tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36694126751395261252024-03-19T03:47:40.559-05:00Legal SchnauzerThe memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice.legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger4943125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-23451126532321338812024-03-18T07:19:00.051-05:002024-03-18T10:56:42.908-05:00Trump goes nuts over the weekend, and former federal prosecutor calls him a "threat to democracy" and says his bond should be revoked for "bloodbath" remarks<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5EhLlijKxUcxMPZkBhjO0eYAdLQJ9HR-JDGf0NmxNy-57IOcOaKVIoDixvnl7frKpyKlMAFbAP7EFNIZq1cFXtslLjq4WqJJzqS2uGoqY8bGfOBS06h9t7z1n8OyM5nuoK9-3vkHwSKZjydafbDRHG7CLBuzfRSHIn96sfeDFNTx4P6LMVRe6AMLZBPU/s300/Trump%20-%20bloodbath.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5EhLlijKxUcxMPZkBhjO0eYAdLQJ9HR-JDGf0NmxNy-57IOcOaKVIoDixvnl7frKpyKlMAFbAP7EFNIZq1cFXtslLjq4WqJJzqS2uGoqY8bGfOBS06h9t7z1n8OyM5nuoK9-3vkHwSKZjydafbDRHG7CLBuzfRSHIn96sfeDFNTx4P6LMVRe6AMLZBPU/w400-h224/Trump%20-%20bloodbath.jpg" width="400" /></a></div> <p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Donald Trump, Republican candidate for president, <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-jan-6-committee-jail_n_65f39bede4b0651fa4a24511">called yesterday for members of the Congressional Jan. 6 committee to be jailed</a>. That comes on the heels of a speech in Ohio, earlier in the weekend, where <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/17/trump-verbal-gaffes-ohio-rally-bloodbath">Trump warned of a "bloodbath" in America if he loses the November 5 election</a> to President Joe Biden. A former federal prosecutor denounced Trump as a "threat to democracy" and called for bis bond to be revoked in the wake of the "bloodbath" statement.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">These are just the latest signs that Trump's mental health is deteriorating and he is not fit to serve in any public office. It also is a sign that Americans need to take a cold, hard look at the reality surrounding Trump's candidacy. First, Trump seems to be suggesting that, if he resided in the White House, he could have the Jan. 6 committee members, arrested and jailed -- on his own whim. But for more than 50 years, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/09/donald-trumps-assertion-that-as.html">U.S. policy has forbidden presidents from being involved with the charging -- or non-charging -- decisions of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)</a>; the DOJ is to act independently of the White House. In other words, it's not the president's job to have people arrested or detained. And that's the latest of many signs that Trump has no clue how the American government works, and he apparently has no interest in learning.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We now have overwhelming evidence that Trump is both mentally unfit and incompetent in the government world. In fact, it's not clear at this point that he even was a good businessman. Incompetence and shaky mental health are a bad combination, and it's time those who claim to support Trump recognize that. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If some Americans were slow to notice Trump's unfitness for office before, they certainly <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/election-2024-trump-ohio-bloodbath_n_65f630d0e4b08b384f1b72ca">should recognize it now after his "bloodbath" remarks</a>. Those statements should be a "bridge too far" for anyone with a few functioning brain cells. For MAGA types who don't realize that Trump is not deserving of anyone's vote, they might want to examine their own mental fitness. In fact, that could raise this question: Who has the most diseased brain, Trump supporters or Trump himself?"</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For those who are just dying to experience living in an authoritarian state, I would suggest you move to Russia, Hungary, Iran, China, or North Korea. Give it a shot, and let the rest of us enjoy a democracy that has served our country well for almost 250 years. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As for Trump's incompetence and unfitness, consider the way he botched the coronavirus pandemic. Public-health experts knew an outbreak of a deadly virus was a serious threat when Trump took office for his first term in 2017. <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2020/03/here-is-scene-at-wet-markets-of-china.html">They knew the virus likely was to originate in China</a> and previous administrations -- led by George W. Bush and Barack Obama -- <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2020/04/trump-received-dozens-of-warnings-about.html">developed a step-by-step "playbook" on how to deal with such a crisis</a>. With genuine leadership from the U.S., the virus could have been contained in China and eventually eradicated there -- saving millions of lives around the globe, including 1.2 million lives in the United States.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump apparently could not be bothered to read the playbook -- <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2020/04/trump-received-dozens-of-warnings-about.html">or pay attention to warnings from intelligence officials in daily briefings</a> -- and he downplayed the threat in public statements. Just before the coronavirus outbreak appeared. <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2020/03/donald-trumps-decision-to-eliminate.html">Trump eliminated the position of Dr. Linda Quick, an American epidemiologist who had been embedded in Beijing</a> specifically to monitor for signs of a viral outbreak. Here is more information about <a href="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/trump-administration-eliminated-cdc-position-intended-to-detect-disease-outbreaks-in-china-several-months-ago/">Dr. Linda Quick and her abrupt exit, which coincided with a Trump-fueled trade war with China</a>.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Many Americans, including yours truly, have been concerned about Trump's mental fitness for months. For him to call for members of Congress to be jailed, even though they've committed no apparent crimes, speaks to clouded judgment. And the "bloodbath" comment is, by far, the most grotesque, outlandish statement I've heard from a public figure in my lifetime. Based on news accounts, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/17/trump-bloodbath-turner-cassidy-rounds-00147465">I'm not sure anyone in attendance at the speech in Vandalia, Ohio, knew exactly what Trump meant by a "bloodbath," but a number of observers have taken it to be a call to violence among his supporters</a>, demanding they spill blood in furtherance of his political aspirations. That is classic Trump, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=trump+and+malignant+narcissist">likely a malignant narcissist</a>. Would MAGA types fall for this con game. They've fallen under con-game spell already, so the answer appears to be yes. Sad.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A former federal prosecutor is taking Trump's words seriously, <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-threat-democracy-after-bloodbath-remark-kirschner-1880145">according to a report at <i>Newsweek</i></a>:.</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><a class="multivariate" href="https://www.newsweek.com/topic/glenn-kirschner">Glenn Kirschner</a> condemned <a class="multivariate" data-sys="1" href="https://www.newsweek.com/topic/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>'s "bloodbath" remarks and warned that the former president is a "threat to democracy."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Kirschner,
a former assistant U.S. attorney and frequent Trump critic, called for
the former president to have his bond revoked over his comments on
Saturday.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump, the presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee who was in
Ohio on Saturday for a campaign stop at the Buckeye Values PAC rally, is
facing mounting criticism for <a class="multivariate" href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-salutes-jan-6-hostages-national-anthem-plays-1880028" rel="noopener" target="_blank">telling rallygoers that there will be a "bloodbath" </a>if he loses to his Democratic rival President Joe Biden in November.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"Now
if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the
whole—that's gonna be the least of it," Trump said. "It's going to be a
bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Trump's
comments quickly went viral and sparked a flurry of reactions on social
media. While supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) leader <a class="multivariate" href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-maga-buckeye-ohio-bloodbath-january-6-speech-jd-vance-marjorie-taylor-greene-1880078" rel="noopener" target="_blank">defended his "bloodbath" remarks </a>and argued they were taken out of context, critics accused Trump of inciting violence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump, the presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee who was in
Ohio on Saturday for a campaign stop at the Buckeye Values PAC rally, is
facing mounting criticism for <a class="multivariate" href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-salutes-jan-6-hostages-national-anthem-plays-1880028" rel="noopener" target="_blank">telling rallygoers that there will be a "bloodbath" </a>if he loses to his Democratic rival President Joe Biden in November.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"Now
if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the
whole—that's gonna be the least of it," Trump said. "It's going to be a
bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Kirschner weighed in on the bloodbath remarks during Sunday's segment of his <i>Justice Matters</i>
podcast, where he said, "Trump tried to walk it back later saying he
was really talking about what would happen to the auto industry if he
wasn't elected, but his words belie that; indeed they contradict that BS
walk back."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The former prosecutor blasted Trump and compared
Saturday's remarks to his January 6, 2021, rhetoric, for which Trump is
accused of inciting the U.S. Capitol riot by spreading unfounded claims
of widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election. The claims led to a
deadly siege as part of an effort to block <a class="multivariate" href="https://www.newsweek.com/topic/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a>'s 2020 Electoral College victory.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump was indicted on four counts by the <a class="multivariate" href="https://www.newsweek.com/topic/department-justice">Department of Justice</a>
(DOJ) for his alleged role in the insurrection, including conspiracy to
defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official
proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official
proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Trump, meanwhile, has
maintained his innocence, accusing prosecutors of investigating him of
attempting to derail his 2024 presidential campaign.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">More than
1,265 individuals have been charged by the DOJ for their alleged
involvement in the violent riot, with many already convicted and serving
sentences.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Kirschner also took aim at Trump for making the bloodbath comments while facing dozens of felony charges in <a class="multivariate" href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tumultuous-legal-week-small-victories-1879938#:~:text=Trump%20has%20pled%20not%20guilty,election%20on%20a%20nationwide%20basis." rel="noopener" target="_blank">four separate criminal indictments. </a>The former president had pleaded not guilty to all the charges.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">"He is a threat to everyone in the United States of America,"
Kirschner said. "He is a threat to democracy. He launched an attack on
January 6 against our democracy and it turned out to be a deadly attack.
