The Gaetz Report

 

We heard that the ethics investigation into Matt Gaetz would show illegal drug use (cocaine, molly), paying for (lots of) sex, including with a minor, and well, yeah. He did that stuff.  He left a pretty considerable trail of payments to women--$90K to various women. It's fairly unsavory:

The report noted that while all the women who testified said the sexual encounters with Gaetz were consensual, one woman told the committee the use of drugs at the parties and events they attended may have "impair[ed their] ability to really know what was going on or fully consent."

Another woman told the committee, "When I look back on certain moments, I feel violated."

For his part, Gaetz had tried (unsuccessfully) to sue to block the report from coming out.  This is because he knew it would look bad--full stop. He's not unaware of his conduct, he's just unclear on why it should have anything to do with how people judge him.

You really do hate to see a person go so wrong from the unfortunate effects of a very comfortable and privileged upbringing. 

Gaetz Pulls Out

 

Having viewed at least some portion of the iceberg of dirt set to crash his Titanic nomination for AG, Matt Gaetz has graciously stepped aside for someone else who might slip past senatorial review. 

I'm kind of joking. When I say "graciously stepped aside", I guess I'm still wondering at the hubris that let Matt Gaetz keep his name in knowing of his ethics investigation and probably being well aware of whether he paid for sex with a minor once or a few times or whatever--or whether he was always ass deep in hookers and blow. 

Before we get on to the quandary of Pam Bondi, the recipient of Trump money to forget about any prosecution against Trump University, which defrauded down on their luck folks of all sorts who thought lessons from real estate stable genius Trump would change their fortunes, not leave them even more immersed in debt, as the new Gaetz--let's think about the old one:

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. 

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. 

What in the Slap-Happy Hell?

 

Power Slap—the series developed by UFC prez Dana White—drew in nearly 300K viewers in its debut on Wednesday. The TBS show outperformed the Young Sheldon reruns that took its place last week after White exchanged slaps with his wife on NYE. My @FOS story. https://t.co/uTDbEdjEVy

— A.J. Perez (@byajperez) January 20, 2023

I have a hard time watching football anymore because of the issues regarding CTE.  A lot of good athletes and decent people have experienced brain trauma that changed their personalities, caused serious life repercussions, even cost players their lives and the lives of people around them. 

I grew up loving professional wrestling. Sadly, professional wrestling also has a reputation for being a sport where people can experience a shortened life span, and a lot of that has to do with the toll constant physical trauma has on--well, just every damn part on one's life, from pain management to potential brain damage. The incredibly talented Chris Benoit was found to have had CTE after he killed his wife and child and himself. I've seen too many people die young who are associated with that sport, as well. 

So, call me a killjoy, but I just don't see any joy in a so-called sport that revolves around rattling the fuck out of someone's brainpan and subjecting yourself to getting your own skull rocked. In any fighting discipline, it's true that you can learn how to take bumps in a way that protect your neck and head and minimize the damage your extremities experience. 

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? 

Stephens' Paradox

"Ashkenazi Jews might have a marginal advantage over their gentile peers when it comes to thinking better. Where their advantage more often lies is in thinking different," says Bret Stephens. https://t.co/XQngBOMqmQ

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) December 28, 2019

The point of Brett Stephen's controversial (on Twitter, at any rate, which is where I live, more or less) opinion piece seems to be that it is the cultural rigor of Ashkenazi Jews with respects to argumentation, defending one's opinions, and double-checking one's assumptions that accounts for the intellectual success of the group--it doesn't really rest on any pure race theory nonsense that Stephens has actually linked to. Which kind of makes it hard to fathom, then, why he linked to it. The inclusion of the race theory nonsense actually weakens his thesis which is that there is a learned cultural skill that certain Jews have that has enabled them to be survivors and deep thinkers.

But what he's saying makes sense if you consider his representation of the argumentative intellectual as an exemplar--he's decrying the closing of the American mind, I think. He's taking in the occasion of anti-Semitism to warn us that people of minority intellectual viewpoints are also marginalized, too.

I don't know what this para is for:

At its best, the American university can still be a place of relentless intellectual challenge rather than ideological conformity and social groupthink. At its best, the United States can still be the country that respects, and sometimes rewards, all manner of heresies that outrage polite society and contradict established belief. At its best, the West can honor the principle of racial, religious and ethnic pluralism not as a grudging accommodation to strangers but as an affirmation of its own diverse identity. In that sense, what makes Jews special is that they aren’t. They are representational.

I think rewarding heresies is how we got the birther Trump, a climate science denier and all-around stooge. "Outraging polite society" isn't a kind of breaking down of a paradigm, a kind of busting of self satisfied gatekeeping. It is just asking for the right to offend regardless of the rightness of one's reasons. And I don't even think that right is what the argumentation and intellectual rigor of Stephen's mishpocha had been about. It's the right to offend that makes atrocities eventually spoken out loud slip into action.

