obviously very good friend Leonard Leo arranged to make payments to his wife, Ginni, as a consultant via KellyAnne Conway as a cut-out, so as to keep the payment, uh, shall we say, hush?

Who in the world has such generous friends?

Thomas has his strong defenders and I've seen all the "whatabouts", but that so many of these transactions were sub rosa paints a less-than rosy picture--and shouldn't it?  They didn't want the appearance of impropriety, but Ginni and Clarence Thomas took the money nonetheless. 

I stared at the blank blog page wondering what I had to say about this, and I'm shocked anything needs to be. Thomas should be ready to resign, and if not, Senate Democrats should be ready to hold hearings and yes, even subpoena wealthy privileged people who don't want to show up if it comes down to that. 

All this time, we've seen Republicans go on the offensive even when they are holding trash cards. When Democrats have legitimate beef, I never hear sizzle. 

It gets tired. Put conservatives on the back foot. Get on them. It's the only damn way.

Who Checks and Balances the Court?

 After so much reporting of Justice Clarence Thomas' relationship with Harlan Crow, not to mention his wife's openly partisan political activity, we now have news of a troubling real estate transaction taking place between Neil Gorsuch and the CEO of Greenberg Traurig, a law firm that regularly brings cases before the Court. A property that was up for sale for two years suddenly was purchased nine days after Gorsuch was confirmed. 

Sure, Gorsuch can say he doesn't know the man or never met him, but the thing of it is--doesn't that make "how to deliver a bribe" seem so effortless? Use cut-outs. Hell, do favors for family. Be linked in all kinds of ways, some obvious, some not. 

Is the problem that people are making the insinuation, or is the problem the cozy relationships that make the insinuations extraordinarily probable? And isn't it even more of a problem when the Chief of one of our main branches of government offers absolute hogwash when asked to discuss court ethics with another branch of government?

If the members of the Supreme Court are in the least concerned about the reputation of that body, they should think of the historical example of the wife of Caesar. In low-level positions of government, ethics rules limit so much as the acceptance of a free lunch. And yet it appears that Supreme Court justices can accept anything their hearts desire--because who is going to check them? 

Despite the call on the left to restore the balance of the Court by expanding it, there has been no move to do so. At the bare minimum, Congress should feel empowered to at least act as a check on whether these parties are ethical stewards of their charge to uphold the law especially because they represent it.  And yes, that should even extend to impeachment if bribery/influence can be demonstrated. 

That means that yes--the member of the Court should be subject to questions. Confirmation shouldn't be the last word between the members of the court and Congress. And if all is kosher, why not both ensure that there are clear guidelines and be willing to communicate that they are followed? 

Look, not all weird financial things to do with SCOTUS are necessarily signs of corruption. But there should be some aim for transparency, and leaving important details off of disclosure forms does open up questions--it's kind of natural. 

Tempest in a Very Peculiar Teapot

 

The discussion of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas' benefactor's unusual collection of Nazi memorabilia amongst his other bits of art are probably most charitably described as tacky and eccentric. Amusingly, he received vociferous support from a variety of conservative pundits, who he had also cultivated and collected over the years. 

In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."  If that doesn't describe a lot of right-wing media, I don't know what does. 

When I was a kid, I had an uncle who got me interested in numismatics, and I collected things like buffalo nickels and Mercury dimes. The little coin shop where I poured over affordable collectibles sometimes had antiques--small historical artifacts, like medals and patches from someone's grandaddy's old footlocker. Anyway, I remember one time there was a patch with a swastika, and I just wanted to see it for a minute. 

The owner asked me did I know where it was from, and I was all of ten or eleven and I knew. Would I like to buy it?  And I decided it was interesting, but I didn't want to own a part of what it was. I was fascinated that I could touch it and handle a symbol I knew was associated with a great evil. But actually bringing it into my parents' house would have felt like doing something wrong to me. I knew what it was; that was enough. 

Justice Thomas has Very Dear Friends

 

The owlish device of Bohemian Grove says" Weaving spiders come not here" and this is the crux of the story--weaving spiders be everywhere when a Supreme Court Justice is accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from politically involved billionaires.  Why, yes, that story was from 2011. Clarence Thomas has told on himself when he admits his dear friendship with Harlan Crow has been for something on the order of 25 plus years, when he has been on SCOTUS for nearly 32 years. 

Did he get endeared by this very good friend after having become a SCOTUS? and wouldn't any one of you find the lavishing of multi-million-dollar trips and so on very endearing? Of course, you are dear friends--now. 

Now, where this stands in the current court, where a leak was probably covered up, shouldn't we worry? Don't we respect this court though, all warts and blemishes aside?

TWGB: Barr, The Master of Muppets, and the Nuclear Hackeysack

 

Martha: He called you a RINO
Barr: A RINO for him is anyone who disagrees with him that the election was stolen. pic.twitter.com/aNER1VubFu

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 6, 2022

Einstein called it a "gedankenexperiment"--it's where you think something out instead of just believing you know what you might not know. MAGAs follow from Trump's pronouncements to presume that if Trump calls someone a RINO--that is what they are. If he calls the press "lying", they assume that is what the media do--they lie, because the obviously not ever lying Trump said so. Trump has found himself at odds with the media, with people who have worked for him, with politicians who formerly agreed with, at least, his policies. What if the common denominator here is Trump himself--a difficult and self-defeating person whose life is the center of a perpetual clusterfuck machine?