And he launched it with far less inflammatory language than he just
used at the rally on Saturday: 'There will be a bloodbath in this
country.' Do you understand me? That's what he just said. He's actually
ratcheted up the recklessness and the violence of his rhetoric. And he's
on pretrial release in four felony cases."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The
former prosecutor argued that Trump's comments are dangerous and said
that being a former president and presumptive GOP presidential nominee
doesn't give him a free pass.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">"He shouldn't be allowed to endanger
our nation and her people and our democracy with this kind of
violence-inducing rhetoric, more reckless than his rhetoric on January
6," Kirschner said. "This is institutional insanity if the institutions
of government just receive this with a shrug. <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">Do what the law provides,
revoke Donald Trump on release, detain him pending trial.</span> And for gosh
sakes, let our country begin to move forward again."</span></p></blockquote><p></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-27784849980468016962024-03-17T07:30:00.016-05:002024-03-17T12:18:47.503-05:00Fani Willis manages to stay on the Trump case in Georgia, but what about the crooked judges who are embedded, and protected, in the U.S. "justice system"?<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8WKk329N9eo_KlGixdhzjLyQFNbSJ8rt_QqQl0wAy-hMFYoq-93eK6iFUEOJ3kYm9x3l_YSIpzlc4LH5PQIuZ7jEnr_j9D5Af1ERDq-Ts8EX-FsHuhc7GiQwJcG7m5dJsXrswfhlGgHLs5F_loCmRJtuc06LZXhMufkG3ZEeQPC9wiDcxlwkT3bmyXoY/s275/Fani%20Willis6.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8WKk329N9eo_KlGixdhzjLyQFNbSJ8rt_QqQl0wAy-hMFYoq-93eK6iFUEOJ3kYm9x3l_YSIpzlc4LH5PQIuZ7jEnr_j9D5Af1ERDq-Ts8EX-FsHuhc7GiQwJcG7m5dJsXrswfhlGgHLs5F_loCmRJtuc06LZXhMufkG3ZEeQPC9wiDcxlwkT3bmyXoY/w400-h266/Fani%20Willis6.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fani Willis<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Georgia district attorney Fani Willis had the "distinct pleasure" of having a state judge "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grmoMVHq2SA">read her the riot act</a>" over her <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/01/fani-willis-decision-to-hire-nathan.html">highly questionable personal behavior</a> in the Donald Trump election-subversion case in The Peach State. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._McAfee">Judge Scott McAfee</a> ultimately allowed her to stay on the case, so now the rest of us might have the "distinct pleasure" of watching Willis convict Trump -- in a case that appears to <a href="https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/02/15/read-full-transcript-donald-trumps-call-brad-raffensperger/">consist mostly of open-and-shut evidence</a> -- and help send his doughy derriere to prison. Now that will be must-see TV.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It's been a long and winding road to justice in Georgia, and Liz Dye, of the <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/"><i>Above the Law</i></a> legal website analyzes the many twists and turns in this peculiar case. Under the headline "<a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2024/03/court-reads-da-willis-for-filth-but-lets-her-office-stay-on-the-trump-case/">Court Reads DA Willis For Filth, But Lets Her Office Stay On The Trump Case; Well, that was ugly</a>," Dye writes:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p></p></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Donald Trump’s bid to derail the Georgia election-interference indictment ran aground Friday morning as Judge Scott McAfee <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24482779-order-on-defendants-motions-to-dismiss-and-disqualify-the-fulton-county-district-attorney" rel="noopener" target="_blank">ruled</a> that the Fulton County District Attorney’s (FCDA) Office can stay on the case.</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>TL, DR (too long, didn't read)?</b> Don’t sleep with your direct report on the biggest case of your career. <i>Just don’t</i>.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That seems like the most obvious take-home lesson from Willis' self-created mess. But Dye does not stop there:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The sprawling RICO prosecution has been in chaos for two months since
former Trump campaign official Mike Roman revealed that DA Willis was
romantically involved with Nathan Wade, the outside attorney hired as
special prosecutor on the case. The allegations, which appeared to have
come from Wade’s sealed divorce proceedings, were couched in a <a href="https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/3814/61-MOTION-1-8-24" rel="noopener" target="_blank">motion</a> to dismiss the case on dubious procedural grounds, or to disqualify the FCDA entirely.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">No one gave a damn about the procedural complaints, which had been
previously rejected and rated just a couple of pages in Friday morning’s
order. But we all watched hours of nasty, televised hearings dissecting
the sex lives, bank accounts, and cellphone records of consenting adults
in excruciating detail. It was a huge black eye for the FCDA, which
certainly appears to have misrepresented the nature and timing of the
relationship to the court.</span> Or as Judge McAfee put it, “[N]either side
was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence
when the relationship evolved into a romantic one. However, an odor of
mendacity remains.”</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That's a polite way for the judge to say, "I'm not pleased about having to wade through the muck of your romantic exploits." And Judge McAfee had more to say on that subject, as Dye writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether or not an actual conflict existed, giving Willis an incentive
to prolong the case so her boyfriend could bill more hours, the optics
were just terrible.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB3YTo8cfkNEeGQkuLfHd1P8z9b21Wc43jqDLu2HN7sxvkFxZJE4rk_KKNB9AoiwBjSloGXbdXmlwt2UYFFOk8JXzGNYODrVpx1H8ossE7ep8wtMIsJICe12MTGvBakMksne-K8JFXQ9SbIev2hFqsUoQ-WjDY9H65fQk5Y22GknbPyDOOEUM33k2gByw/s400/Carol--elbow%20x-ray.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="282" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB3YTo8cfkNEeGQkuLfHd1P8z9b21Wc43jqDLu2HN7sxvkFxZJE4rk_KKNB9AoiwBjSloGXbdXmlwt2UYFFOk8JXzGNYODrVpx1H8ossE7ep8wtMIsJICe12MTGvBakMksne-K8JFXQ9SbIev2hFqsUoQ-WjDY9H65fQk5Y22GknbPyDOOEUM33k2gByw/s320/Carol--elbow%20x-ray.jpg" width="226" /></a></span></div><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The appearance standard recognizes that even when no actual conflict
exists, a perceived conflict in the reasonable eyes of the public
threatens confidence in the legal system itself,” the judge scolded.
“When this danger goes uncorrected, it undermines the legitimacy and
moral force of our already weakest branch of government.”</span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff;">(The judiciary is our weakest branch of government? You could have fooled me. I've seen first-hand that judges can ruin a litigant's life with a flick of the hand. I've seen them -- in multiple kinds of cases, in multiple jurisdictions -- brazenly rule contrary to fact and law and get away with it. As a nation, we've even seen that kind of crooked behavior from the U.S. Supreme Court (see <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/breaking-law-constitution-says-trump-as.html">here</a> and <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-myth-of-donald-trump-as-business.html">here</a>). When it comes to acting corruptly and getting away with it, federal judges certainly are not weak. They answer to no one, except appellate judges (on federal circuit courts), and those "justices" will go to extraordinary lengths to protect district-court scoundrels..<i>Mrs. Schnauzer</i> (my wife, Carol), and I have been there and seen that</span>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpTp3rnJ2trh3WLbDADnKdL5Lm7pJZBFWPKjHQpk-TJHyCw0n_tF3QnO0bGTJVShH6VQVvPdjU08CUS-yUqWoN7Dz0F6Hue32vWRer3vDAtvO6fYQDVfMBDvcY4FckS-BWy-M_E9TPY6z3BqlD_YHX_jcNyZAD8X9wVH8-bOqSyRYj7vg33Yk0FVqxivE/s4608/Carol%20--%20big%20bruise.JPG" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3456" data-original-width="4608" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpTp3rnJ2trh3WLbDADnKdL5Lm7pJZBFWPKjHQpk-TJHyCw0n_tF3QnO0bGTJVShH6VQVvPdjU08CUS-yUqWoN7Dz0F6Hue32vWRer3vDAtvO6fYQDVfMBDvcY4FckS-BWy-M_E9TPY6z3BqlD_YHX_jcNyZAD8X9wVH8-bOqSyRYj7vg33Yk0FVqxivE/s320/Carol%20--%20big%20bruise.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">How gross can it get? An apparent sheriff's deputy attacked Carol from behind while she simply was talking with two other officers during <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/01/lies-my-missouri-public-defender-told_8.html">an eviction that was unlawful on eight to 10 grounds</a>. Carol wound up with a <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22252-comminuted-fracture">comminuted fracture</a> of her left arm that required eight hours of trauma surgery for repair -- and her medical records indicate the surgical team had to deal with a number of possible complications that could have put Carol's life at risk; plus, she is expected to lose at least 25 percent usage of her arm. You can see the damage in the images above and right.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott has gone to considerable lengths to protect Carol's assailant, who should be in prison for felony assault. We only know the guy as <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/06/who-is-mr-blue-shirt-what-agency-does.html">"Mr. Blue Shirt"</a> because neither Arnott nor his lawyer --Damon Phillips of the <a href="https://kpwlawfirm.com/">Keck & Phillips</a> law firm, has been willing to produce his name as they are required to do under the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Why are <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/06/who-is-mr-blue-shirt-what-agency-does.html">Arnott and his attorneys going to such an effort to protect "Mr. Blue Shirt's" real name and affiliations</a>? More importantly, why is <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=M.+Douglas+Harpool">U.S. District Judge M. Douglas Harpool issuing all kinds of unlawful rulings, apparently designed to help Arnott & Co. conceal the assailant's identity</a>, in our civil rights/personal injury lawsuit, By the way, records from Carol's health-care provider indicate the cost of her treatment is more than $80,,000, so we have sustained significant physical, financial, and emotional damages that are ongoing.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=M.+Douglas+Harpool">We are going to expose Mr. Harpool for the rogue that he is, explaining exactly how he has violated relevant law in a way that can only be intentional, raising this question: Who has been communicating with the judge in an improper <i>ex parte</i> manner, encouraging him to screw us over at every turn</a>? <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Our efforts likely will include a complaint against Harpool to the Judicial Conference, which recently was featured in a <i>ProPublica</i> article titled "<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/judicial-conference-scotus-federal-judges-ethics-rules">The Judiciary Has Policed Itself for Decades. It Doesn’t Work;The secretive Judicial Conference is tasked with self-governance. The group, led by the Supreme Court’s chief justice, has spent decades preserving perks, defending judges and thwarting outside oversight</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In upcoming posts, we will be unmasking some of the federal "rogues with robes" we have encountered, both in Alabama and Missouri. We also will be further examining how the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) violated Constitutional principles and its own precedent in unlawfully ruling for Trump in his insurrection case and presidential-immunity case. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Bottom line: <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/with-oral-arguments-set-for-tomorrow.html">Trump is disqualified from appearing on the 2024 ballot</a> -- or any future ballot-- because of his actions as an insurrectionist on Jan. 6, 2021. Also, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Trump+and+immunity+and+Watkins">Trump cannot be granted presidential immunity because there is no provision of law that supports</a> such a finding.</span></p><span class="post-byline__prefix"></span>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-82441132776003345282024-03-15T07:23:00.013-05:002024-03-15T10:40:16.906-05:00Going for the jugular: "Smokin'' Joe" Biden plans to take off the gloves and hit Trump where it hurts, in his already rattled brain, as hardball begins in campaign<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgARkqmM3Ozc4GLk1W1vOjV1pWn-2lJJyDzHFiC65iNNDO0f6Jra2cA_ZPBKXU9RJrUmHisbZADFEyOjx7UMlYqBeytRCL2qe0Ayq-22G9G17envbanx3u3AA7kGWXNuXpJ86F5yY0zUpULteawRPDdgK93tVe14DUayAfEk1G6DT5kM2HAs1hjhgyTlpo/s3579/Biden%20the%20Boxer.webp" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2386" data-original-width="3579" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgARkqmM3Ozc4GLk1W1vOjV1pWn-2lJJyDzHFiC65iNNDO0f6Jra2cA_ZPBKXU9RJrUmHisbZADFEyOjx7UMlYqBeytRCL2qe0Ayq-22G9G17envbanx3u3AA7kGWXNuXpJ86F5yY0zUpULteawRPDdgK93tVe14DUayAfEk1G6DT5kM2HAs1hjhgyTlpo/w400-h266/Biden%20the%20Boxer.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Biden plans to land haymakers on Trump<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">President Biden wants to start playing hardball with Donald Trump, in a move that could be called 'Going for the Jugular," according to a report at <i>Axios</i>. The plan is to rattle Trump by getting under his skin, partly by referring to him as "The Loser." That plan likely was behind Biden's fiery rhetoric in his State of the Union (SOTU) address, and the president reportedly wants to keep it up. Trump is soft and shaky in several places, especially between his ears, so that appears to be Biden's No. 1 target. Writes Axios' Mike Allen:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>President Biden </b>is privately pushing for a much more aggressive approach to 2024: Go for Donald Trump's jugular.</span></p><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Why it matters:</b> Biden is convinced he'll rattle Trump if he taunts him daily, <i>Axios' Hans Nichols and Alex Thompson report.</i></span></li></ul><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Biden has told friends</b>
he thinks Trump is wobbly, both intellectually and emotionally, and
will explode if Biden mercilessly gigs and goads him — "go haywire in
public," as one adviser put it.</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Other sources tell</b> us Biden is looking for a fight.</span></li><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Biden's instincts tell</b> him to let it fly when warning about the consequences of Trump winning the presidency again. Biden <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmV3eW9ya2VyLmNvbS9tYWdhemluZS8yMDI0LzAzLzExL2pvZS1iaWRlbnMtbGFzdC1jYW1wYWlnbj91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Beefb2926&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw0v0qSkxbe0fzFF8CgYQ-e1" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmV3eW9ya2VyLmNvbS9tYWdhemluZS8yMDI0LzAzLzExL2pvZS1iaWRlbnMtbGFzdC1jYW1wYWlnbj91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Beefb2926" target="_blank">told The New Yorker</a> that Trump would refuse to admit losing, again.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The story of Biden's plan comes <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/donald-trump-mental-state">amid reports that Trump's already shaky mental health is showing signs of slipping</a>. Mike Allen writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Between the lines: </b>The "trigger Trump" approach would be a departure from a traditional <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjMvMDQvMjUvam9lLWJpZGVuLTIwMjQtcHJlc2lkZW50aWFsLWVsZWN0aW9uLWNhbXBhaWduP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B460ad4ce&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw1VC4blk-D5_eSHZJpZXVtJ" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjMvMDQvMjUvam9lLWJpZGVuLTIwMjQtcHJlc2lkZW50aWFsLWVsZWN0aW9uLWNhbXBhaWduP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B460ad4ce" target="_blank">Rose Garden re-election</a> campaign.</span></p><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Instead of focusing</b>
