As Donald Trump demands that Mike Johnson help overturn his hush-money conviction, the House speaker might find himself swimming in rocky waters

House Speaker Mike Johnson (left) and Danald Trum (AP)

 

Donald Trump is turning to House Speaker Mike Johnson for help getting his New York hush-money conviction overturned, according to a report at The New Republic (TNR). What caused Trump's demented brain to think Johnson, or Congress in general, have any control over court decisions, state or federal, To  emphasize how seriously Trump views his current tight spot, he reportedly dropped several "F-Bombs" on the speaker during a recent conversation. That caused several members of the Republican establishment to consider a number of desperate moves to avoid a rift within the party -- probably with an eye toward placating "The Orange Turd" at all costs.

How tricky is this situation? TNR's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling spells it out under the headline "Trump’s F-Bomb Rant to Mike Johnson Sparks Desperate GOP Moves; Trump begged the House speaker to save him after his hush-money conviction. Houghtaling writes:

After a jury found him guilty on 34 felony counts, Donald Trump knew exactly who to call for a solution: House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In a conversation reportedly laced with F-bombs, Trump urged the Louisiana Republican to find  a political solution for his legal comeuppance, Politico reported Thursday.

“We have to overturn this,” Trump told a sympathetic Johnson, according to Politico.

Johnson already believed the House had a role to play in overturning Trump’s conviction, but since that call, he’s practically done backflips to make it happen. During an interview on Fox and Friends last month, Johnson urged the Supreme Court to “step in” and overturn the jury’s verdict.

“I think that the justices on the court—I know many of them personally—I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they’ll set this straight,” Johnson said, before effectively promising to viewers that the nation’s highest court would step in to make the ruling go away. “This will be overturned, guys, there’s no question about it; it’s just going to take some time to do it.”

Johnson's plan to free Trump from a guilty verdict that, based on all reports we've seen, was decided by a judge and a jury who bent over backwards to ensure trump received due process. We are talking about a case that was decided in a Manhattan state court, so why would Trump and Johnson (who is a  lawyer by trade) think they can skip over the New York appellate process and go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court  (SCOTUS) -- essentially cutting in line ahead of many other parties and cases? Johnson's plan is brazen and dripping with apparent unlawfulness. Given that he has already dropped hints about intervening with his "personal friends" at SCOTUS on Trump's behalf, Johnson is dancing dangerously close to criminal territory, especially obstruction of justice.

How far is Johnson willing to go for Trump? He appears to be throwing caution to the wind, acting with the kind of recklessness that could put him behind bars. Houghtaling writes:

The House Speaker is looking to unravel Trump’s other criminal charges, as well. Johnson is reportedly examining using the appropriations process to target special counsel Jack Smith’s probe, and is already in talks with Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan to do so. It’s a near reversal of a position he took early last month, when Johnson told Politico that a similar idea proposed by Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be “unworkable.”

“This country certainly sees what’s going on, and they don’t want Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg and these kinds of folks to be able to continue to use grant dollars for targeting people in a political lawfare type of way,” Jordan told the publication.

But other Republicans aren’t exactly on board with the idea of defunding the special counsel—even if they disagree with the case against Trump.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea unless you can show that [the prosecutors] acted in bad faith or fraud or something like that,” Idaho Representative Mike Simpson told Politico. “They’re just doing their job—even though I disagree with what they did.”

Another, unnamed Republican went even further in torching the effort, claiming that attacking Smith’s case would completely undermine their calls against Democrats for “weaponizing” the justice system to their political benefit.

Here is the problem Johnson faces; He claims Trump has been the victim of "lawfare," in Georgia, but we are talking about the New York hush-money case here; The election-interference case in Georgia is not even fully off the ground yet, so it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. On top of that, Johnson seems to have no evidence that Trump has been the victim of 'lawfare," Even Trump has only been able to make out-of-court statements about being "not guilty," but when given the opportunity to step up to the plate and take questions under oath, he declined. In other words, Trump himself seems unable to point to anything the judge and jury handled improperly in the hush-money case. 

The best Trump can do is keep claiming the case in New York was "rigged." But even he doesn't seem to truly believe that. If he did, he would not be looking for help from Mike Johnson. 

As for Johnson, we see signs that he is getting too big for his legal britches. And with the public statements he already has made, he is handing out inculpatory evidence like Halloween candy. He would be wise to toss the Trump matter overboard, run at top speed in the opposite direction, and listen to the words of wiser heads in the Republican Party.

Signs are everywhere that Trump probably knows next to nothing about the applicable facts and law in the hush-money case. His claims of innocence are based on .  . well, probably nothing. Trump seems like the kingpin of the Republican Party for the moment, but that might not be the case for long. Would it be a wise bet to go all in with Donald Trump right now? It might seem so, but Johnson could wind up regretting it.

Here are a couple of questions Johnson might ask himself: (1) Does Trump have a tendency to to use people? (2) Why did Trump come to me? (3) Would Trump use me? If the speaker doesn't know the answers to those questions, he hasn't been paying attention.