The time was not ripe for this particular opinion because the time never is. There is a good argument for scientific paradigmatic explosion, but this seems to be about creating space for what is, sadly, old news, paradigms already exploded. But I don't even think this is the argument he's trying on, here. It really seems just like he's saying "let a certain kind of conservatism be what it is because some people are threatened anywhere".

Well, actually, all arguments are subject to rigorous criticism as a part of a healthy intellectual tradition, right? So I think I will continue to find it correct to brook argument with conservative ideas that are beat and broke regardless of whether the person delivering them is from whatever tradition at all. It's the least I can do to honor the best of that culture. And I also deplore the monsters that attack people of any faith or ethnicity for that artifact of their existence. Wrong is wrong.

A Man of Impeachable Character

On the occasion of the great honor that is being bestowed by Attorney General William Barr upon the legal team that chauffeured Brett Kavanaugh through the gravelly road that led to the SCOTUS bench, it is only fitting that a bit of a bombshell report from NYT should emerge to remind us that allegations regarding Kavanaugh's behavior at Yale were not rigorously investigated, and that there was more than an inkling at the time that a further look would corroborate the accuser's story. 

Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic.”

There was also another story from Kavanaugh's time at Yale where a contemporaneous student observed Kavanaugh with his pants down at a party, with friends pushing Kavanaugh's penis into a female party-goer's hand.

It's deeply distasteful, but just as Kavanaugh allegedly had his penis thrust into someone's hand by besotted and thoughtless comrades, it seems parallel to the besotted (by politics) and thoughtless way the man was leveraged onto the highest bench by so many helpers in the Republican party. I was mad enough to break out of a kind of blogger retirement by the overt shenanigans and the reminder that this is who they are,  and I've maintained that hustling this man's nomination forward to confirmation in the face of his ethical and personal issues should come back to bite the people involved.

I'm just not sure, with the current level of denialism the GOP has with respects to the concept of "enough", this breaking story will seem like "Enough!" to them to see their way clear to finally giving him the investigation that was originally warranted. After all, 83 ethics complaints were, over the interval since his swearing-in, dispatched with, barring congressional oversight.  Likewise, I still think there might be some merit in following the money on this one.

For any number of reasons, it is deeply concerning for a jurist to have masses of dirt swept behind him--it leaves him subject to having it swept out in the open! It calls his opinions into question, as to whether his character is such that he can't be induced to do something inappropriate, rather like a drunken frat boy steered into sexual misconduct when surrounded by his brave and laughing companions. It calls into question his honesty.

I would like to hope the GOP would come help collect their man and undo what has been done via impeachment, but I feel like they are hopeless and incapable of dealing with their own grave moral failure to just do the due diligence, here. It should mean that Graham, Collins, and McConnell are quite over their Senate careers. That is something the people can decide.

Depressed Conference

There's nothing better for democracy than good, old-fashioned transparency, am I right? When the government does the people's business, we surely hope they are going about their affairs in an above-board manner, and if there is anything amiss, we'd like to know that the fourth estate is on it. Or one would think that's how it should go, but Wednesday's presser was a shitshow, and does not bode well for the future relationship between a Trump Administration and the news media.

I'd like to draw your attention to the staging--there were props. (He has used props before.) The above file folders are supposed to represent all the paperwork involved in turning his business over to his sons. No journalist was able to look at them, and they are probably just filled with blank paper because this is obvious bullshit.  The Chief of the Office of Federal Ethics has derided the scheme as "wholly inadequate". Trump thoughtfully provided his lawyer to take questions regarding the set-up, but she is not a constitutional lawyer and seems to be under the impression that "emoluments" is something more like gifts or profits and not just payments in general from foreign interests. Just owning his business is a problem--especially since you can't miss assets that have his name on a big sign overtop of them. And do we really expect him not to talk shop with the lads? Also, because this is Trumplandia, his lawyer's firm won Russia's law firm of the year. It just feels wrong not to point that out as a weird coincidence, even if its significance is sketchy.

You want transparency? Meh. He's not giving up tax returns, and if you want to know whether any of his campaign or transition staff have ties to Russia, you're either history's greatest monster or something from Nazi Germany. And in light of the media's coverage of the dossier regarding his potential compromised position by Russian intelligence, he's not really copacetic with the press right now, anyway--as in, well, had he been during his campaign?

Trump has demonized the press for just covering him and quoting him accurately.  His campaign on occasion outright banned certain outlets from coverage. His rhetoric and the zeal of his supporters against journos is highly worrisome--a threat to freedom of speech and to the lives and welfare of people who are just trying to cover the news. In his presser, Trump struck out at Buzzfeed, who published the dossier, and CNN, for reporting about it.  Chillingly, Buzzfeed was advised that they would "suffer the consequences" for reporting. Jim Acosta, of CNN, was threatened with ejection by Sean Spicer, who has opted to behave like a newly-hired nightclub bouncer trying to impress the boss.