on jobs and the economy — areas in which polls suggest Americans aren't
giving Biden much credit — Biden would be making the contest as much
about Trump as his own accomplishments.</span></li><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>One potential upside:</b> It would help assuage concerns about Biden's age by showing that at 81, he can still throw a Scranton punch.</span></li></ul></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We've already seen signs of a feisty Biden, and <i>Axios</i> reports we should look for that to continue:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>State of play: </b><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Biden flashed his new fighting spirit at the State of the Union address, but his feistiness <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDEvMzAvYmlkZW4tYXZvaWQtc2F5aW5nLXRydW1wLTIwMjQtZWxlY3Rpb24_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NhbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B0cdf0a04&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw1TSgu71592_ssKNGl-_9HR" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDEvMzAvYmlkZW4tYXZvaWQtc2F5aW5nLXRydW1wLTIwMjQtZWxlY3Rpb24_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NhbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B0cdf0a04" target="_blank">has been apparent</a> for several weeks.</span></span></p><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>"Loser" has become</b> a favorite <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly9hcG5ld3MuY29tL2FydGljbGUvam9lLWJpZGVuLWZsb3JpZGEtZnVuZHJhaXNpbmctZDY2NTU3ZWJjZGEyYWZkNmQ5MzAyYmVjNDZhZjYxMzI_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NhbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B1698fb82&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw1_UTLvW2HRoxBQB03N6Wcb" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly9hcG5ld3MuY29tL2FydGljbGUvam9lLWJpZGVuLWZsb3JpZGEtZnVuZHJhaXNpbmctZDY2NTU3ZWJjZGEyYWZkNmQ5MzAyYmVjNDZhZjYxMzI_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NhbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B1698fb82" target="_blank">Biden taunt</a> of Trump lately.</span></li></ul><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>In a rare,</b> lengthy interview with <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmV3eW9ya2VyLmNvbS9tYWdhemluZS8yMDI0LzAzLzExL2pvZS1iaWRlbnMtbGFzdC1jYW1wYWlnbj91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Ceefb2926&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw1ivr9QeSb0D2X1m23dkPKA" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmV3eW9ya2VyLmNvbS9tYWdhemluZS8yMDI0LzAzLzExL2pvZS1iaWRlbnMtbGFzdC1jYW1wYWlnbj91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Ceefb2926" target="_blank">The New Yorker</a> published yesterday, Biden said: "I'm the only one who has ever beaten him. And I'll beat him again."</span></p><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>"Trump lost</b> 60 court cases — 60,"<i> </i>Biden <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.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&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw0wukwIgvxO4qIcYmJhyiw_" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.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" target="_blank">said</a> recently, referring to the legal challenges on Trump's behalf that alleged fraud in the 2020 election. (It was 63, <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucG9saXRpZmFjdC5jb20vZmFjdGNoZWNrcy8yMDIxL2phbi8wOC9qb2UtYmlkZW4vam9lLWJpZGVuLXJpZ2h0LW1vcmUtNjAtdHJ1bXBzLWVsZWN0aW9uLWxhd3N1aXRzLWwvP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B573f3db0&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw1G3Zb4yN_O_WQ7kuqyGHMR" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucG9saXRpZmFjdC5jb20vZmFjdGNoZWNrcy8yMDIxL2phbi8wOC9qb2UtYmlkZW4vam9lLWJpZGVuLXJpZ2h0LW1vcmUtNjAtdHJ1bXBzLWVsZWN0aW9uLWxhd3N1aXRzLWwvP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B573f3db0" target="_blank">actually</a>.) "The legal path just took him back to the truth — that I won the election, and he was a loser."</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Zoom out:</b> In <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud2hpdGVob3VzZS5nb3YvYnJpZWZpbmctcm9vbS9zcGVlY2hlcy1yZW1hcmtzLzIwMjQvMDEvMDUvcmVtYXJrcy1ieS1wcmVzaWRlbnQtYmlkZW4tb24tdGhlLXRoaXJkLWFubml2ZXJzYXJ5LW9mLXRoZS1qYW51YXJ5LTZ0aC1hdHRhY2stYW5kLWRlZmVuZGluZy10aGUtc2FjcmVkLWNhdXNlLW9mLWFtZXJpY2FuLWRlbW9jcmFjeS1ibHVlLWJlbGwtcGEvP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B8225e4cb&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw3KLTTKk3mrxHZ2F3xbny02" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud2hpdGVob3VzZS5nb3YvYnJpZWZpbmctcm9vbS9zcGVlY2hlcy1yZW1hcmtzLzIwMjQvMDEvMDUvcmVtYXJrcy1ieS1wcmVzaWRlbnQtYmlkZW4tb24tdGhlLXRoaXJkLWFubml2ZXJzYXJ5LW9mLXRoZS1qYW51YXJ5LTZ0aC1hdHRhY2stYW5kLWRlZmVuZGluZy10aGUtc2FjcmVkLWNhdXNlLW9mLWFtZXJpY2FuLWRlbW9jcmFjeS1ibHVlLWJlbGwtcGEvP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B8225e4cb" target="_blank">a speech</a>
at Valley Forge, Pa., before the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot
at the Capitol, Biden attacked Trump in terms that were clearly personal
— and nearly profane.</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>He suggested</b> Trump was a "sick [blank]" before catching himself.</span></li></ul></blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Biden advisers </b>have some evidence that Biden already is getting under Trump's skin.</span></p><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>After Biden's recent </b><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmJjbmV3cy5jb20vcG9saXRpY3Mvam9lLWJpZGVuL2JpZGVuLW1ha2VzLXN1cnByaXNlLWFwcGVhcmFuY2UtbGF0ZS1uaWdodC1zZXRoLW1leWVycy1yY25hMTQwNjA0P3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Bf312cdc7&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw39pXfxgWM0bzw2GHRBb-1z" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmJjbmV3cy5jb20vcG9saXRpY3Mvam9lLWJpZGVuL2JpZGVuLW1ha2VzLXN1cnByaXNlLWFwcGVhcmFuY2UtbGF0ZS1uaWdodC1zZXRoLW1leWVycy1yY25hMTQwNjA0P3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Bf312cdc7" target="_blank"><b>appearance</b></a> on <i>Late Night with Seth Meyers</i>, Trump <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9pc2FhY2RvdmVyZS9zdGF0dXMvMTc2MzAyODc0NTUyOTQ1ODkyNz9zPTQ2JnQ9VDR1N0dnbGFvV0hGWUJQLTNFdk5CZyZ1dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B582de295&source=gmail&ust=1710518088827000&usg=AOvVaw3kwtT9jKdouAN0nT99HUKt" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34565947.153336/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9pc2FhY2RvdmVyZS9zdGF0dXMvMTc2MzAyODc0NTUyOTQ1ODkyNz9zPTQ2JnQ9VDR1N0dnbGFvV0hGWUJQLTNFdk5CZyZ1dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B582de295" target="_blank">posted a video</a> complaining about the show, calling the president a "basket case."</span></li></ul>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-15729242467098760582024-03-14T13:26:00.001-05:002024-03-14T13:29:10.320-05:00Questions Galore: Why did Robert Hur resign one day before testifying in Congress; how strong are Hur's ties to TrumpWorld; did Hur intentionally cheat Biden?<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1kRC_IjKAxTCyo_xKzd5kaAo_Ah1po4K2mgPwWuzFNjFAMdpSx-HRzhFA8Oe5Nzhm1dX8NjBxk1a99IdWOdRFBq8QitOIiUmSAn6oIzFcrzBzVMuGZH84CKqtQxLtCB1mGz2hn9i6urOPEqdiFbPJh0uj8jLScRwiAG-vY4FzUIfR_B_a3eJ0HXTB8xg/s1920/Hur-Congress3.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1kRC_IjKAxTCyo_xKzd5kaAo_Ah1po4K2mgPwWuzFNjFAMdpSx-HRzhFA8Oe5Nzhm1dX8NjBxk1a99IdWOdRFBq8QitOIiUmSAn6oIzFcrzBzVMuGZH84CKqtQxLtCB1mGz2hn9i6urOPEqdiFbPJh0uj8jLScRwiAG-vY4FzUIfR_B_a3eJ0HXTB8xg/w400-h225/Hur-Congress3.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Robert Hur testifies before Congress<br /></td></tr></tbody></table> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">When former special counsel Robert Hur issued a report in the Joe Biden classified-documents case, questioning the president's mental acuity because he allegedly could not remember the date of his son's death, it raised red flags with critics, who <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/legal-analysts-blast-special-counsel.html">called the report a "partisan hit job."</a> We now know the report probably was more partisan than the critics suspected.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And what about the word "former" that now appears before Hur's name. It turns out that Hur <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/robert-hur-trump/">resigned his job in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday of this week. one day before he was to testify before Congress</a>. We also know there are benefits to Team Trump from having Hur off the DOJ payroll. And finally, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/03/transcript-shows-joe-biden-knew-date-of.html">as we reported yesterday</a>, we know it is an alarmingly common practice to allow sketchy figures in high government positions to resign in lieu of facing a criminal proceeding, which might uncover all kinds of embarrassing details that someone wants to keep under wraps.We cited the example of <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2022/09/in-rarity-us-judge-abdul-kallon.html">Abdul Kallon, a former federal judge in Alabama </a>who was up to his neck in the North Birmingham Bribery scandal. One day, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2022/09/after-his-resignation-from-federal.html">Kallon held a lifetime government position that came with all the trappings of power and prestige</a>; The next day, he was announcing his retirement and hauling off for Seattle, where <a href="https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/abdul-k-kallon.html">he now toils as a regular lawyer at the Coies Perkins firm</a>. Why did this happen to Abdul Kallon? Why is something similar happening to Robert Hur?<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The questions about Hur do not end there. We now know that a transcript issued earlier this week shows Biden did remember the date of his son Beau's death. In short, Hur used his platform to disseminate false information about a sitting president's mental faculties -- which, after Biden's powerful State of the Union address, look like they were pretty strong all along. That should cause reasonable Americans to notice a foul odor emanating from Hur's report.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The stench grows stronger when you learn that Hur was a partisan from the outset, that he not only was a Donald Trump appointee, he maintain close ties to Trump insiders. So, who benefited the most from Hur's false portrayal of Biden as a doddering, confused, memory-challenged old man, playing on the concerns of some voters that Biden is not up to the task of fulfilling a second term in the White House? That, of course, would be Donald Trump, who is Biden's challenger in the 2024 election.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Recent articles from <i>Salon</i> and <i>The Independent</i> shine light on Hur's extensive ties to Trump world and raise this question. Was Biden "investigated" by an objective, disinterested prosecutor, as should have been the case? Or was he the victim of a Trump-fueled con job, one that could have an impact on the 2024 election. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Let's check out the <i>Salon</i> article first. Under the headline "<a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/03/12/biden-special-counsel-robert-hurs-resignation-from-doj-makes-his-testimony-even-more-problematic/">Biden special counsel Robert Hur’s resignation from DOJ makes his testimony “even more problematic”; “It’s hard not to anticipate some real ugliness with Robert Hur’s testimony," predicts ex-prosecutor Harry Litman</a>," Managing Editor Igor Deyrsh writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Special counsel Robert Hur, who
investigated and declined to charge former President Joe Biden over
classified materials found in his home and office, resigned from the
Justice Department and will appear as a private citizen in his testimony
to the House Judiciary Committee, according to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-hur-trump-special-counsel-b2510944.html"><i>The Independent’s</i> Andrew Feinberg</a>.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Hur, a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney who was tapped to lead the Biden
probe by Attorney General Merrick Garland, formally stepped down one
day before his Tuesday appearance at the request of Republicans led by
Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. He drew criticism from Biden and the
Democrats for <a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/02/09/comey-20-legal-experts-say-special-counsels-biden-entirely-inappropriate/" target="_blank">criticizing the president’s memory</a> in the report even as he declined to charge him.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann <a href="https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1767386515129151621">explained</a> that the Justice Department “cannot give instructions” to a former employee about what he “can and cannot testify to.”</span></span></p></blockquote><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-3603089413894349535" itemprop="description articleBody"><blockquote>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">“That makes it even more problematic from our perspective ... if he
was still a federal employee, DOJ would have to approve his testimony
and they’d be involved in his appearance,” a Democratic
Judiciary Committee source told <i>The Independent.</i></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">“It’s hard not to anticipate some real ugliness with Robert Hur’s testimony,” <a href="https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1767398519797920201">tweeted</a>
former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. “He already showed his partisan
colors in the inappropriate parts of his report. And he and the
[Republicans] obviously contemplate he can vilify Biden now that he’s
testifying as a ‘private citizen.’”</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A report from <i>The Independent's</i> Andrew Feinberg raises all kinds of questions about Hur's objectivity, which appears to have been highly compromised. Under the headline "<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-hur-trump-special-counsel-b2510944.html">Robert Hur will testify as private citizen with help from Trumpworld figures;<strong> EXCLUSIVE: </strong>Ex-Special Counsel arranged to leave Justice Department the day before his appearance with the House Judiciary Committee</a>,"Feinberg writes:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Robert Hur, the former Trump-appointed US Attorney who declined to prosecute President <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> after classified materials were found in his Delaware home and a former office in Washington, DC, will appear before the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/house-judiciary-committee">House Judiciary Committee</a> as a private citizen who has surrounded himself with Republican partisans and notorious figures linked to former president <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> as he prepares for his Tuesday appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">According to multiple sources familiar with Mr Hur’s plans, the
special counsel, who is appearing before the Judiciary Committee at the
request of the Republican majority led by Ohio Representative Jim
Jordan, has arranged his departure from the Department of Justice to be
official as of Monday 11 March, one day before he is scheduled to appear
on Capitol Hill.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Instead of