As Democrats take digs at Donald Trump, Biden, Obama & Co. help raise a record-breaking $28 million at LA gala to help save democracy in America

Joe Biden and Barack Obama at LA fundraiser (AP)

Democrats used humor and star power to assist with the serious business of political fundraising Saturday night in Los Angeles at an event to support the Joe Biden presidential campaign. What was it like to be there? Erica Pandey, of Axios, provides insight under the headline "Biden earns record-breaking cash haul at glitzy Hollywood fundraiser":

President Biden's Los Angeles fundraiser at the Peacock Theater — an event featuring Julia Roberts, George Clooney, Jimmy Kimmel and former President Barack Obama — hauled in at least $28 million for his re-election campaign.

Why it matters: It breaks the Democratic Party record for most cash raised in one night, the L.A. Times reports. Tickets ranged from $250 to $500,000.

• The previous record was $26 million, from Biden's March fundraiser in Manhattan with former presidents Obama and Clinton.

Perhaps the highlight of the evening were the digs directed at Biden's likely opponent, Republican Donald Trump. Pandey writes:

Zoom in: Biden and celebrity comics got in some quips about Trump.

• Biden said: "Remember the pandemic, [Trump] said, 'Don't worry, just inject a little bleach.' It worked for him — the color of his hair."
• Kimmel joked about the early pandemic toilet paper shortage: "He promised he would make America great again. And the next thing you know, we are wiping ourselves with envelopes."
• Obama's response: "Is that how you handled it, Jimmy?"

Other celebrities who took the stage included Jack Black and Sheryl Lee Ralph, who both sang; Barbra Streisand, who introduced first lady Jill Biden; and Kathryn Hahn and Jason Bateman.

Before the fundraising gala, Obama stopped by an event for digital creators to discuss his personal media diet. It's not as high-minded as one might expect, reports Mike Allen, of Axios:

Former President Obama dropped by a gathering of about 80 digital content creators — including stars of TikTok and Instagram Reels — during the campaign fundraiser for President Biden in L.A. on Saturday, and told them:

• "We live in a cynical time. Let's face it: I think a lot of the people who watch you, listen to you, who are fans of you — a lot of times they feel turned off by the political discourse."
• "I get it," Obama added. "You know, I frankly watch sports, mostly. Because it feels like everything (else) is slash and burn."

Why it matters: Obama, 19 years younger than Biden, acknowledged that many of the young, progressive creators were skeptical of Biden — but argued that "he believes in the basic things that you believe in."

"Joe Biden, you may not agree with everything he does," Obama said. "By the way, you didn't agree with everything I did. And that's OK. Because in a big, messy, complicated country like this, there are going to be disagreements.

• "But Joe Biden's basic trajectory — what he believes in his core ... nine times out of 10, he's going to make decisions that accord with your core beliefs."

"I need you guys to use your influence, and it doesn't have to be boring. I don't expect you to have a bunch of charts and graphs," Obama added.

• "I understand folks are swiping or scrolling, and you've got to use humor and you've got to use other things that are engaging people."

Trump's apparent fascination with guns might come back to bite him again, this time because he's a convicted felon with a gun, a violation of federal law

Donald Trump examines the inventory at a gun store (NY Times)

 

Donald Trump might have admitted to another felony during his pre-sentence interview with probation officials. The episode provides the latest evidence that Trump is not knowledgeable -- some might say he is ignorant -- on a wide range of issues related to the law and governance, including the provisions of his own conviction in a New York hush-money case. How could this happen? Again, Trump isn't very smart, no matter how much money he might have once had, no matter how much fame he derived from his stint as host of a reality game show on primetime television, and no matter how many Americans foolishly claim to support  him in various polls. Think about it: This guy has to meet with a probation officer, but some Americans want to entrust him with the presidency. Do these people have nothing but air between their ears?

Hafiz Rashid, of The New Republic (TNR), provides details about Trump's latest visit to "Dunce World" under the headline "Did Trump Just Accidentally Admit to Another Felony? Donald Trump may have just implicated himself in another crime in his probation interview":

Weeks after he was convicted of 34 felony counts in his hush-money trial, Donald Trump confessed to having a gun—which would be illegal with his felony conviction.

New York City Department of Probation officials questioned the convicted felon and Republican presidential nominee Tuesday in a pre-sentencing interview, and part of the discussion concerned a gun registered to him in the state. Under federal law, convicted felons are not allowed to have guns or ammunition. 

A city official told CNN that Trump mentioned a gun of his in Florida, possibly one of the three firearms listed on his New York City concealed-weapons permit.

Trump turned over two of his three licensed guns to the New York Police Department on March 31, 2023, before he was arrested for paying hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The third gun was supposed to be “lawfully moved to Florida.” Palm Beach police told CNN that they weren’t aware of any gun Trump owned and that he hadn’t submitted one to them since his felony conviction.

The probation issue is not the first time Trump has stepped in gun-related doo-doo. Last September, he was caught on video at a South Carolina gun store declaring he had just bought a Glock pistol. "The Man Who Would Be President" was already under multiple criminal indictments, but he apparently never stopped to consider that his purchase of a handgun might lead to complications in those cases. From a New York Times article on the incident:

A spokesman for former President Donald J. Trump posted a video on Monday showing him at a gun shop in South Carolina, declaring that he had just bought a Glock pistol.

The post on X, formerly known as Twitter, included video of Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Party’s nomination for president who is facing four criminal indictments. He looked over the dullish gold firearm, a special Trump-edition Glock that depicts his likeness and says “Trump 45th,” as he visited the Palmetto State Armory outlet in Summerville, S.C. “I want to buy one,” he said twice in the video.

