TWGB: A Certain Persuasion

 

Trump: You have to really play the hand that your dealt. And then you had a jury that's from a certain persuasion, would have been hard to do no matter what. pic.twitter.com/K8sxVuvErw

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 2, 2024

Consider what that sounds like--roll it around in your mind. It really sounds like he's moving past saying the trial was "rigged" because Soros funded Bragg or because Joe Biden ordered a lawfare hit on him, down to saying the jury was biased against him: from a "certain persuasion." 

Dog whistle?  Air raid siren?

TrumpWorld has being saying this disturbing thing out loud for a minute: Russia and China aren't the real danger, people who oppose Trump are. MTG has endorsed the execution of prominent Democrats, for example. But take a look at who else gets burned?

Republicans like former Governor and current US Senate candidate Larry Hogan, who made what once would have been viewed as a completely reasonable statement:

TWGB: He Would Like to Not Have Rules, Thanks.

 

So, like, Trump's lawyers really said: pic.twitter.com/qWiQxWxMpN

— Vixen Strangely (@VixenStrangely) January 9, 2024

 As any thinking person may have predicted, Trump's extreme view of presidential immunity absolutely sanctions death squads, thank you very much. His lawyers just "what if'd" themselves into supporting a sitting president offing a rival, only to be chastised if the Congress can't get with it. But you would be amazed what some people can "get with" once the assassinations start rolling. 

It's a real good thing you did, Mr. Trump, wishing those people into the cornfield, Trump lawyers might add, as Rod Serling showed in his most harsh indictment of totalitarianism. What if a child-brain had absolute power to coerce others with violence? What if every competent person was labeled "the Deep State"? What if every competent journalist was declared an enemy? The "lying press"? 

This is what our Bill of Rights in the Constitution was about--not giving the state absolute power or resting absolute power in the guy who was made executive of the state. We protect the press and witnesses of crimes. We're supposed to have due process for individuals accused of a crime. Even if Trump's investigation (s) were "supposed" to be political at their source, the purpose of our legal system is that the political fuckery is minimized by design. People can hear out the facts, and then be the judge of them.

You wouldn't even need to tamper with witnesses or the jury if you were innocent. If a fair hearing of facts benefitted you, why would you even tamper with witnesses or a jury or the judges or the prosecutors, or want violence for any of them? You wouldn't need your little fan club to swat judges and prosecutors. You wouldn't even have their names in your mouth, because you could be assured the facts set you and them straight. 

A Pretty Presidential Paradox

 

So, speaking of threading needles, I think the Colorado decision is a case of trying to get an entire camel through a needle's eye. It posits, in great detail, that the President of the United States is absolutely responsible for inciting the insurrection. Whoo boy, is he! 

Judge Wallace’s assessment of Mr. Trump’s behavior before and on Jan. 6 was damning, and, notably, she rejected his lawyers’ argument that the First Amendment protected him. His words and actions, she wrote, met the criteria set by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio for distinguishing incitement from protected speech.

“Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification,” she wrote. “Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same.”

Referring to his speech on the Ellipse on Jan. 6, in which he told his supporters that they needed to “fight like hell” and that they were justified in behaving by “very different rules,” Judge Wallace said, “Such incendiary rhetoric, issued by a speaker who routinely embraced political violence and had inflamed the anger of his supporters leading up to the certification, was likely to incite imminent lawlessness and disorder.”

But would he be barred from running for office as if he was, like, an officer of the United States at the time? Like an officer-officer. A guy with an office?  Weeeeelllllll....

Color me skeptical*. I always thought the person in the Oval Office was sort of like the CEO of the country. It's an executive office. Trump was the officeholder when all of this went down. It feels like deciding he is responsible, but escapes being treated as an officeholder because of the unique nature of his office is a bit of a cop-out. It's like saying "The buck stops with the president" but you can fling it anywhere but at Trump. 

I do like the part where the blame for the insurrection is very solidly laid at his feet though--that's a good start.