appearing as a DOJ employee who is bound by the ethical guidelines which
govern the behaviour of federal prosecutors, he will appear as a
private citizen with no constraints on his testimony.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This story is smelling worse than it did when I started writing this post a few minutes ago. What is going on here? This is my educated guess:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Donald Trump, or someone close to him, pulled strings to get Hur on the Biden case. Then someone pulled more strings to get Hur, already a Trump partisan, to file a false report criticizing Biden's mental state.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Can something be done about this? Yes, it can. Since Hur was acting as an investigator, he could be sued. He also could be investigated criminally, along with any possible conspirators, under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242">18 U.S. Code 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)</a></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Could an investigatory trail lead to Donald Trump and his associates? In my view, the answer is yes. Could that lead to a fifth criminal indictment against Trump? Again, I think the answer is yes.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The question then becomes this: Does anyone in the DOJ have the guts and integrity to pursue such a case -- one that would require a federal prosecutor to go after a former federal prosecutor. That would be an uncomfortable assignment for any DOJ employee. But such an investigation can be done, and it must be done if we are going to have a fair presidential election in 2024, one that could determine if we continue to live under a democracy or head toward <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/12/listen-to-what-man-said-new-york-times.html">an authoritarian regime under Donald Trump</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Will such a criminal probe happen? As a skeptic of our justice system -- judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, etc. -- I have doubts that anyone will take this on. But I hope I'm wrong.</span></p><p></p></div>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-39506784812609896692024-03-13T18:18:00.029-05:002024-03-13T18:32:01.575-05:00Is Katie Britt on the path to becoming a malignant narcissist, like her Republican political ally -- the brazenly and dangerously self-centered Donald Trump?<p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy-qbmQp91EkVG4b_VGPu97qDn8wKou58DrOmRR7A6CYby3YGXuLhA-hsCUiaNuPOR5BjFdN0ITntffzKRz9kgxJj63EAuXpXsRK8htdI3Lh0eeifGn61iAIkt7v7KsxQg5Idoq9OfTI_tAJE203CnVkSBQHJ9pqUKywk9uDpifFTg3S-7sjw3R6oPbuY/s270/Trump%20-%20malignant%20narcissist.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="270" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy-qbmQp91EkVG4b_VGPu97qDn8wKou58DrOmRR7A6CYby3YGXuLhA-hsCUiaNuPOR5BjFdN0ITntffzKRz9kgxJj63EAuXpXsRK8htdI3Lh0eeifGn61iAIkt7v7KsxQg5Idoq9OfTI_tAJE203CnVkSBQHJ9pqUKywk9uDpifFTg3S-7sjw3R6oPbuY/w400-h277/Trump%20-%20malignant%20narcissist.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We have come to understand in recent days how U.S. Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) came to form a political alliance with Donald Trump. How did that happen? It started when a piece at <i>Raw Story</i>, about the fallout from Britt's brain-dead State of the Union (SOTU) response came to our attention. The piece showed how Britt had taken a story about the horrific sexual abuse of a 12-year girl by a pimp in Mexico and turned it into a story about . . . herself. That's the very thing Trump -- probably the most brazen and well-known <a href="https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/narcissism-symptoms-signs#:~:text=Narcissism%20is%20extreme%20self%2Dinvolvement,behavior%20has%20on%20other%20people.">narcissist</a> in American history -- has been doing for years.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Britt's handling of her SOTU hatchet job was so dreadful that the 12-year-old girl, who has grown into a woman and activist named Karla Jacinto Romero, has blasted the senator for the fact-challenged portrayal she concocted of Romero's ordeal. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Here is a question to ponder: If Britt continues to play in Trump's psychologically scattered world, could she become a world-class narcissist just like her "orange idol"? We aren't qualified to give a clear-cut answer to that question. But if Britt continues to dip a toe in the Trump cesspool, our guess is that she runs the risk of developing what medical professionals call <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662">narcissistic personality disorder</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A number of medical professionals have stated that Trump shows signs of combining narcissism with antisocial personality disorder (also known as sociopathy). This is an exceptionally dangerous combination. Could it come to have an impact on Katie Britt? She hasn't asked for my advice, but if she did, I would suggest -- for her own good -- that she stear clear of TrumpWorld. It is not a healthy place to be. Plus, it's not an accident that Trump is facing four criminal indictments, totaling 91 counts. Scientific research tells us malignant narcissists are prone to criminal behavior. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let's take a close look at the <i>Raw Story</i> piece, which describes Britt's self-centered approach to fallout from her SOTU screw up. Under the headline "<span class="widget__headline-text custom-post-headline" data-type="text">'<a href="https://www.rawstory.com/katie-britt-speech/">My heart is broken': Katie Britt sends out self-pitying cash plea after SOTU debacle</a>," Travis Gettys writes:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) sent out a self-pitying fundraising plea
after her State of the Union rebuttal made her a national laughingstock.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The
Alabama Republican delivered a response last week to President Joe
Biden that mystified and alarmed viewers in both parties with her <a class="rm-stats-tracked" href="https://www.rawstory.com/katie-britt-sotu-2667462472/" target="_blank">hushed</a> tones, <a class="rm-stats-tracked" href="https://www.rawstory.com/rs-exclusive/katie-britt-sotu/" target="_blank">dark</a> themes and <a class="rm-stats-tracked" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/sen-katie-britt-attempts-clean-misleading-state-union-response-rcna142650" target="_blank">inaccurate</a>
claims. Her speech was lampooned by actress Scarlett Johansson just two
evenings later in the cold open to <i>Saturday Night Live.</i></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">"Following my speech, the left-wing media didn't waste a second
flooding the airwaves with despicable, disgusting messages about me,"
the senator's fundraising pitch states. "They attacked my character.
They attacked my faith. They attacked my identity as a mother and a
wife."</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">"My heart is broken," she added. "Not just for myself, but for my
children, your children, and the ENTIRE next generation of Americans.
Why? Because I didn't prepare a 20-minute speech and stand up to Biden
in front of millions of Americans for ME. I did it for them, for YOU and
your children, Friend!"</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Britt then tried a rhetorical trick often used by Donald <a class="rm-stats-tracked" href="https://www.rawstory.com/trump-news/">Trump</a> and claimed the attacks were aimed at her, but she was instead absorbing blows meant for her supporters.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">"Friend,
they're not just laughing at me," reads her fundraising pitch. "They're
laughing at every single American who dares to stand up to their
radical agenda. Every patriot who fights to defend their American
dream."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">"Because they can't handle the truth," the pitch adds. "The truth about their failed leader."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Britt's State of the Union rebuttal was widely panned by critics who
commented on her overacting and her wild swings between facial contortions and raw emotion.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">You see what Britt did there? She took a story about the sexual abuse or a child and made it all about . . . her. That is Narcissism 101! <br /></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Gettys concludes: It was a story Britt presented about a sex- trafficking victim that
got the most attention. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Britt gave a horrific portrayal of meeting a
woman she said had been raped multiple times, and suggested it was a
symptom of a crisis at the southern border during Biden's presidency.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">It was later revealed that the abuse happened in Mexico, and during the presidency of George W. Bush.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Could Britt be headed down a path toward malignant narcissism? Trump has a propensity for sucking people into his orbit and then discarding them at the first sign of perceived disloyalty. My advice? Run, Katie, run -- while you still can.</span></p><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body css-listicle-body-2667494813" data-headline="'My heart is broken': Katie Britt sends out self-pitying cash plea after SOTU debacle" style="height: auto !important;"><div class="body-description" style="height: auto !important;"><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p></div></div>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-36030894138943495352024-03-13T12:12:00.004-05:002024-03-13T14:44:45.638-05:00Transcript shows Joe Biden knew the date of his son's death, so Robert Hur spread false inormation about that, while also mysteriously resigning as special counsel one day before his Congressional testimony <p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioc7RwCdPNEGHXzuSprS2nieyFz0i9bh1FoEwtRzrtnc7x0f0SIyZACkhpvHVHQ9cwxBB12sHumP4HOLWkEUTB-k073BdpKGKP4ckCMUfrYI0wUuoAghtvA-fv5DPoK6_1XLIL2YUY804t1SrlE1EuGS7yIQO4igRyVfvUQAWXYcfEHqEXlRUV9N5TQ-Q/s300/Robert%20Hur%20-%20Congress2.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioc7RwCdPNEGHXzuSprS2nieyFz0i9bh1FoEwtRzrtnc7x0f0SIyZACkhpvHVHQ9cwxBB12sHumP4HOLWkEUTB-k073BdpKGKP4ckCMUfrYI0wUuoAghtvA-fv5DPoK6_1XLIL2YUY804t1SrlE1EuGS7yIQO4igRyVfvUQAWXYcfEHqEXlRUV9N5TQ-Q/w400-h224/Robert%20Hur%20-%20Congress2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Robert Hur testifies before Congress<br /></td></tr></tbody></table> <p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For many Americans, the most memorable part of Special Counsel Robert Hur's report in the Joe Biden classified-documents case was <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/03/12/biden-forgot-when-he-served-as-vice-president-and-year-of-sons-death-in-doj-interview/?sh=6e0f996c5f2a">the claim that the president could not remember the date of his son's death</a>. But a transcript of the Hur-Biden interview, released yesterday, shows the president did know the date of his son's death and stated it correctly, along with other relevant details.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is a particularly thorny detail about Robert Hur. <a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/03/12/biden-special-counsel-robert-hurs-resignation-from-doj-makes-his-testimony-even-more-problematic/">He resigned from his Department of Justice position on Monday and testified before Congress yesterday as a private citizen</a>. Why did Hur make that decision, and did he make it on his ow or with the assistance of someone else.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is common for sketchy figures in high government positions to be allowed to resign in lieu of being criminally prosecuted. This serves at least two purposes: (1) It keeps the sketchy figure from going through the discovery process of a criminal proceeding, which could reveal all kinds of embarrassing details that someone wants left under wraps; (2) More importantly, it keeps those who benefited from the sketchy figure's dubious conduct from being unmasked to the public.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We have written about this issue, particularly as <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2022/09/in-rarity-us-judge-abdul-kallon.html">it applied to former Alabama federal judge Abdul Kallon</a>, who presided over the North Birmingham Bribery scandal before, seemingly out of the blue, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2022/09/after-his-resignation-from-federal.html">resigning and fleeing to Seattle</a>, where <a href="https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/abdul-k-kallon.html">he now practices as a private attorney</a>. What is going on with Robert Hur's abrupt resignation? We will address that in a moment, but for now, we know the transcript from the Biden-Hur interview shows Hur gave a false assessment of the president's words regarding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Biden">Beau Biden's death</a>. Could Hur face political or legal repercussions for getting this key information wrong? We will address that in a moment, but first, let's look at the relevant section of the transcript, from the reporting of <i><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/12/biden-hur-transcript-classified-documents/">The Washington Post's</a></i> Matt Viser:</span></p><blockquote><div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">President Biden was in the early stages of his interview with special counsel <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/11/robert-hur-biden-special-counsel-classified-documents/982018e8-dfb2-11ee-95aa-7384336086f3_story.html?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_2&source=gmail&ust=1710380963222000&usg=AOvVaw0aTuetmB04WomUAwpiMj4D" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/11/robert-hur-biden-special-counsel-classified-documents/982018e8-dfb2-11ee-95aa-7384336086f3_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_2" target="_blank">Robert K. Hur</a>
when the topic of Beau Biden came up — initially with Biden raising it
and later as Biden was attempting to get his chronological bearings and
wondered aloud when, exactly, it was that his son died.</span></p></div></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“What
month did Beau die? Oh God, May 30,” he said, naming the correct day,
according to a transcript of the exchange reviewed by <i>The Washington
Post.</i></span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Two others in the room chimed in with the year, and Biden questioned, “Was it 2015 when he died?”</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Not long after the exchange, Hur suggested they consider taking a brief break.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“No,” Biden responded, before launching into a long explanation of <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/03/joe-biden-beau-death/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_7&source=gmail&ust=1710380963222000&usg=AOvVaw2araAvBn2JnQ5EtLccfM9Z" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/03/joe-biden-beau-death/?itid=lk_inline_manual_7" target="_blank">Beau’s death and its impact on him</a> deciding not to run for president in 2016. “Let me just keep going to get it done.”</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">The exchange between Biden and Hur has become one of the focal points of a <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/10/biden-hur-interview/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_9&source=gmail&ust=1710380963222000&usg=AOvVaw3bjL9-VFKKPa_Yn9qXfdvb" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/10/biden-hur-interview/?itid=lk_inline_manual_9" target="_blank">lengthy interview</a> over two days in October that led the special counsel to conclude that <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/08/biden-memory-special-counsel-report-robert-hur/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_9&source=gmail&ust=1710380963222000&usg=AOvVaw0-FYkIZAyzIBTlX2IRczKl" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/08/biden-memory-special-counsel-report-robert-hur/?itid=lk_inline_manual_9" target="_blank">Biden would not be prosecuted</a> for mishandling classified documents — in part because Biden’s “poor memory” would make it difficult to convince a jury.</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The transcript provides a more full depiction of the Hur-Biden interview than the public has seen before, Viser writes:</span></p><blockquote><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">A