“President Trump buys a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” his spokesman, Steven Cheung, wrote in his post. The video showed Mr. Trump among a small crowd of people and posing with a man holding the gun. A voice can be heard saying, “That’s a big seller.

The statement immediately set off an uproar and prompted questions about whether such a purchase would be legal. Mr. Trump is under indictment on dozens of felony counts in two different cases related to his efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and to his possession of reams of classified documents after he left office.

There were also questions about whether the store could sell a firearm to Mr. Trump if people there knew that he was under indictment.

Federal prosecutors are asking a federal judge in the case that accuses Mr. Trump of breaking several laws in his efforts to stay in office to impose a limited gag order after he made repeated threats against prosecutors and witnesses in various cases against him. Mr. Trump’s lawyers were under a late-Monday-night deadline to respond to the government’s request for the order.

But within two hours of the initial post on social media, Mr. Cheung deleted his post, and issued a statement saying, “President Trump did not purchase or take possession of the firearm. He simply indicated that he wanted one.”

Mr. Cheung must be as dumb as his boss. It also sounds like he might be a congenital liar, like his boss. Here is more from TNR about Trump's self-created gun problems related to his probation. Hafiz Rashid writes:

After his 2023 hush-money arrest, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office suspended Trump’s gun license, and with his conviction, his license will be revoked, city police told CNN. A New York official said the information on the third gun “will be referred to local authorities in Florida to take whatever steps are necessary.” (Could the third gun be one purchased in South Carolina? Hmmm . . . )

It’s ironic that Trump may be in trouble for illegally having a gun weeks after his conviction at the same time that President Biden’s son, Hunter, was convicted on federal gun charges. But Trump doesn’t like to give the authorities what he believes is his property, even when the law says otherwise. Just look at the classified documents he tried to hoard at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. He might be storing his gun not too far away.

Here is another irony: We have covered the issue of convicted felons and firearms before here at Legal Schnauzer. That story involved a felon who managed to skirt the law and obtain a firearm, eventually using it to shoot a man 11 times -- and somehow the victim survived. 

The story provides insight on how a felon can, despite the law, come in possession of a firearm and do horrific damage with it. Bottom line: Some jurisdictions don't seem to take the federal felon-firearm law seriously, and that can put innocent people in danger. We will have more on that story in an upcoming post.

In interviews with Dr. Phil McGraw and Sean Hannity, Trump fails to renounce his "revenge tour," indicating he would violate the presidential oath if re-elected

Donald Trump and Dr. Phil

 

In discussions this past week with friendly interviewers -- Dr. Phil McGraw and Sean Hannity of Fox News -- Donald Trump had opportunities  to renounce his stated plans, if elected to a second term, to seek retribution against Democrats he blames for his legal troubles. Both times, Trump failed to turn away from his plans for revenge. In the process, Trump suggested that his legal cases, especially his hush-money conviction in New York, were "rigged" or somehow conducted outside the law -- while other people in similar cases had the benefit of appearing before legitimate tribunals, with judges and jurors conducting their business in a lawful manner.

This situation, argues /Greg Sargent of The New Republic (TNR), presents a multi-pronged problem for the American public and the press that covers Trump's courtroom cases: (1) Trump refuses to accept that his conviction was the result of a properly conducted trial; (2) Trump continues to  claim that his conviction grew from a uniquely flawed process, while similarly situated defendants had their cases heard by honest courts; (3) Trump stands by his plans for revenge because he was subjected to a crooked process that other Americans have not had to face. 

Trump's whining and ranting, Sargent says, likely leave some Americans believing his statements are true. Meanwhile the press seems unable, or unwilling, to make sure the public understands Trump's words have no basis in reality.. That leaves us in a dangerous moment, with Trump loudly claiming our justice system is "rigged" and the press failing to alert the public that Trump presents no evidence to support his claim -- at least not in his own hush-money trial.

Sargent addresses this delicate situation, one that should make all Americans uneasy, under the headline "Trump’s Bizarre Moments With Dr. Phil and Hannity Should Alarm Us All; Earth to media: The criminal prosecutions of Trump are legitimate. The “revenge” he’s promising would be wholly illegitimate. Time to make that a whole lot clearer."Sargent writes:

During just this week, two of Donald Trump’s friendliest interviewers handed him big prime-time opportunities to unequivocally renounce any intention to retaliate against Democrats for his criminal conviction by a jury of his peers in Manhattan. Both times, Trump demurred.

“Sometimes revenge can be justified,” Trump told Dr. Phil McGraw, after he suggested that seeking retribution for Trump’s criminal charges would harm the country. Though Trump graciously said he was “open” to showing forbearance toward Democrats, he suggested revenge would be tempting, given “what I’ve been through.”

Trump voiced similar sentiments to Sean Hannity after the Fox News host practically begged him to deny he’d pursue his opponents. “I would have every right to go after them,” Trump said. Though Trump nodded along with Hannity’s suggestion that “weaponizing” law enforcement is bad, Trump added, “I don’t want to look naïve,” seemingly meaning that if he doesn’t seek revenge, he’ll have been victimized without acting to set things right.

These moments have been widely mocked as a sign that even Trump’s media pals can’t help him disguise his true second-term intentions. That’s true, but there’s another point to be made here: The exchanges should awaken us to what a monstrous scam it is when Trump and his allies talk about unleashing prosecutions of foes as “revenge” and “retribution.”