*All disclaimers about getting most of my idea about law from television shows pertain.

James Ho's Very Unaesthetic Decision

 

I guess there was no reason at all to expect a better comment in the mifepristone case from James Ho, seen in the picture above being sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at billionaire Harlan Crow's house because why the heck not?  

But while the overall decision is mixed (the abortion pill remains available with some notable restrictions, such as ordering it by mail) I just need to point to the language of Judge Ho's creepy dissent:

In his concurrent opinion, Ho wrote that the doctors will also suffer an “aesthetic injury” if the pills remain on the market.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he wrote. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

Prego fetishists love to see the rounded bellies of pregnant women--do they have standing? I experience an aesthetic injury when I see pregnant people's human rights to make health care choices for themselves violated as a person who theoretically (although probably requiring a late-life miracle like Sarah in the Bible) could still get pregnant myself. Where's my consideration? I experience profound discomfort when I see people forced to experience labor at unwanted pregnancies or to carry pregnancies that will negatively affect their well-being. (Should I go looking for some pro-cancer motherfuckers who find tumors beautiful to go ruin oncology? Of course not. Should a lover of gigantic breasts have veto power over breast reductions--"aesthetic injury!" I mean, why not mandate implants for their sake? If we're imposing upon people, after all.) 

Are we just giving every SOB with an opinion credit for it these days? I consider the poor baby-lover who is sad about abortions as being like the dingus white-supremacist child's opinion of being "traumatized" by diversity: tough actual shit. You live on a planet where people have actual lives that ain't yours, buddy--cope. 

And yeah, a lot of doctors love those unborn babies, but also know very well why abortions are necessary and should stay safe and available. Wanted children are a joy. But we know that pregnant people are discriminated against, that they are targeted for violence and murder by partners, that they may have pre-existing conditions including substance abuse and mental illness that make safely carrying a child (and not running afoul of laws that make murderers of women for activities that could harm fetuses) very difficult. Some patients are prone to miscarriage and fetal abnormalities. Sometimes pregnancies are not a joy. It is possible to celebrate both choices, to honor a patients' will in all cases. 

Zealots and ideologues are poor judges. I think that really, a safe and easily available method for ending a pregnancy is something that should remain lawful with little restriction. And no one should have standing over what happens with a pregnancy until viability but the pregnant person. 

(Nota bene--Josh Hawley's wife Erin of the ADF was counsel in this lawsuit. She is what I would call a "sister-shafter"--she does not give one fuck about female-bodied human rights.)

TWGB: Everything Looks Worse in Black and White

 

The image I went with for today's TrumpWorld Grab-Bag is a black and white rendition of the one-fingered salute his faithful crowd gave him his past Saturday as he gave more of his "American carnage" type of doom-saying with the obvious punchline of how only he could fix it. He's been dipping a little deeper into Qanon signifying lately, and I can only surmise it has a lot to do with their being a goddamn cult that worships him, that they will believe anything, and they are primed as hell for violence. If you are a legally-jeopardized twice-impeached one-term wonder with multiple indictments potentially coming your way and a very limited defense, and are also Donald Trump, insurrectionist, sure, what the hell: 

Threaten mass violence in case of indictments. 

But is it fascism? Oh hell. It isn't history repeating, but it's been rhyming for a while now, ok? If you are looking for exact parallels, hey, maybe that isn't the metric we want to be looking at. I will say that Qanon is obviously a derivative of Nazi (and earlier) anti-Semitic blood-libel though. And that actual demonization of the other creates a permission slip for doing any amount of horror to one's political enemies. Look at this:

Pastor Mark Burns, at Eric Trump and Michael Flynn’s event in Idaho: “I’m coming here to declare war on every demonic, demon-possessed Democrat that comes from the gates of Hell!” pic.twitter.com/URUcHo11V8

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) September 16, 2022

Trump has been using religion as a way to prove legitimacy and religionists (Christian Nationalists) have been using Trump to try and make their religious POV into law.  There are a number of evangelical "prophets" who insist God told them Trump never lost the 2020 election or is definitely coming into power again.   And you know who would have really hated this kind of thing--our founding fathers. This religious enthusiasm is too much. This dictating from the pulpit. This non-separation of church and state. 