<i>Post</i> review of the complete 258-page Hur transcript, which was provided to Congress on Tuesday morning, paints a more nuanced
portrait of the exchanges between Biden and the special counsel. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Biden
doesn’t come across as being as absent-minded as Hur has made him out to
be — and Hur doesn’t appear as crass as Biden has made him out to be.</span></span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">“Just allow me to say for a moment, I am so terribly, terribly sorry for your loss,” Hur said after Biden first raised <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/05/30/e1ac5a2a-0731-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_20&source=gmail&ust=1710380963222000&usg=AOvVaw299mUqdNWAaXAx64W6We96" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/05/30/e1ac5a2a-0731-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_20" target="_blank">the death of his son</a>.</span></p><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The
full transcript provides a more complete window into the back and forth
between the two men, in which Biden frequently joked with prosecutors
in a setting that seemed more chummy than antagonistic. (“I just warn
you all: Never make one great eulogy because you get asked to do
everybody’s eulogy,” Biden said at one point.) But the president also
frequently digressed, with stories about trips to Mongolia and about the
time he helped represent a client who lost one testicle and part of his
penis. He also later twice mimicked the sounds of a car.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">Biden
spoke of working “in my pajamas” while at the Naval Observatory, made
light of his poor spelling (“If it’s spelled right, it’s probably not”),
and laughed off a photo of him with a onetime ally. (“You can tell it’s
old. I have my arm around <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/03/joe-jill-biden-lindsey-graham/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_23&source=gmail&ust=1710380963222000&usg=AOvVaw1v4h2bVUY-fSZAfu4cqpKH" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/03/joe-jill-biden-lindsey-graham/?itid=lk_inline_manual_23" target="_blank">Lindsey Graham</a>.”)
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">He joked about how much time the FBI spent inside his home during the
documents probe — “The FBI know my house better than I do” — and about
what agents may have discovered.</span></span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“I
just hope you didn’t find any risqué pictures of my wife in a bathing
suit,” the president told federal prosecutors. “Which you probably did.
She’s beautiful.”</span></p></div></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The transcript shows that Biden, throughout the interview, insisted he had little involvement in packing or moving boxes and had no idea what was in them. Viser writes:</span></p><div><p dir="null"></p></div><blockquote><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">During the interview, Biden repeatedly professed that he had almost no involvement in <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/12/biden-classified-documents-found-explained/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_28&source=gmail&ust=1710424634662000&usg=AOvVaw0qafG1VxBtsK6SkWO-gqtD" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/12/biden-classified-documents-found-explained/?itid=lk_inline_manual_28" target="_blank">packing or moving documents</a>.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">“I wish I could say I was more organized,” he said.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">“She wanted nothing to do with my filing system,” he said of his wife.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Jill
Biden has often asked him to keep more writings and to keep them
organized, he said. She has implored him to be more like Franklin D.
Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, who would keep daily diaries.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Instead,
Biden’s practice was to take contemporaneous notes and often store them
away. He would forget what was there, and if anything he had was
classified, he didn’t know it. If he found anything with classified
markings, he said, he would give it back.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Asked
about what might have been stored in the haphazard boxes inside his
garage, he responded, “I have no godd--- idea. I didn’t even bother to
go through them.”</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Pressed further, he said, “I don’t remember how a beat-up box got in the garage.”</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">“Somebody must’ve packed this up, just picked up all the stuff, and put it in a box, because I didn’t,” he added.</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As for the question raised at the beginning of this post, it is hard to say if Hur could face repercussions for his actions in the Biden investigation. <a href="https://ij.org/immunity-for-prosecutorial-conduct/">Prosecutorial immunity</a> generally protects prosecutors from lawsuits related to acts taken on the job, in their official capacity. Immunity, however, does not shield shield prosecutors from being sued for actions that are not
related to advocating for the prosecution, such as acting as an
investigator or police detective. Hur's acts in the Biden case appear to have been taken as part of an investigation, so he might have potential liability on that point. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Documents filed in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16224463757046052889&q=Anilao+v.+spota&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60">Anilao v. Spota</a>,</i> a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case, state the following:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Federal prosecutors may, in their discretion, bring criminal charges against prosecutors who willfully deprive defendants of their rights. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff;"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242">18 U.S.C.§ 242. Section 242</a></span> requires “willful” conduct, which requires a high showing from the federal prosecutor. Such prosecutions happen so rarely that they fail to serve as an effective check to a prosecutor’s power.</span><br /></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In my view, probable cause is present to launch an investigation against Robert Hur. Numerous publications have quoted Hur as saying President Biden could not remember the date of his son's death. But evidence from the transcript cited at the top of this post shows that Biden did know the date, and upon being questioned, also knew the year it happened.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The central question likely is this: Did Hur intentionally disseminate a false assessment of the Biden interview and did he do it at the encouragement of a political figure in order to hurt Biden's chances of re-election? The last part of that question comes into play largely because Hur is a one-time appointee of Donald Trump, Biden's chief political rival. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The even bigger question is this: Did Robert Hur act on his own or was he part of a Trump-fueled conspiracy to feed into concerns about Biden's age, hurting the incumbent's chances in the 2024 presidential election.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Voters need to know the answers to those questions before casting ballots on Nov. 5. And under <i>18 U.S. Code 242</i>, highlighted in blue above, Hur can, and should, be investigated. But here is an obstacle that must be overcome: Hur was acting as a federal prosecutor at the time of apparent wrongdoing, so that would require another federal prosecutor to scrutinize the work of a fellow "tribe" member. Would any member of the prosecutorial fraternity have the guts to take on such a task? That seems unlikely, but there is no question that the Hur matter is ripe for an investigation -- and it clearly involves a significant queestion: Did Hur, alone or in concert with others, intentionally try to harm the electoral chances or a sitting U.S. president?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As for Hur's abrupt resignation, <a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/03/12/biden-special-counsel-robert-hurs-resignation-from-doj-makes-his-testimony-even-more-problematic/">we have this from a report at <i>Salon</i></a>:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Special counsel Robert Hur, who
investigated and declined to charge former President Joe Biden over
classified materials found in his home and office, resigned from the
Justice Department and will appear as a private citizen in his testimony
to the House Judiciary Committee, according to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-hur-trump-special-counsel-b2510944.html">The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Hur, a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney who was tapped to lead the Biden
probe by Attorney General Merrick Garland, formally stepped down one
day before his Tuesday appearance at the request of Republicans led by
Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. He drew criticism from Biden and the
Democrats for <a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/02/09/comey-20-legal-experts-say-special-counsels-biden-entirely-inappropriate/" target="_blank">criticizing the president’s memory</a> in the report even as he declined to charge him.</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann <a href="https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1767386515129151621">explained</a> that the Justice Department “cannot give instructions” to a former employee about what he “can and cannot testify to.”</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“That makes it even more problematic from our perspective ... if he
was still a federal employee, DOJ would have to approve his testimony
and they’d be involved in his appearance tomorrow,” a Democratic
Judiciary Committee source told The Independent.</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“It’s hard not to anticipate some real ugliness with Robert Hur’s testimony,” <a href="https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1767398519797920201">tweeted</a>
former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. “He already showed his partisan
colors in the inappropriate parts of his report. And he and the
[Republicans] obviously contemplate he can vilify Biden now that he’s
testifying as a ‘private citizen.’”</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We will have more zbout Hur's curious resignation in an upcoming post.</span></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-21250839763085211512024-03-12T12:54:00.020-05:002024-03-12T13:09:50.475-05:00Was Katie Britt's tortured SOTU speech a lame, Trump-inspired attempt to peddle "The Great Replacement Theory" to race-obsesed MAGA voters?<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlXC6zAm9oW7fIfHmWizvx1a1J0NA9X8ZrLeBSlMgGTSfkx8jrZpYxa-IK5otWnSmcqELyTzThyphenhyphen4x5Jr2GWApIhpwJVENuUz017wGa9NQSg9OiPX7VrJ6eSgG50aYtAVkPIDd2FaBACS5fGwMZP_nH7poB0VtR-7RakIM_SM_6vR1VSwKj4zcEp_i5ZXo/s800/Katie%20Britt-Wesley%20Britt.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="759" data-original-width="800" height="380" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlXC6zAm9oW7fIfHmWizvx1a1J0NA9X8ZrLeBSlMgGTSfkx8jrZpYxa-IK5otWnSmcqELyTzThyphenhyphen4x5Jr2GWApIhpwJVENuUz017wGa9NQSg9OiPX7VrJ6eSgG50aYtAVkPIDd2FaBACS5fGwMZP_nH7poB0VtR-7RakIM_SM_6vR1VSwKj4zcEp_i5ZXo/w400-h380/Katie%20Britt-Wesley%20Britt.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Katie Britt and husband Wesley Britt<br /></td></tr></tbody></table> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">About the only person who has praised Katie Britt's Republican response to the State of the Union address is Donald Trump, the GOP's presumptive candidate for president in 2024 -- and news of Trump's positive review comes amid reports that Britt, U.S. Senator from Alabama, was on his "short list" for a running mate. Does that mean Trump and his allies had heavy input into the content of Britt's fact-challenged and widely panned speech? Does that mean Britt was happy to deliver a deeply flawed speech -- some journalists have said it contained out-and-out lies -- because she held hopes of becoming vice president, although she appears to have zero qualifications for such a lofty role?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">These questions come to mind after reading an op-ed piece by Dean Obeidallah, a former lawyer, frequent CNN contributor, and host of his eponymous daily show at SiriusXM radio. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Under the headline "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/opinions/katie-britt-border-biden-speech-sotu-obeidallah/index.html">Katie Britt’s outrageous statements about migrants</a>,"
Obeidallah writes:</span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlz9smx002xgvqlhktdbye9@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlz9smx002xgvqlhktdbye9@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Republican Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama delivered the GOP<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/katie-britt-republican-response-sotu/index.html"> response</a> last
week to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union, and America has been
ruthlessly delivering its response to Britt ever since.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr500063b6huim737gy@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Social media exploded with<a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/katie-britts-completely-weird-state-of-the-union-response-gets-brutal-reviews-somewhere-between-porn-and-high-school-play/" target="_blank"> brutal reviews</a> of
Thursday’s speech, mocking everything from Britt’s “acting class
energy” to her decision to deliver the address from her kitchen
(suggesting, perhaps, that some in the GOP think that’s where women
belong), as well as her breathless delivery. </span></span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr500063b6huim737gy@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><i>Saturday Night Live</i> piled on this weekend, with Scarlett Johansson making<a href="https://deadline.com/2024/03/saturday-night-live-cold-open-4-1235851900/" target="_blank"> a surprise appearance</a> portraying
the senator in the show’s opening sketch, overperforming every line
including “tonight I’ll be auditioning for the part of scary mom” and
“I’ll be performing an original monologue called ‘this country is
hell’.”</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">While the <i>SNL</i> parody was a hit, Britt's actual speech was a colossal flop, except in the opinion of one person. Obeidallah writes:</span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr500083b6hsrglzjfr@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr500083b6hsrglzjfr@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr500083b6hsrglzjfr@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">At least one person truly loved Britt’s speech: Former President Donald Trump<a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/03/08/katie-britt-sotu-response-trump" target="_blank"> praised</a> Britt
for delivering what he called a “GREAT” speech that was “compassionate
and caring.” His accolades should not come as a surprise. After all,
Britt took a page from his playbook by baselessly <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-immigrants-mein-kampf/index.html">ratcheting up fears about an influx of migrants</a> to scare voters into supporting the GOP.