Trump is engaged in a high-stakes game of  "spin," Sargent says, and neither the public nor the press seem to realize they are being played:

We have to stop letting Trump get away with this. It’s actually spin, and we should all say so.

The idea that Trump should pursue “revenge” and “retribution” for prosecutions is everywhere on the right. After a federal judge ordered Steve Bannon to surrender to prison, numerous MAGA influencers, including the MAGA God King himself, angrily vowed such payback. Republicans have said Trump should “fight fire with fire” (Senator Marco Rubio) and that GOP district attorneys should declare open season on Democrats (Stephen Miller). Trump, of course, has offered many versions of this, including to Dr. Phil and Hannity.

In the media, this story tends to be framed as follows: Will Trump seek “revenge” for his legal travails, or won’t he? But that framing unwittingly lets Trump set the terms of this debate. It implies that he is vowing to do to Democrats what was done to him. 

But that’s not what Trump is actually threatening. Whereas Trump is being prosecuted on the basis of evidence that law enforcement gathered before asking grand juries to indict him, he is expressly declaring that he will prosecute President Biden and Democrats solely because this is what he endured, meaning explicitly that evidence will not be the initiating impulse.

You might think this distinction is obvious—one most voters will grasp instinctively. But why would they grasp this? It’s not uncommon to encounter news stories about Trump’s threats—see here, here, or here—that don’t explain those basic contours of the situation. Such stories often don’t take the elementary step of explaining the fundamental difference between bringing prosecutions in keeping with what evidence and the rule of law dictate and bringing them as purported “retaliation.” Why would casual readers simply infer that prosecutions against Trump are legally predicated while those he is threatening are not?

Can most Americans figure out Trump's scam on their own? Sargent has doubts, and the press is not helping much. He writes:

To appreciate the challenge this poses to the discourse, imagine an ordinary voter watching Trump’s exchanges with Dr. Phil and Hannity. Both interviewers treated it as self-evident that the prosecutions of Trump are illegitimate. Amusingly, they cast Trump’s dilemma as a profoundly weighty cross for him to bear, suggesting that if his foes are granted forbearance, it might be deeply unfair to Trump—given what they put him through—but would showcase his boundless magnanimity in sparing the country from tit-for-tat escalation.

Trump, of course, played along with this framing effortlessly. Speaking to Dr. Phil, Trump sagely agreed that displaying magnanimous forbearance would be better for the country but noted that he really has been treated unfairly, so who could begrudge his musing about retaliatory prosecutions? Similarly, Trump somberly told Hannity—again displaying his profound concern for our country—that the cycle of prosecutions “has to stop.” But he left the door open to seeking out his due: “What I’ve gone through, nobody’s ever gone through.”

“Will you pledge,” Hannity implored Trump, to “end this practice of weaponization?” Trump again assured Hannity that he sees the wisdom of this. But he added, “I don’t want to look naïve” about how badly he’s been treated, as if to say: How can such an injustice stand unanswered?

Watch these interviews, and Trump’s real mission becomes clear: to obliterate the distinction between legitimate prosecutions and purely baseless, politically malicious ones. Trump is threatening something wholly unlike what he has experienced. He and his allies are laying the groundwork to undertake the persecution of Democrats that they have wanted to unleash for a long time: Note that Trump has already sought to wield law enforcement against enemies during his presidency by trying to initiate investigations of Hillary Clinton but was thwarted by internal resistance—long before getting indicted himself.

The whole idea that Trump is seeking “revenge” is itself spin. There is nothing for Trump to legitimately seek revenge in this manner for, as Biden and Democrats did not unjustly victimize him with these prosecutions; he brought them upon himself. So what’s the proper response to such elaborate levels of deception and propaganda?

Sargent makes a point that all Americans who care about our nation's future should ponder: Trump's threats to prosecute his perceived enemies fall well outside our constitutional order, and they indicate he plans to violate the presidential oath of office. In short, a re-elected Trump would take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, an oath he already has vowed to break. That presents some heavy-duty problems, Sargent writes:

One [response] is to ask media figures to lay down a marker for themselves. If casual readers will come away from their coverage without being informed as to what a given news organization itself knows to be true—that the prosecutions of Trump are thoroughly in keeping with the rule of law, while what Trump is threatening would be deeply destructive to it—then something is wrong, and more clarity is called for.

Another response is to urge Democrats to follow in the spirit of Brian Beutler’s excellent advice that they explain to voters why Trump’s criminal travails render him unfit to be president. This would entail stating more clearly that Trump’s threats to prosecute his enemies without cause are themselves wholly disqualifying.

One expert has compared Trump to a "mob boss." Are voters actually going to head to the polls and fill in the blank for president beside the name of a man who is both a convicted felon and a glorified mob boss? Do we take our national elections with even a sliver of seriousness anymore? Sargent writes:

Here, some theorizing on Trump’s form of lawless politics might offer guidance. John Ganz, in a piece adapted from his new book, suggests that Trump is functioning as a “mob boss,” which isn’t meant just polemically: Trump is offering his followers the spoils of his corruption and the thrill of feeling viscerally bonded to the MAGA clan—both as deliberate alternatives lying outside the liberal democratic order. And Jamelle Bouie explains that for Trump, the charismatic bond between him and his supporters trumps democracy and the law as the true wellspring of political legitimacy: Any outcome produced by our institutions is inherently illegitimate if it fails to maintain MAGA’s supremacy over non-MAGA America.