So much of this would be viewed by folks like me as pretty hostile and not at all a great indicator of how well Team Trump is going to manage dealing with the press, handling ethics issues, or responding as if Trump was not actually a wholly-owned subsidiary of Putin Enterprises LTD.  (His protestations of "NO LINKS!" did not, actually, distract from the previous "hell yes, links" coverage previously uncovered. ) Also, Trump being unhinged, he revealed something that sounded exactly creepy--he assumes that in hotels, there are cameras everywhere.  He owns a mess of hotels! And there were reports he was bugging guests at Mar-a-Lago. (What is he trying to say--are his own properties some kind of Orwellian Total Information thing? Should one worry one's own stay might result in kompromat?)

No good communication happened. Trump had paid staff cheer and clap for him to create an atmosphere where he could seem to be "winning", even if a close review of what was actually happening didn't look positive at all. Maybe they were also there to audit who the "good ones were" amongst the paid ink-daubers? But the laughing of his paid audience, the empty files that make it look like he offered transparency, and the reflexive anti-media bias atmosphere he created made this circus satisfying for his fans. This is what they wanted. He reinforced their biases--he made himself appear the victim of a vicious news media that destroys people for just being conservative. (Poor Orange Snowflake!) He even ended the performance with the catchphrase of his reality tv show'' he implied that if his boys didn't manage his business well, he would be telling them "You're fired!" It was a show. A put-on.

Tragedy and farce are seldom so entwined.

Don't Rush to Give Trump Credit 2: DTS Edition

The House GOP assault on the independent Office of Congressional Ethics was walked back--thanks in large part to all the voters and taxpayers and constituents who made their voices heard.  It is tempting to note that this walk-back comes after a mildly critical Tweet by PEOTUS Trump, but frankly, I'm going to have to give a lot of credit to the constituent efforts, because Trump's mild criticism was mild.  He basically was saying, yes the Office of Congressional Ethics is unfair, but the optics is bad if you do this first thing--and he was right because there was already a furor about it on Twitter. Also, it conflicts with his #DTS messaging. So really, youse guys. Don't mess with Trump's messaging.

But being right because something is bleeding obvious and being responsible for that thing getting stopped are different things. (Also, there is good reason to suspect that the gutting of the OCE is not actually scrapped, just postponed. )

I've cautioned about this tendency to ascribe causality to the Trump election win where no actual causal link can be truly determined. Trump claims credit for, say, Sprint jobs that were nothing to do with him.  Or claims credit for a Ford plant that wasn't even going to move. Or takes a swipe at GM needing to be subject to a border tax for cars it makes in Mexico that get sold to the US, when actually, lots of the cars he's referring to are made in Ohio and the cars made in Mexico are sold abroad because US Americans don't buy hatchbacks. Does he almost use this as a springboard to pretend he saved yet more Ford jobs?

Trump Tweets. He isn't president yet. He isn't well-informed and he is not yet really in any position to "make deals". What he likes is seeing his name in print associated with good things.  Not bad things, like nuclear war with North Korea.

Trump stands ready and prepared to be the cock who took credit for the day. In all journalistic veracity, can we not award him credit for the damn day?  He did not make the sun rise, sprinkle it with dew, etc. He is not president yet, nor is he the Candyman, and his saying he can and being the guy who can, are very different things.

Does This Swamp Make Our Grift Look Big?

With very little fanfare, the House Republicans decided it was all for the best if they just didn't have an Independent Ethics Committee and just let the currently GOP-led House have purview over ethics complaints. It's quite possible that some GOP members of the House voted this way because it was especially convenient for their own ethics complaints.  I've noticed GOP members do odd things, myself (you can look for yourself into the ethics issues of Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley, and all).

It's hard not to separate this from the ethical challenges presented by the incoming Trump Administration.  It's patently obvious that President Trump will be carrying the baggage of numerous conflicts of interest, and that the best check on his ethical challenges rests with Congress. But what if they simply don't deign to do any such thing? They aren't even interesting in keeping themselves honest.

I'd like to look to the media for some satisfaction in covering stories that bring clarity to just how conflicted POTUS--or even members of Congress, might be in their dealings, but some media figures seem loathe to cover even accurate stories for fear of seeming to act as referee. It might seem like calling Donald Trump out for repeating a lie is a step too far for some. But some experienced journos recognize it as a necessity. After all, if as candidate Trump, he was already a noted dissembler,  how would that not still be a valid story? It's not as if acquiring the office of the presidency suddenly imbues his bullshit with the weight of truth, even if some lackeys and lickspittles want to treat his general blather that way.

I just don't see how any party could claim ownership for a "draining the swamp" message, while taking away the ability to measure just how well the swamp-clearing is going. It seems more like the GOP has granted a kind of "alligator immunity" to be just as cozy in the swamp as ever they could be.

This is not the type of story regular folks follow--but is exactly the kind they should if they wonder about representation vs cronyism. Conflict of interest is liable to become the rule, not the exception with such reduced oversight.