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr500093b6h0t5xbl0x@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
In her address, Britt blamed Biden for the “border crisis,”
claiming he “invited” it with his executive actions. During the speech,
she told the harrowing story of a woman she said she’d met on the Texas
side of the southern border who told her about having been “sex
trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12.” </span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000a3b6hgn04e1t0@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
</span>“She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how
many times a day she was raped,” Britt said. After sharing additional
details of the woman’s story, the senator declared, “We wouldn’t be OK
with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States
of America and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like
it.” She added, “President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.”
</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The content of Britt's speech involved a slight problem. A substantial portion of it was false. Even Karla Jacinto Romero, the victim of the dreadful abuse Britt describes, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/03/victim-in-katie-britts-sex-trafficking.html">has blasted the senator's speech -- and the way Britt went about concocting a fact-challenged version of what really happened</a>. Obeidallah writes:</span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000b3b6h6ty35nja@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000b3b6h6ty35nja@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The senator’s words might have led some listeners to
conclude that Biden’s border policies resulted in this child being sex
trafficked beginning at the age of 12. However, that was not even close
to the truth.
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000c3b6hg1bnmw2l@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
As fact checkers <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/09/fact-check-katie-britt-sex-trafficking/" target="_blank">detailed</a> — and Britt’s own staff<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/09/fact-check-katie-britt-sex-trafficking/" target="_blank"> admitted</a> after
strong pushback by critics of the speech — this sex trafficking did not
happen during Biden’s presidency. And contrary to what Britt seemed to
imply, the vile abuse didn’t occur on US soil. It took place in Mexico.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000d3b6hxfuelqsf@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
“SNL”<a href="https://deadline.com/2024/03/saturday-night-live-cold-open-4-1235851900/" target="_blank"> mocked</a> the
speech and its speaker, with Johansson-as-Britt declaring, “I’m going
to do a pivot out of nowhere into a shockingly violent story about sex
trafficking.” She quickly added, to big laughs, “Rest assured, every
detail about it is real … except the year, where it took place and who
was president when it happened.”
</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-ross-561460b1/">Sean Ross</a>, Britt's spokesman, did not do her any favors. He seems as averse to facts as she is. Ross once was a writer and editor at <i>Y<a href="https://yellowhammernews.com/">ellowhammer News</a>, </i>which is more or less an in-house right-wing rag of Alabama Power and its parent firm, Atlanta-based Southern Company<i> -- </i>both of which have been embroiled in the <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2022/04/alabama-might-be-entering-era-where.html">North Birmingham Bribery scandal</a> for 10 years or so. Alabama Power also used to be the employer of <a href="https://aldailynews.com/wesley-britt-joins-fine-geddie/">Wesley Britt, Katie's husband and a former offensive lineman for the University of Alabama and the NFL's New England Patriots</a>. Obeidallah writes:</span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000e3b6hpok4zx30@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000e3b6hpok4zx30@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Amid the uproar over the story’s accuracy, Britt’s
spokesperson defended it as “100% correct,” but conceded that the
individual at the center of the account was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/09/fact-check-katie-britt-sex-trafficking/" target="_blank">Karla Jacinto Romero</a>,
who testified to Congress years ago about having been forced by
traffickers to work in Mexican brothels between 2004 and 2008 — during
the George W. Bush administration.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000f3b6hx9w6ipij@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Britt’s border narrative was grossly misleading, but exaggerated<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/" target="_blank"> stories designed to gin up fears</a> of non-white migrants are exactly what Trump has been delivering from the day he descended<a href="https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/06/politics/trump-escalator-speech-annotated/"> the gilded elevator</a> in Trump Tower and kicked off his 2016 presidential run. Trump launched that campaign by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/us/politics/trump-super-tuesday-fact-check.html" target="_blank">falsely telling voters </a>that
Mexico was sending people to the United States who were “bringing
crime” and were “rapists.” Britt’s story conjures up the very same theme
— one that the former president and his supporters have returned to
repeatedly since his election.
</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In other words, Britt did with her speech what Trump has been doing for years -- telling scary stories about brown people, perhaps designed to attract right-wing voters who, perhaps driven by the GOP-promoted "<a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2021/06/rioters-at-us-capitol-on-jan-6-were.html">The Great Replacement Theory,</a>" want to see more white faces and fewer brown faces in America. An academic study, by the way, has shown that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/06/capitol-insurrection-arrests-cpost-analysis/">The Great Replacement Theory was a driving force for rioters at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol</a>. Writes Obeidallah:</span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000g3b6hk2lnivo9@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000g3b6hk2lnivo9@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">During the 2018 midterm elections, for example, Trump and the Republican establishment put out a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-38870e6a25d5469292253b4b716ecc17" target="_blank">message that “caravans</a>”
filled with “thugs” and bringing “crime” were heading to the United
States. After the election, however, when voters rejected the GOP scare
tactics and flipped control of the House of Representatives to the
Democrats, the GOP suddenly became <a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-38870e6a25d5469292253b4b716ecc17" target="_blank">suspiciously quiet</a> about migrant “caravans.”
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000h3b6hlqzu1o5e@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
Despite that election loss, scaring people about immigrants
is still a major part of Trump’s playbook. In December, he invoked the<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/politics/trump-campaign-rhetoric-new-extremes/index.html"> dangerous language</a> of Adolph Hitler, claiming that immigrants were “poisoning the blood” of America. (<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-poisoning-blood-remarks-never-knew-hitler-said-rcna130958" target="_blank">Trump has said he was unaware</a> that the quote had been uttered by Hitler.) Last month, while visiting the southern border, Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics/fact-check-trump-biden-border-speech/index.html">lied that</a> jails “throughout the world” were being emptied so that former inmates could migrate to the US. </span></span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000i3b6hldlbytw8@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
And just last week, after the Super Tuesday primaries, Trump<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/us/politics/trump-super-tuesday-fact-check.html" target="_blank"> claimed</a>, “Our cities are being overrun with migrant crime, and that’s Biden migrant crime.”<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/us/politics/trump-super-tuesday-fact-check.html" target="_blank"> The data</a> does not support the assertion that migrants are responsible for higher rates of crime — <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/01/undocumented-immigrant-crime-rate-not-higher/72788637007/" target="_blank">quite the contrary</a>, in fact.</span> But facts don’t seem to matter when you are trying to scare voters.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000j3b6hwas21yhn@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
The Republican Party was not always associated with racist,
anti-immigrant rhetoric. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">GOP President Ronald Reagan in 1989<a href="https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/02/08/fear-of-immigrants-has-broken-the-republican-party/" target="_blank"> declared</a> that
immigrants were making our “nation forever young, forever bursting with
energy and new ideas.” The 40th US President added, “If we ever closed
the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be
lost.”
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cltlzblr5000k3b6hpqeyo8ur@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">But that GOP is dead. It’s now the party of Trump. That’s
why Britt’s misleading statements about crime and migrants are applauded
by Trump.</span> So, laugh at Britt as much as you want. As long as she stokes
fear about migrants, she will be beloved by Trump and the MAGA base.