Democrats, then, can argue: You can’t be president if you treat the law as presumptively invalid when it is applied to you and your supporters (as Trump’s pledge to pardon January 6 rioters makes explicit). You can’t be president if you openly vow to extend the fruits of our political order only to your supporters while arbitrarily designating countless other Americans a traitorous class within, one that deserves to live in fear of lawless persecution and organized political thuggery. You can’t be president if you treat the rule of law as secondary to, in the words of David French, “the destruction of your enemies.”

Trump’s exchanges with Dr. Phil and Hannity are alarming in no small part because they show how thoroughly committed he is to proving all those assertions wrong.

Hunter Biden's convictions in Delaware unleash a barrage of conspiracy theories from Republicans, who seem adrift in a world without shame -- or irony

Joe and Hunter Biden share an embrace (NBC)

 

If you think you have already heard the nuttiest public statements postmodern Republicans can offer, wait until you read the conspiracy theories that surfaced yesterday after First Son Hunter Biden was found guilty on drug- and gun-related charges in Delaware federal court. The utterances are so jumbled that I'm not sure even the GOPers who made them know what they were trying to say. But this apparently is what passes for "conservative thought" in the Year 2024.

Any normal person, one who still has a sense of shame, probably would have refrained from babbling on a subject where they could not string together a coherent thought. But shame, it seems, is in scant supply among Republicans these days -- not a surprise when you consider that their presumptive presidential nominee is Donald Trump -- so you wind up with a jumbo-sized mass of jumbled words that leave an average reader shaking his head in bewilderment after trying in vain to figure out what it all means.

Talia Jane, of The New Republic (TNR), tries her best to provide some clarity under the headline "Hunter Biden Verdict Sparks Unbelievable MAGA Conspiracy Theories; The far right’s reaction to Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict is truly unbelievable":

Conservatives are reacting to Hunter Biden’s felony conviction yesterday in seemingly the only way they know how: Claiming it’s part of an elaborate conspiracy by the Department of Justice to weaken their outrage over Trump’s own felony convictions.

The reactions from the MAGAsphere were practically instantaneous, led by former White House policy adviser Stephen Miller, who declared that Hunter Biden’s conviction is part of a plot to avoid pursuing foreign-agent charges that would lead back to his father, President Joe Biden.

“The gun charges are a giant misdirection,” asserted Miller. “An easy op for DOJ to sell to a pliant media that is all too willing to be duped. Don’t be gaslit. This is all about protecting Joe Biden and only Joe Biden.” [Sounds like somebody has been watching too many spy movies.]

Miller is not alone in his meandering thoughts, as Talia Jane explains:

Similar to Miller, End Wokeness, a far-right account with more than a million followers that frequently disseminates racist and conspiratorial content, opted to seize Biden’s conviction by pivoting to Ukraine conspiracies, announcing “Hunter Biden is a red herring. The real person of interest in the Ukraine bribery/laundering is the Big Guy. We all know exactly who that is.” The Joe Biden-Ukraine conspiracy alleges that during his time as vice president, Biden took a bribe to pressure Ukraine away from investigating a gas company to protect his son who sat on the board, a conspiracy led by an FBI informant who was recently charged for fabricating the whole story.

“Hunter Biden operated as an unregistered foreign agent and profited millions. The gun case was nothing more than smoke and mirrors from the Biden DOJ,” Texas Representative Lance Gooden declared on X (formerly Twitter).

Some Republicans make Stephen Miller sound like a voice of reason on the subject -- and that is hard to do, on any subject. Talia Jane writes:

Other far-right influencers have opted to paint Biden’s conviction as a tactic by the Justice Department to help them swallow the bitter pill about their dear leader’s own conviction. “Hunter got a fair trial, unlike Trump,” wrote conservative activist Tom Fitton. Conservative influencer Tim Young claimed he “predicted the Hunter Biden verdict” and linked to an interview he gave to a right-wing media outlet where he claimed the routine prosecution of Biden’s gun charge was a plot to create an “illusion of balance” following Trump’s guilty verdict. Young’s “prediction” does not include Biden being found guilty on all counts. Charlie Kirk, who leads the white nationalist-friendly Turning Point USA, said the conviction was the result of a “fake trial to make the Justice system appear ‘balanced’” and advised his followers, “Don’t fall for it.”

Representative Matt Gaetz, in contrast, had relatively little to say, writing off the conviction as “kinda dumb tbh.” That may be due to the fact that the last time he tried joining the hating Hunter Biden bandwagon, it blew up in his face.

The conservative reactions manage to be simultaneously totally unsurprising and completely unexpected: Conservatives have desperately sought to take down Hunter Biden, viewing his messy past as a linchpin to bring about his father’s demise. That they’d adamantly avoid celebrating Biden’s conviction seems purely motivated by fear of reinforcing their already apparent hypocrisy.