TWGB: Soon to be Deposed.

 

The decision today (to be appealed--hopefully unsuccessfully) that Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump should sit for deposition in the NY AG civil case regarding "copious financial fraud" sounds like the gentle rumble of the accountability train, coming at long last.  I think. I mean, I've had my head on this track listening for fucking ever. 

The case that was put on by Trump's lawyers to quash the subpoenas for his documents (is someone pouring ketchup on Trump Organization papers even as we speak?) and the deposition of Trump and family was absurd, but then again, TrumpWorld is a funhouse mirror universe where things always look bizarre. Is NY AG Tish James unduly biased against Trump? It would hardly matter given that the actual case against him based on copious available documents suggests justice would be served by giving him his day in court--why does Trump have a problem with that?  

And isn't Trump in a protected class? While obviously, former one-term twice-impeached presidents are rare, no, he isn't a protected class just because he used to have some vague kind of immunity (which should never have covered shit he did before assuming the office of POTUS, anyway). 

In a bit of weirdness, one of Trump's lawyers even pulled out "Why aren't you investigating Hillary Clinton for spying?" This is the sort of thing a badly-overmatched attorney might bring up if her briefcase were stuffed with notebook paper with unhelpful suggestion from the client scrawled in Sharpie marker. This is exactly how I imagine it, and how it will be portrayed in the screenplay. 

Another argument--won't it look bad? Was knocked down by the obvious answer: well, what if it is bad? If Trump pleads the Fifth Amendment, yes, it does work against him in the civil trial, and he should obviously consider whether telling the truth might be one way of avoiding that disaster. But if he obviously would incriminate himself if he told the truth and that information is shared in a criminal context--

Why are we doing this? Look, Trump has history. He had to settle Trump University cases and his Trump Foundation was scattered to the winds. It isn't that he isn't known to be crooked, it's that his fan club doesn't admit it to themselves because they are enjoying the ride he's taking them on and the system hasn't figured out how to shut him all the way down yet. NY AG Tish James is doing something very important here: the hard work of bringing a lawless business to account. Trump having been president should not exculpate him or his dumb kids. If anything, that and his potential for running again makes inspecting his morality and concern for the law more important, not less. 

Especially because there is every reason to expect that he ran the office of the presidency, from the very first day, with the same lawless attitude he engaged in his business practices. Especially because even his exit from that office is marred by lawlessness and involves the complicity of his family.  

Should Trump continue to benefit from the same luck he's experienced all his gifted, grifting, and corrupt life after all we know now? (Shouldn't his lease to his Washington DC hotel be voided because of fraud before he can sell it and get an ill-gained cash infusion for his suffering business?) 

Trump's party always likes to talk about being in favor of the rule of law, against crime, and for personal responsibility. Well, Trump is being made responsible. You gotta love it. 

I mean, unless for some stupid reason you put all your eggs in a deplorable handbasket, or something. But who is that dumb? 

Wisconsin Showed Up

Among the more absurd images from last Tuesday's Wisconsin primary vote was the one above, of Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos--a Republican, who urged voters that it was incredibly safe to go out and vote while dressed up in a way that strongly fashion-signaled "not incredibly safe." 

The discouragement if the visual was the point. Republicans were counting on low turnout in the hopes that it would benefit their preferred judicial candidate, the incumbent WI Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly. By blocking the Democratic governor's executive order to delay the vote due to outbreak fears, they aimed at disarray. 

It did not work, however. I think the takeaway is, volume of turnout aside, the voters who made it out to the polls were strongly motivated. (I note that President Trump strongly supported Kelly). It's possible that by so obviously showing this level of low regard for voters' rights and public safety, the GOP did not help themselves at all. 

I would not be surprised if there is more where that came from, too. 