</span></p></blockquote><p></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-52959043638264221522024-03-11T17:25:00.001-05:002024-03-11T17:29:43.540-05:00Victim in Katie Britt's sex-trafficking story rips the Alabama senator for misappropriating and butchering the facts of what really happened to her in Mexico<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxi9XY4Tly5EnJjz-8hz5f9jMPI7g_k1yad2Vtu0ChBTxUSdQW434tP5pOlD0VixVwSgKzMbnR6a16ul6-K0rh2aytiXcl1IiOFdQp42cPWmNN3bQc28thJkivD96DEyBHjLA0JDDYBxUDZHKle5u4WhPVTLtlEawf01CYo5bq-QsmcUVntNZK0LmNiy0/s2000/Jacinto-Romero%20--%20Britt.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1333" data-original-width="2000" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxi9XY4Tly5EnJjz-8hz5f9jMPI7g_k1yad2Vtu0ChBTxUSdQW434tP5pOlD0VixVwSgKzMbnR6a16ul6-K0rh2aytiXcl1IiOFdQp42cPWmNN3bQc28thJkivD96DEyBHjLA0JDDYBxUDZHKle5u4WhPVTLtlEawf01CYo5bq-QsmcUVntNZK0LmNiy0/w400-h266/Jacinto-Romero%20--%20Britt.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Karla Jacinto Romero and Katie Britt<br /></td></tr></tbody></table> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Even the victim in Katie Britt's elaborate sex-trafficking tale, at the heart of her Republican response to the State of the Union address, now is blasting the Alabama senator's widely criticized oratorical efforts. That is from a piece at <i>The New Republic (TNR)</i>, under the headline "<a href="https://newrepublic.com/post/179727/sex-trafficking-victim-katie-britt-republican-state-union-response"><span>Sex Trafficking Survivor Detests Being in Republicans’ SOTU Response; </span></a><span><a href="https://newrepublic.com/post/179727/sex-trafficking-victim-katie-britt-republican-state-union-response">Karla
Jacinto Romero isn’t happy about the way Republican Senator Katie Britt
used her story for the State of the Union rebuttal</a>." </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><i>TNR</i> reporter Paige Oamek makes it clear that Karla Jacinto Romero is not pleased with the way Britt misappropriated and misconstrued her story of gross sexual abuse at the hands of a pimp in Mexico. Writes Oamek:</span></span></p><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p></div><blockquote><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>The
sex trafficking survivor who was mentioned by Republican Senator Katie
Britt in the State of the Union rebuttal <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">says her story was totally
warped by the senator as part of an attack on Joe Biden’s immigration
policies.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>“I hardly ever cooperate with politicians,
because it seems to me that they only want an image. They only want a
photo—and that to me is not fair,” Karla Jacinto Romero </span><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/katie-britt-sex-trafficking-victim-interview/index.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span>told CNN</span></a><span> on Sunday. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Jacinto Romero also confirmed that no one from Britt’s team had reached out to her asking to share her story.</span></span></span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That suggests Britt used Romero's story without talking to her about it, and that's only the beginning of the underhanded ways Britt dealt with the matter. It also raises this question: If Britt did not get her information directly from Romero, and that's what Romero's words suggest, where did she get it? Was someone else -- perhaps from the Donald Trump campaign or the Republican Party -- involved in helping Britt disseminate false information designed to make President Joe Biden look weak on border issues? If so, did the content of Britt's tortured speech involve a conspiracy -- one that could involve criminal activity?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At the moment, we know for sure that Karla Jacinto Romero is unhappy about being dragged into Britt's narrative. Writes Oamek:</span></p><p><span></span></p><div class="article-text-wrap"><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>In her </span><a href="https://newrepublic.com/post/179674/republicans-torch-state-union-response-katie-britt"><span>widely criticized</span></a><span> State of the Union response, Britt shared the graphic story of a woman who was raped by human traffickers for years.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p> <span>“When
I first took office, I did something different. I traveled to the Del
Rio sector of Texas, where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with
me. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at age 12,”
Britt said in her speech, seeming to imply that this happened in the
United States during Biden’s presidency.</span> </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><div class="article-text-wrap"><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Britt’s communications director has </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/09/fact-check-katie-britt-sex-trafficking/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span>already stated</span></a><span> that the woman in the story was Jacinto Romero. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">And Jacinto Romero, in her interview with CNN, is confirming a </span></span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@katzonearth/video/7344090454985624862" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span>viral <i>TikTok</i></span></a><span> that Britt got all the dates—and some other details—wrong.</span></span></span></p></div></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In short, Britt messed up the story big time. Was that done intentionally, perhaps at someone else's encouragement? That is one of many questions hanging out there for now. From the <i>TNR</i> piece:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><div class="article-text-wrap"><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p></div></div><blockquote><div class="article-text-wrap"><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">In
reality, Jacinto Romero was kept in captivity in Mexico from 2004 to
2008, when President George W. Bush was president. She was not
trafficked in the United States, nor was she trafficked by drug cartels
as Britt alleged in her speech, but by a pimp who kidnapped young girls.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Jacinto Romero also disputes Britt’s version of the story, which made it seem like the two women met in a private meeting.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Jacinto
Romero told CNN that she actually met Britt at an anti-trafficking
event last year at the southern border, with several other government
officials in attendance, including Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn
of Tennessee and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi. </span></span></p></div></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Has Britt acknowledged her screw ups and maybe apologized for them. Not on your life? Like Donald Trump himself, Britt seems disinclined to take responsibility or apologize for anything. Writes Oamek:</span></p><p></p><p></p><div class="article-body-wrap"><div class="article-text-wrap"><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p></div></div></div><blockquote><div class="article-body-wrap"><div class="article-text-wrap"><div class="article-text-grid"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>As these clarifications have come to light, how has Britt responded? Well, she’s doubling down of course. <br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>When Fox News host Shannon Bream </span><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/fox-news-sunday-march-10-2024" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span>asked</span></a><span>
Britt Sunday if she meant to imply that this all happened during
Biden’s presidency, <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Britt responded, “No. I very specifically said,
‘This is what President Biden did during his first 100 days.’</span> He stopped
all deportations, he halted construction of the border wall and he
said, ‘I’m going to give amnesty to millions.’ Those types of things act
as a magnet to help more and more people here.” <br /></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>She
followed up that sentence with the statement, “President Biden’s border
crisis is a disgrace. It’s despicable. And it’s almost entirely
preventable.”</span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Being a postmodern Republican apparently means "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_means_never_having_to_say_you%27re_sorry">never having to say you're sorry</a>." -- or admitting you were wrong and dishonest, falsely conflating the Romero horror story with Joe Biden's immigration policies -- even now that Romero says the two had nothing to do with each other, and the abuse she experienced did not happen in the United States.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Can you at least say "whoops," Katie?</span></p></div></div><p></p><p> </p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-90021090903396435482024-03-10T13:45:00.001-05:002024-03-10T13:46:57.326-05:00After spinning a web of lies to smear Joe Biden, Katie Britt defends her sex-trafficking tale, which was an apparent effort to help Donald Trump's campaign by making the president look weak on border issues<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxLh6CKnIUW7FW6IoPrUSfkpGC2iXrKRiIeuVRRf-M7E1aQL5xOh9cai2EKPkt-RUI3-qqk5couo5P6bSogw5MbjMPeX4lGfsT4VFwev4WBvGKCQeXzR6k2bSC56RyyHiQFSVEEKon_tBD7SFJLhD7Pb-S9jXsHAFoDEVlC9Y2u-kZet2AJ-pFd4eYNL8/s300/Katie%20Britt-whopping%20lie.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxLh6CKnIUW7FW6IoPrUSfkpGC2iXrKRiIeuVRRf-M7E1aQL5xOh9cai2EKPkt-RUI3-qqk5couo5P6bSogw5MbjMPeX4lGfsT4VFwev4WBvGKCQeXzR6k2bSC56RyyHiQFSVEEKon_tBD7SFJLhD7Pb-S9jXsHAFoDEVlC9Y2u-kZet2AJ-pFd4eYNL8/w400-h224/Katie%20Britt-whopping%20lie.jpg" width="400" /></a></div></span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Many Americans probably thought the worst part of Katie Britt's GOP response to Thursday night's State of the union address was that it was poorly delivered. But that, it turns out, was the least of the problems with Britt's oratorical effort. We now know that the speech was fact-challenged -- and that is putting it charitably. Here is the more blunt truth: The main segment of Britt's speech, about a supposed series of sex-trafficking incidents near the U.S.-Mexico border, was packed with lies.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In a <i>Forbes</i> report today, Britt stands by her speech, mostly. Under the headline "</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2024/03/10/katie-britt-says-she-knew-sex-trafficking-incident-didnt-happen-under-biden/?sh=11632b0355f1">Katie Britt Says She Knew Sex-Trafficking Incident Didn’t Happen Under Biden</a>," reporter Ana Faguy writes: </span></p><div class="key-facts-element">
<p></p></div><blockquote><div class="key-facts-element"><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Britt first dodged a question about the anecdote on Fox News Sunday
by listing her frustrations with Biden’s policies, including halting
construction of the border wall and stopping deportations which Britt
said act as a “magnet” to bring more people to the U.S.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="key-facts-element">
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">When Fox News’ Shannon Bream pushed Britt to get into the specifics
of the story, Britt claimed she was clear in her remarks she spoke to a
woman “who told me about when she was trafficked when she was 12,”
implying the anecdote was not a recent one and the woman was speaking
about her past.</span></p>
</div>
<h2 class="subhead-embed color-accent bg-base font-accent font-size text-align"><span style="font-size: medium;">Crucial Quote</span></h2>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">“I very clearly said, I spoke to a woman who told me about when she
was trafficked when she was 12,” Britt said Sunday. “So I didn’t say, a
teenager. I didn’t say a young woman, a grown woman, a woman when she
was trafficked when she was 12.”</span></p>
<h2 class="subhead-embed color-accent bg-base font-accent font-size text-align"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In a statement Sunday, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates <a aria-label="accused" class="color-link" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://twitter.com/AndrewJBates46/status/1766819216454193224" href="https://twitter.com/AndrewJBates46/status/1766819216454193224" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="https://twitter.com/AndrewJBates46/status/1766819216454193224">accused</a> Britt of telling “more debunked lies to justify the toughest bipartisan border legislation in modern history.” Bates <a aria-label="said" class="color-link" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://twitter.com/AndrewJBates46/status/1766819216454193224" href="https://twitter.com/AndrewJBates46/status/1766819216454193224" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="https://twitter.com/AndrewJBates46/status/1766819216454193224">said</a> Britt should “stop choosing human smugglers and fentanyl traffickers over our national security and the Border Patrol Union."</span></span></h2></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At NBC News, reporter Alexandra Marquez wrote:</span></p><span style="font-size: medium;">On “Fox News Sunday,” Britt did not acknowledge making any mistake or leaving a wrong impression.</span><div class="article-body__section layout-grid-container article-body__last-section article-body__first-section"><div class="article-body layout-grid-item layout-grid-item--with-gutter-s-only grid-col-10-m grid-col-push-1-m grid-col-6-xl grid-col-push-2-xl article-body--custom-column" data-activity-map="article-content"><div class="article-body__content"><p><span style="font-size: medium;">She
was asked whether she meant to give the impression that the story she
told about a victim of human trafficking happened during Biden’s tenure.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">“No,”
Britt answered, adding later: “I very clearly said I spoke to a woman
who told me about when she was trafficked when she was 12, so I didn’t
say a teenager. I didn’t say a young woman, a grown woman, a woman when
she was trafficked when she was 12.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">She doubled down on
her Thursday statement that Biden “didn’t just create this border
crisis. He invited it with 94 executive actions in his first 100 days.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">“I
very specifically said this is what President Biden did during his
first 100 days. Minutes after coming into office he stopped all
deportations, he halted construction of the border wall,” she said
Sunday. (The Biden administration <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/dhs-pause-some-deportations-during-biden-s-first-100-days-n1255110" target="_blank">attempted to institute a 100-day pause</a> on mass deportations after taking office, but that moratorium was later <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/judge-bans-enforcement-biden-s-100-day-deportation-pause-n1258707" target="_blank">halted by a judge</a>.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Though Britt did not offer the victim’s name in her speech Thursday, a spokesperson for her office <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/09/fact-check-katie-britt-sex-trafficking/" target="_blank">told</a> The Washington Post that she was referring to Karla Jacinto Romero, a trafficking victims’ rights advocate who <a href="https://www.congress.gov/event/114th-congress/house-event/LC32129/text" target="_blank">testified</a> before Congress in 2015 about what happened to her as a girl.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Britt’s office did not respond to a request for comment from NBC News on Saturday.</span></p><span style="font-size: medium;">Over the weekend, <span>a spokesperson for Britt, a junior U.S. Senator (R-AL) claimed Britt's speech, which centered on a story suggesting President Joe Biden was responsible for a series of sex-trafficking incidents near the U.S.-Mexico border, was "100 percent correct." But reporting from <i>The Washington Post</i> indicates that explanation is not going to fly. It remains to be seen if Britt ever will admit fault and perhaps issue an apology to the president and the public. It also is unclear if the Republican Party and the Trump campaign were in on the scheme to smear Biden. They likely had heavy input on the content of Britt's speech, so did they encourage her to lie? If so, what could be the repercussions of that? Could it be election fraud? Could Katie Britt's political career be in jeopardy? Does this seemingly deliberate effort to smear Joe Biden in order to influence an election need to be investigated?</span></span></div></div></div><p><span style="font-size: medium;">According to a report at <i>Newsweek</i>, Britt is being <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/katie-britt-accused-whopping-lie-sotu-response-1877591">accused of telling a "whopping lie"regarding the sex-trafficking story</a>. Whatever explanations and defenses or explanations Britt spews forth, many political observers do not seem to be buying them.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Journalist Jonathan Katz, exposed Britt's dishonesty, and <i>The Guardian</i> explains how he did it, under the headline "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/09/journalist-accuses-katie-britt-child-sex-abuse-story">Journalist says Katie Britt’s story about child sex abuse is an‘out-and-out lie’; Jonathan Katz accuses Britt of being ‘dishonest’ in State of the Union rebuttal with story about Karla Jacinto Romero</a>":</span></p><blockquote><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="font-size: medium;">Doubts have been cast on the accuracy of a story