The Daily Trump Scandal: This time, "The Orange Turd's" campaign appears to have paid people to attend a rally on a scorching day in Las Vegas, NV

(Right Side Broadcasting)

 

We have a new entry in the Trump campaign's Daily Scandal Sweepstakes -- and this time, it appears to involve payments for people to attend Trump's rally over the weekend in Las Vegas. Raw Story's David McAfee provides details under the headline "Election commissioner presents evidence that 'Trump caught paying people to attend rally":

People were apparently paid to attend Donald Trump's rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Sunday, according to Tennessee Democratic election commissioner Chris D. Jackson, although it's not clear who did the paying.

Jackson, who criticized Hungary's autocratic leader, Viktor Orbán, for endorsing the ex-president, took to social media over the weekend to draw attention to a Craigslist post appearing to offer payment for attendance at the MAGA event.

"BREAKING: Trump Caught Paying People to Attend Rally," the official reported. "A Craigslist ad has been found offering payment for people to attend Trump's rally in Las Vegas today." 

The commissioner continues, providing more details about the ad and appearing to address Joe Biden supporters:

"Remember the video from a few days ago where Trump was waving at a non-existent crowd? It appears EVERYTHING IS A FACADE. The media wants you to think Trump has enthusiasm, but the facts say otherwise."

He added, "If you are interested in making some money to donate to the Biden campaign, here you go," and linked to the posting.

 I guess they don't want to have another bust like this where 2,500 show up and they claim it was 30,000," Jackson said, referencing Trump' event in the Bronx. "It really is sad."

The posting itself is titled, "Paid to attend Trump rally! (Sunset park)."Here is the exact wording of the ad:

"Looking for someone to attend the Trump rally on Sunday. It would be a marketing promo so we would ask you to wear a shirt of the brand and also carry a sign. Bonus payment ($50) if you end up on broadcast!" the online advertisement states. "Picking up shirts / signs + attending event estimated at a total of 3-4 hours of work. $75 flat payment + $50 potential bonus. We ask that you take photos of the event for confirmation and marketing purposes."

U.S. Senator Mike Lee, a Trump supporter, responded to that posting. "Nice try. So much projection. So little time," he said.

In response to Lee's comment, Jackson repeated his earlier statement about the Trump campaign: "It appears everything is a facade."

Jackson is based in Madison County, TN.

Do GOPers now blow off Ronald Reagan's stirring words on D-Day anniversary, in favor of Donald Trump calling military heroes "suckers and losers"?

D-Day anniversary

 

When we published our June 6 post on the 80th anniversary of  D-Day, the primary purpose was to remember the extraordinary sacrifices of ordinary Americans -- now known as "The Greatest Generation"  -- who came together to eject Hitler and his Nazi forces from France and Western Europe in what would become the decisive battle of World War II. 

The US Department of Defense calls D-Day the “successful beginning of the end of Hitler's tyrannical regime. Without victory in that bloody battle -- which began in the early hours of June 6, 1944, and was recreated by Director Steven Spielberg in the opening scenes of his epic film, Saving Private Ryan -- we likely would have been living in an America, for the past 80 years, that hardly any of us today would recognize.

D-Day resonates deeply here in our Legal Schnauzer household for several reasons. My father, William J. Shuler, was part of a squadron that arrived  on the Normandy beaches three days after the D-Day battle. Here is how I described it in our June 6 post:

How significant was D-Day? It's almost impossible to overstate it. The US Department of Defense calls D-Day the “successful beginning of the end of Hitler's tyrannical regime.” How different would life in America be if Allied troops had not been able to liberate France? That is a disturbing question to contemplate, but my father, William J. Shuler, was there, and he played a role -- I'm quite sure it was a dangerous role -- in securing the freedoms we enjoy today.

William J. Shuler

As I was growing up, I knew about my dad's military service, but I did not know many details. He had a Luger, the distinctive-looking pistol German troops used, and he showed it to me one time. It looked scary to my eyes, and I've never been much of a gun guy, so I did not ask to see it again and did not want to know where he kept it. I think he might have had a Nazi arm band, but I'm not sure about that. (The Luger and arm band, if it actually existed, were part of my family's war-related artifacts mentioned earlier.) As for the Luger, my brother, Paul, almost shot his foot off with the thing, so I was glad we all survived that episode -- especially since the bullet went through our parents' bedroom floor and landed in the basement, barely missing our fish aquarium, which was a heavily trafficked area, where quite a few folks (including me) made a habit of gathering to watch the fish.

My dad died in 2008, and about 10 years later, as my mother was nearing the end of her life, she told me that Dad was in a unit that landed on Normandy beach three days after the D-Day invasion. I've looked online several times for information about Dad's unit, but I haven't found anything so far. My best guess is that they were on what might be called a "recovery mission," to recover bodies, equipment, perhaps German intelligence. I can only imagine the kind of danger my father was in on that mission.

I imagine that unexploded land mines and other munitions dotted the beach. One wrong step, and my father's life would have been over -- and the lives of my siblings and I never would have started.

My story is not the only one in our household that connects to World War II. My wife, Carol, had an uncle (her mother's brother) who was captured and was held in a German prison camp. The trauma of that experience as a POW led to struggles with alcoholism for the rest of his life.

Carol's father, Mark Tovich, was in the South-East Asian theatre of World War II, serving in India, Burma, and nearby locales. To our knowledge, he was not wounded in action, but he did  contract a near-fatal case of yellow fever or malaria. 

As for the troubling current events  noted above, they come with dark irony that should cause all Americans, of whatever political persuasion, to ponder the direction our nation is headed.