Like I said, it's just a thought experiment, but one that Republicans need to engage in, because they have been the ones making origami swallows of their conscience and their reputations on his behalf. Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon allows for a special master in Trump's stolen documents case, which bodes to slow down the investigation, and even rejected an amicus curiae from former GOP officials who understand very well what Trump did wrong. Aw, c'mon Aileen? Are we really that obtuse? She could have just booted this case on jurisdictional grounds and not been the one to decide to slow down the process with an unnecessary Special Master. This is muppetry. She gave Trump's legal team more than it asked for, and I think entirely for appearances' sake. So as not to get a visit from Trump's flying monkeys. Or at least, I think that's the least stupid interpretation of why she might have. I certainly hope the reason isn't more transactional. 

Who is Paying for Dinner?

 

I think it's a gosh darn shame that the beer-loving scamp of the current SCOTUS line-up was forced to flee Morton's Steak House before dessert was served because of the outrage of nearby protesters, but as we all know, the word "restaurant" appears nowhere in the Constitution and after all, it's not like anyone has a right to privacy, right? Freedom of speech, check. Freedom to peaceably assemble--check. Freedom to eat a steak and not be reminded that you decided a case in a way that has doctors playing chicken with the reaper before being able to determine whether to render care to a miscarrying pregnant person in crisis because of the legal liability you helped impose on them? No. 

No. I don't see how Brett Kavanaugh has that right.  He has the privilege to make that kind of decision, and his nomination to the bench was financially backed by people who strongly expected that was exactly the kind of decision he would render, even if he did not say as much during his Senate hearing. All the same, he does not get to escape the world in which his decision has consequences. Any more than a pregnant 10 year old does. 

Now, a person who carried a grudge like a piece of shrapnel in their guts might wonder a lot of things about Kavanaugh--but I will just ask this blogpost's titular question: Who is paying for dinner? 

TWGB: The Pardoner's Tale

 

President Trump has been discussing the possibility of issuing pardons for his family members and some close associates, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News. https://t.co/fMlVbecclY

— Breaking News (@BreakingNews) December 2, 2020

I have a funny feeling that there is a good bit of distance between what Trump considers "illegal" and what, say, the law, considers "illegal", so maybe the feeling of being "embattled" that the president has is actually a consideration that people might have the gall to side with the law in the event of his leaving office. He's aware laws might have been broken; he's of a different mind about whom they should apply to.

The idea that he can just issue pre-emptive pardons to his family members that are really broad and not at all about something specific sounds great, and why haven't more presidents done things like that? (After all, close adviser Sean Hannity says Trump should definitely do this, and throw himself in for good measure.) It seems like it might not actually be what the Chief Executive has pardon power for, in other words, but what do I know? 

I know AG Barr during his confirmation hearing indicated that he believed it would be wrong for a president to dangle a pardon in exchange for not ratting him out. Would that apply to something like Trump's willingness to pardon Flynn after it became evident that he was not cooperating with the Mueller investigation? Maybe, maybe not--but if it was a clear as all that (like, he had every right to pardon someone even if it was a matter that traced back to himself), why not just go right to the pardoning regarding Roger Stone instead of all the DOJ business with requesting a reduced sentence before commuting his sentence? 

In TrumpWorld, it has seemed a bit like reality is whatever Trump gets away with. Take the possibility that Giuliani has been looking for a pre-emptive pardon (he says no, and I certainly have no reason not to disbelieve him) regarding the federal investigation into his association with illicit campaign finance schemes and international shenanigans in Ukraine. I've always thought there was a mutual, but fraudulent benefit to Giuliani's relationship as Trump's free personal lawyer, and there's nothing like pardoning Giuliani to basically admit--yeah, it was just like that. (And wouldn't that blast client/attorney privilege to heck?) That sounds to me like something that could pose a difficulty for both of them in the post-Trump presidency.

Eh. As I always say, if something looks bad with this lot, it probably is. Whatever could I make, then, of the news that the DOJ is investigating a White House "bribery for pardon" scheme? I mean, this president, solicit a bribe and abuse power--impossible! (Heh!) You know, unless it was something really good like dirt on a political rival or maybe, at this point, cash money (those notes are coming due, and sadly, the grift only pays for so much).

All I know of is, it's a sad thing that when the names of the lobbyists for this scheme, and the potential recipient of this ill-gotten grace are redacted, there are so many, many possible names of people in the Trump orbit that the mind can go to of genuinely dishonest, unethical, and legally compromised people who might be involved.

There should be a moral to this tale, but it's TrumpWorld, kid. You should know by now morals have little to do with it.

Adult Playground?

Trump opens up Camp David as an "adult playground" to woo GOP lawmakers during impeachment https://t.co/zNtOVyXSdz

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 23, 2019

Look, you guys, it's been a hard couple of weeks for all of us political watchers, and you know what? When I hear that Trump is treating GOP lawmakers to an "adult playground" at Camp David, I'm not thinking s'mores and skeet-shooting. I'm thinking something a little more like:

(The graphic is a Strangely Blogged Throwback cut. You're welcome.) 

Anyway, I think I already pointed out that this is not a good look for the GOP, whether for the House members who think it's just great to basically serve as the president's defense/PR team, or for potential US Senate jurors who want to "play" instead of taking their responsibility to the Constitution seriously, or who even just settle for re-election cash. 

So while part of me is wondering to what extent Camp David might be looking like Hef's grotto or whatever, I think it's very plain what the whole thing looks like in general--influence. And it isn't great, actually.