What a Fool Believes

AG Barr seems to tells ABC news that the President’s tweets make it impossible for him to do his job pic.twitter.com/aEe59s5JRC

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) February 13, 2020

So, where I left the Trump saga in the last post, he had just actually Tweeted an extortion about New York state:

which is one of those borderline situations people used to talk about back in 2016: Are we supposed to take him literally, or are we supposed to take him seriously, or what???

At this point, I don't see how one can not take it for what it is (I guess we'll hear more from the governor). But as to the claim from Bill Barr that he sure finds Trump's Tweets make it hard to do his job and undermine his Department if Justice, goldarnit, color me a bit skeptical. My interpretation of that, at face value, is like the whinge of GOP senators who feel called out from doing business as usual, he resents being put on the damn spot. Can't he get somewhat through at least one cover-up before Trump is either openly congratulating him on it or starting a new crime wave? What's next, telling everyone he sanctioned whatever Giuliani is doing in Ukraine because he doesn't trust the US intelligence apparatus not even a little bit? Hoo boy.

But because I assume Barr has a little more on the ball than the impulsive Mr. Trump, I think it's more of a bit of public relations CYA on his part. People are calling for Barr's head, and it does look like he's performed with no small amount of impropriety on Trump's behalf. The NYC bar is calling into question Barr's partisan, Trump-protecting activity. His desire to weigh in regarding the prosecutorial work of DA's in progressive communities has been blasted by many professionals. (The remarks on his part, to this effect, fit into a general pattern of the RW taking against all things George Soros is involved with, even though supported by people like Charles Koch as well, and are referenced positively by President Trump--if awkwardly and sandwiched between ruminations on killing drug dealers.)

Martyr-Baiting With Roger Stone

JUDGE to STONE: "Thank you, but the apology rings quite hollow." https://t.co/wEN8cw2Umd

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) February 21, 2019

Roger Stone made a very interesting play:  how was poor old Roger Stone (with his rotating staff of 5 or 6 unknown persons who use his phone) to know posting a picture of the judge with a crosshairs symbol would make anyone mad?

Please think of Stone's paltry nearly $50k a month takings and donate to this poor, persecuted man's legal fund! (Snerk.) Anyway, naturally, he got hit with a full gag order, and I'm pretty sure he will gag on it and have to talk about how the deep state and its minions are oppressing him and then get thrown in jail.

And I will find that hilarious.

Two Hints for US AG Sessions

Sessions questions travel ban ruling from Hawaii judge because he is "sitting on an island in the Pacific" https://t.co/M9wj1G9kdo pic.twitter.com/Gyv9RDvDEq

— The Hill (@thehill) April 20, 2017

1) Judicial review.


2) Hawaiian statehood.


These may be on later exams.

Climate Sunday: The Round-up

In a piece of good news, it appears BP will be paying for some additional part of their culpability in the major 2010 gulf oil spill over and above the initial damage claims and clean-up. They've been found guilty of gross negligence. Halliburton will also be paying damages, to the tune of $1.1 billion.

I can't swear the parties involved won't be back in court over this, since events like the Exxon Valdez spill became entirely about the ability of the oil companies to invest in lawyers to try and tire out the argument in favor of their actually fixing things, but I dunno. Maybe they'll just pay this time.

I know I've written about ISIL a bit this week or so, but you know what--they aren't as threatening as climate change could be. Check Juan Cole out if you haven't before--he writes about foreign policy in the Middle East mostly, but he's also sterling on climate issues.

I'm looking forward to reading Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything going by this.

There are many more stories out there, but these were the ones that got me thinking this past week. You might also be interested to hear this summation of the Mann Defamation trial by a writer for the Union of Concerned Scientists.  It seems to me that the National Review editors should have very seriously considered whether they needed to have a scientist exonerated by many reviews of his work compared to a child molester. As an analogy, it sucks. As a slur, it's inflammatory. But the page views aren't worth the magazine's integrity, surely?  They will find out.