The D-Day anniversary is a time to honor those Americans who risked everything to secure the freedoms we enjoy today. How significant were the contributions of Americans to defeating Hitler, his Nazi troops, and the fascist ideology they represented? Perhaps we can answer that question by noting the 80th Anniversary commemoration was held at  Normandy American Cemetery.

What about those of us living on U.S. soil today? Do we ever consider the sacrifices our forebears made to defend our Constitution and the rule of law that is found therein? Do we ever stop and think that the relative peace and stability the United States and Europe have enjoyed since the end of World War II came at an extremely high price? 

If the answer to those questions is yes, how do you explain polls that show a significant chunk of Americans support Donald Trump in our 2024 presidential election?

After all, Trump has made it clear that he does not support American democracy and intends to usher in an authoritarian regime that borrows from dictators and fascist regimes, both past and present. Trump has openly stated that he might suspend the constitution and act as a supreme ruler in the mold of Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, and other "strong men." Trump repeatedly has stated his admiration for dictatorial rulers. We encourage readers to check out The Washington Post op-ed piece by Robert Kagan under the title "We have a radical democracy. Will Trump voters destroy it?

By the way, Trump even has praised Hitler,  and a noted historian says his campaign rhetoric sounds like that of a fascist.

This is what I meant in the earlier references to troubling current events, filled with dark irony. After all, the United States has been a beacon for democratic principles since many of us have been alive. So, how can any of us actually think a Donald Trump presidency would be a good idea? This is the guy who has repeatedly said he could prosecute his political enemies, which would be unlawful on numerous grounds.

The November election is going to be unlike any we have seen before. It will not be about Democrats vs. Republicans or progressives vs. conservatives. It will be an existential moment, with the incumbent (Joe Biden) favoring democracy and the challenger (Donald Trump), touting authoritarianism, featuring his own brand of scatter-brained, dysfunctional "leadership" -- and we have seen in his first term how that worked out, with Trump's botched handling of the coronavirus pandemic leading to more than 1 million American deaths and leaving our economy in dire condition, as outlined in this 2020 article.

Since this  election, unlike any in our history, will be about democracy vs. authoritarianism, does that mean Trump supporters believe our country would be better off to usher out 250 years of democracy in favor of a glorified dictatorship, one built according to Donald Trump's whims. Since Trump is a liar of epic proportions, does anyone trust a single word he says? I find it hard to believe anyone would trust him with a corner lemonade stand, much less the presidency. I encourage readers to check out this post, which spells out the plusses and minuses of a Biden-Trump matchup.

So, how to explain the support Trump seems to enjoy? A simple answer might me to say all MAGA Republicans are stupid. But I know a number of Trump supporters, and I know they aren't stupid. What IS going on with them? I can only speculate, but my best guess is that they haven't thought through the repercussions of turning the wheel over to Donald Trump. Since Trump gained nationwide fame as a reality game-show host, it's possible his followers are start-struck and delusional about who he really is. Trump's "birther" attacks on former President Barack Obama might appeal to some dark impulses in his followers.

It's also possible Trump followers could benefit from examining their own family histories to learn about the sacrifices their forebears have made. I only know about my family's military service, some of it dating to the 1860s and the Civil War, because my mother and father preserved communications and artifacts that they instinctively seem to know had value for future generations. Many Trump supporters undoubtedly have similar family histories, and examining those might cause them to reconsider their support for Trump, who shows growing signs of being unfit (both mentally and physically) to serve in high office.

With the D-Day anniversary having just passed, now might be an appropriate time for all Americans to give serious thought to what is at stake in the 2024 election. The future of our country depends on it.

One final thought: Let's consider this account from the Washington Examiner of Ronald Reagan's speech from the  1984 D-Day anniversary:

In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy during World War II, President Ronald Reagan spoke from Point-du-Hoc on the Normandy shores, praising those who risked their lives to “fight for all humanity.”

“The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next,” he said. “It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.”

“You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you,” he added.

Let's compare those words to those of Donald Trump, who has called military heroes "suckers and losers." 

Is that what MAGA Republicans, Trump supporters, think of those who served in our military? Are they OK with Trump's words?

And what about Ronald Reagan, who spoke eloquently about the sacrifices that helped secure America's freedoms. Republicans used to lionize Reagan, wanted to name numerous federal buildings after him. Is Reagan just a relic of the past to postmodern Republicans? Does he stand for anything in their minds? Have the nonsensical rantings of Donald Trump replaced the beautifully written words and heartfelt delivery of Ronald Reagan? Maybe MAGAs should take a hard look at their priorities.

As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day, I confront mortality and existential questions raised by my family's service in World War II and the Civil War

(imdb.com)

 

Today marks the 80th anniversary of the D-Day invasion on Normandy Beach, which began the liberation of France and the rest of Western Europe, laying the foundation for the Allied victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. The D-Day anniversary will be commemorated today at Normandy American Cemetery. 

The event hits close to home for my wife, Carol, and me -- plus our extended families. It also raises unsettling questions about current events in our nation. We will address those issues later, but first, let's examine the personal journeys of my family members, which raise existential questions about my presence on this earth -- why I am even here.

I never served in the military, but in what you might call a celestial sense, my premortal life was marked by ties to two, bloody, world-changing wars, one dating to the 1860s. Without getting too "heavy," I owe my existence to the ability of my forebears -- on both sides of my family -- to survive two of the most dangerous conflicts in human history.

I know about my ties to war only because my family has possessed and preserved communications and artifacts from WW II and the Civil War for decades. In fact, my mother possessed the original copy of a letter from a relative on her side of the family who fought in the Civil War. She eventually donated the letter to the visitor's center and museum at the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, where it is part of the historical record.

Millions of Americans, I'm sure, have similar stories, but this is my story, which seems appropriate to share as we commemorate D-Day and remember those who gave (or risked) their lives to defend our Constitution and beat back the scourge of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

William J. Shuler

How significant was D-Day? It's almost impossible to overstate it. The US Department of Defense calls D-Day the “successful beginning of the end of Hitler's tyrannical regime.” How different would life in America be if Allied troops had not been able to liberate France? That is a disturbing question to contemplate, but my father, William J. Shuler, was there, and he played a role -- I'm quite sure it was a dangerous role -- in securing the freedoms we enjoy today.

As I was growing up, I knew about my dad's military service, but I did not know many details. He had a Luger, the distinctive-looking pistol German troops used, and he showed it to me one time. It looked scary to my eyes, and I've never been much of a gun guy, so I did not ask to see it again and did not want to know where he kept it. I think he might have had a Nazi arm band, but I'm not sure about that. (The Luger and arm band, if it actually existed, were part of my family's war-related artifacts mentioned earlier.) As for the Luger, my brother, Paul, almost shot his foot off with the thing, so I was glad we all survived that episode -- especially since the bullet went through our parents' bedroom floor and landed in the basement, barely missing our fish aquarium, which was a fairly heavily trafficked area, where quite a few folks (including me) made a habit of gathering to watch the fish.

My dad died in 2008, and about 10 years later as my mother was nearing the end of her life, she told me that Dad was in a unit that landed on Normandy beach three days after the D-Day invasion. I've looked online several times for information about Dad's unit, but I haven't found anything so far. My best guess is that they were on what might be called a "recovery mission," to recover bodies, equipment, perhaps German intelligence. I can only imagine the kind of danger my father was in on that mission.

I imagine that unexploded land mines and other munitions dotted the beach. One wrong step, and my father's life would have been over -- and the lives of my siblings and I never would have started.

When you know that a loved one has faced danger and taken great risk to protect our country, our Constitution, our democracy,  you have extra appreciation that we are a nation of laws, and you want to see those laws faithfully upheld, not trampled by corrupt judges, lawyers, law-enforcement officials, and other rogues who seem to have no respect for the sacrifices so many have made to protect the country we enjoy today. In fact, exposing such corruption, which essentially spits on the graves of brave men like my father, is why I started this blog, Legal Schnauzer, in 2007 and have written it continuously for 17 years. Along the way, we were ranked in 2013 among the top 50 independent law blogs in North America. That suggests, to me, that the subject matter here resonates with many of my fellow Americans.

My story is not the only one in our household that connects to World War II. My wife, Carol, had an uncle (her mother's brother) who was captured and served in a German prison camp. The trauma of that experience as a POW led to struggles with alcoholism for the rest of his life.

As for my premortal ties to war in the 1860s, it involves the Battle of Wilson's Creek, which was the first major battle of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War. It was fought on August 10, 1861, near Springfield, Missouri.

A man named Elijah Stamps, a relative from my mother's side of the family, was among the 12,120 troops in the mixed Missouri/Arkansas/Confederate force that wound up fighting in the Battle of Wilson's Creek, which produced an estimated 2,550 casualties (killed, wounded, or captured) and was the second major battle of the Civil War, the first fought west of the Mississippi River.

Elijah Stamps, while on the battlefield, wrote a letter to his wife, Elvira. Based on my knowledge of our family history, which can be sketchy in places, Elijah Stamps survived the battle, and his letter somehow wound up with my mother, who treasured it for decades and ultimately made sure it became part of the battlefield's museum collection.

Writing this post has caused me to do the kind of high-minded thinking that I generally try to avoid -- especially when it involves an outcome that could have been not too positive for me, at least when it involves earthly life. Many of you probably have similar stories in your background, some you might not know about. I only know about mine because my mother and father seemed to understand certain items in our household had historical value and helped tell stories that were worth preserving. All of that rolls through my mind today as we remember the 80th anniversary of D-Day. I wonder about what horrors my Dad must have seen, remnants of man's inhumanity to man, a reminder of the wreckage tyrants can wreak. I marvel at his ability to process these images and become a valuable member of society -- a wonderful father and husband, providing lasting examples of a life well-lived.

As for my own efforts at high-minded thinking, these thoughts come to mind:

* What if my father had not survived at Normandy beach? My life, and the family I grew up in, never would have existed;

* As for the Civil War part of our story, that is a bit more complicated. I've never known Elijah Stamps' exact place in our family tree. But it appears he is on the same branch as my grandfather Chess Stamps. Had Elijah Stamps not survived at Wilson's Creek -- in a battle so violent the site now is known as Bloody Hill -- Chess Stamps would have never been born -- and that means my mother never would have been born. That, of course, means my siblings and I never would have taken our places on the stage of life.

I'm grateful to be here, to be able to write this post -- even though writing through tears is not a joyous experience. But I hope readers might find insight in the words I share this day.

As for the unsettling current events mentioned earlier, we will examine them next.

(To be continued)