about horrific child sex abuse told by the Republican senator Katie
Britt in her widely ridiculed speech delivered in rebuttal to President
Joe Biden’s State of the Union address.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The
journalist and author Jonathan Katz has accused Britt of being
“fundamentally dishonest” for invoking the case of a woman who had been
sex-trafficked at age 12 and raped multiple times to illustrate the
supposed failure of the Biden administration’s border-control policies.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The controversy further intensifies the spotlight
on Britt – a rising Republican star – after she came under fire from
members of her own party for delivering a rejoinder to Biden on Thursday
from the setting of a kitchen.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">In that speech,
Britt described traveling to the Del Rio sector of the US-Mexico
border and cited the case of an unidentified woman, whom Britt said
confided harrowing experiences. The senator implied these were a direct
result of the ongoing crisis at the border, which <a data-component="auto-linked-tag" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/republicans">Republicans</a> have sought to exploit as a campaign issue.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“I
spoke to a woman who shared her story with me,” Britt said. “She had
been sex-trafficked by the cartels starting at age 12. She told me not
just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was
raped.”</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Britt's story had holes from the outset, and now we know why: it is largely false. From <i>The Guardian</i>:</span></p><blockquote><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The senator did not say where or when the events
occurred, but in outraged tones she implied that they had happened in
the U.S. on Biden’s watch: “We wouldn’t be OK with this happening in a
third-world country. This is the United States of America. And it’s past
time we start acting like it. President Biden’s border crisis is a
disgrace. It’s despicable, and it’s almost entirely preventable.”</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">However,
in <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@katzonearth/video/7344090454985624862">a seven-minute video posted on </a><i><a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@katzonearth/video/7344090454985624862">TikTok</a>,</i> Katz – a former AP reporter
who has written on drug wars in Mexico – cited details that appeared to
show the story Britt was describing had happened not just outside the
U.S., but many years before Biden became president.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">He concluded that Britt had deliberately
misrepresented the tale of Karla Jacinto Romero, an activist who has
publicly recounted her experiences on numerous occasions at the hands of
sex traffickers in her native Mexico.</span></p></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">Josh Marshall, of <i>Taking Points Memo</i>, praised Katz for catching Britt "in an out and out lie." From a report at <i>Raw Story</i>:</span><blockquote><p dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Katz's digging turned up proof the victim didn't
experience the attacks on American soil, but he also found that the
timeline proved Biden wasn't even in office.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">There was a trip that Britt took along with Sen. Marsha
Blackburn (R-TN) and Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) to the the Del
Rio Sector last January — all documented on Blackburn's website.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Katz then cross-referenced the details and found the name:
<a href="Karla Jacinto Romero">Karla Jacinto Romero</a>, who is described as being pimped by a 22-year-old
man at the age of 12, and "enslaved until the age of 16 in brothels,
roadside motels and homes in Guadalajara and other cities in Mexico."</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">These events didn't happen in the United States," said
Katz. "These crimes didn't take place in the United States. Or even near
the border. They took place in Mexico."</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">And they also took place, according to Romero's recounting before Congress, between 2004 and 2008.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Biden didn't become vice president until 2009. The
president at the time when Romero was kidnapped and ultimately rescued
was George W. Bush.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Who is Karla Jacinto Romero, and what happened to her? The truth is quite a bit different from Katie Britt's tale. <i>The Guardian</i>: reports:<br /></span></p><blockquote><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Now 31, <a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.antislavery.ac.uk/items/show/139">Romero testified</a>
to a US Congressional subcommittee in May 2015 describing her
experiences at the hands of a trafficker who held her captive between
the ages of 12 and 16, before she was eventually rescued. She has also
spoken before the Mexican house of representatives and the Vatican.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Britt
met Jacinto Romero on a visit to the border with two other Republican
senators, Marsha Blackburn and Cindy-Hyde Smith, in January 2023.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="font-size: medium;">The visit was described on Blackburn’s senatorial webpage, which included <a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2023/1/blackburn-hyde-smith-britt-witness-human-smuggling-at-southern-border">photos of the three senators</a> sharing a platform with Romero at a news conference.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Britt's fabrications apparently were designed to boost Donald Trump's campaign by making Biden look weak and ineffective on the border. She probably would have gotten away with it if Jonathan Katz had not sniffed out the story:</span></p><blockquote><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">In his video, Katz dissected what he said was
Britt’s attempt to conflate Romero’s story with the US-Mexico border
imbroglio, where the build-up of asylum seekers promises to become a
central issue in the 2024 presidential election, before lambasting her
for “dishonesty”.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Katz said that Britt, by not
giving a location or a timeframe for the story, had deliberately tried
to create a “beyond misleading” impression that the events had taken
place recently and on U.S. soil.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“All I had to do was key in Karla Jacinto Romero’s
name … and it took me to [her] testimony to Congress from 2015 about
her experiences in Mexico,” he said.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“It took place between 2004 and 2008. I don’t know what they put in the textbooks of <a data-component="auto-linked-tag" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/alabama">Alabama</a>
these days, but Joe Biden was not the president of the United States in
2004 or 2008. In 2004 and 2008, the president of the United States was
George W Bush, a Republican. [But] none of this really matters because
none of these events took place in the United States – or even near the
border.”</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Katz added: “It seems very clear to me
that she is trying to create an association in people’s minds between
Joe Biden, the border, Mexicans, you know, Latins – people of Latin
descent – and sexual violence. That’s what she’s going for and she is
doing it on the basis of something that you can only say is an
out-and-out lie.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“It must have been obvious to her, at the very least, that she was not talking to somebody who had recently been 12 years old.” </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/12/donald-trump-takes-psychological.html">Trump long has been known as a liar of epic proportions</a>, so perhaps it makes sense that he and Britt have found common ground. Britt's tall tale also should raise questions about the integrity of her longtime mentor -- retired Alabama Senator Richard Shelby:</span></p><blockquote><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Katz said he had sought a comment from Britt’s
spokesperson but had received no reply. “For now, it just looks as if
she got up on national television and lied about something really
horrific and important – and for her own personal and her party’s
political gain,” he said.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">In a statement to
media outlets, Britt’s spokesperson Sean Ross sidestepped commenting on
whether the senator had been alluding to Romero in Thursday’s speech but
insisted her account was “100 percent correct”.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="font-size: medium;">“The Biden administration’s policies – the
policies in this country that the president falsely claims are humane –
have empowered the cartels and acted as a magnet to a historic level of
migrants making the dangerous journey to our border,” he said. “Along
that journey, children, women and men are being subjected to
gut-wrenching, heartbreaking horrors in our own backyard.”</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Does Britt's spokesman also have a tortured relationship with the truth? That appears to be distinctly possible. <i>The Guardian</i> notes some disturbing irony in the Britt-Trump alliance: <br /></span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Following Britt’s speech, the gun-control advocate Shannon Watts <a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1765964010149863906">noted</a>
that the senator had used stories of sexual abuse in an effort to elect
Donald Trump, who has been accused of rape in an allegation a judge
called “substantially true”, and of assault or misconduct by <a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/17/amy-dorris-donald-trump-women-who-accuse-sexual-misconduct">more than 20</a> other women. “Senator Katie Britt says sexual assault is the worst thing that can happen to a woman while encouraging Americans to vote for a sexual predator [who was judicially found to be a rapist in a civil proceeding],” Watts <a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1765964010149863906">said</a>.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Raw Story</i> writes that <i>The Washington Post</i> reportedly has confirmed the truth behind the sex-trafficking story/ And we have seen no reports that Katie Britt or her spokesman have come completely clean.</span></p><p class="dcr-4cudl2"><span style="font-size: medium;">After noting Sean Ross' claim that Britt's story is "100 percent correct," <i>Raw Story</i> states that explanation is weak, and it quotes from <i>The Washington Post's</i> story on the matter: </span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>The Post</i>, however, vehemently disagreed [with Ross' assertion].</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">"Britt’s account of Romero’s experience was a centerpiece of her
rebuttal to Biden’s address. The way Britt sets up the story, there is
no indication that she is talking about a woman who was working in
brothels in Mexico during the George W. Bush administration," according
to <i>The Post's</i> fact check. "But Biden has nothing to do with Romero’s
story."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The article continues by suggesting Romero was "never trafficked in the United States."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">"In a high-profile speech like this, a politician should not mislead
voters with emotionally charged language," the article states. "Romero’s
story is tragic and may be evocative of other Mexican girls trapped in
the sex trade in that country. But she was not trafficked across the
border — and her story has nothing to do with Biden. Britt’s failure to
make that clear earns her Four Pinocchios."</span></p></blockquote><p></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-79492130642977337832024-03-10T10:57:00.010-05:002024-03-10T11:16:57.395-05:00Katie Britt's "car wreck" of a Republican SOTU response actually causes MAGA crowd to revolt when Trump makes the mistake of praising Britt's speech<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqFlhb0GOJdy-XRiLNs-6zVyFgYxy9SC3Gfl6XA3B0UUbPRjoGZJJf7o1h5g7IVvd7ghR26mhRhZQpkhBbwC9YQfxJSyS3JIXPGY_o6aWWzsHzglf5UB4_wB4_SMf84rgyoabCd-6-dlzcG7SbyarcUOVQ3D_2F5sBtaF0p5f86UjpkigM7AtmXJIGw6w/s882/facebook_1710034332324_7172403840206433732(1).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="882" data-original-width="720" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqFlhb0GOJdy-XRiLNs-6zVyFgYxy9SC3Gfl6XA3B0UUbPRjoGZJJf7o1h5g7IVvd7ghR26mhRhZQpkhBbwC9YQfxJSyS3JIXPGY_o6aWWzsHzglf5UB4_wB4_SMf84rgyoabCd-6-dlzcG7SbyarcUOVQ3D_2F5sBtaF0p5f86UjpkigM7AtmXJIGw6w/w326-h400/facebook_1710034332324_7172403840206433732(1).jpg" width="326" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/03/bidens-triumph-his-sotu-receives.html">wrote a post here at <i>Legal Schnauzer</i> on Friday morning</a> about the previous evening's State of the Union address.At the time, I thought I might be one of the first bloggers or Web publishers to compare Joe Biden's scorching, passionate address with the still-dead oratory of Katie Britt's GOP response. I, of course, had no way of knowing if I was among the first to write such an appraisal, but being first (or near first) matters in journalism -- almost as much as accuracy -- so I was hoping to be somewhere near the front of the line on <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/03/bidens-triumph-his-sotu-receives.html">the Biden vs. Britt narrative</a>.Little did I know that the Britt speech would blow up into a national phenomenon unlike anything I've experienced in 30-plus years of professional journalism. In fact, Britt's speech proved to be so bad that <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/rs-exclusive/katie-britt-sotu/">MAGA devotees actually turned on Donald Trump, their idol, when he made the mistake of praising Britt's handiwork</a>. Who could have seen that coming? <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In the interest of full disclosure, I must acknowledge that I did not watch the Britt speech as ii came on live. Why? For one, I was still jacked up about Biden's speech, which might have saved his campaign and provided hope that he will be able to <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/12/listen-to-what-man-said-new-york-times.html">stave off Donald Trump's efforts to turn the U.S. democracy into an authoritarian state</a>. Two, after living for 30-plus years in Alabama, I felt pretty sure I knew what was coming from Britt -- that it would essentially be leftover gravy from her mentor, Richard Shelby, whose seat she took over after his retirement. But, guess what: <i>Mrs. Schnauzer </i>(my wife, Carol) is a native Alabamian, and she felt compelled to see what Katie Britt was all about. Carol's response to Britt's GOP response was somewhere between bemused, puzzled, and horrified, and soon she had <i>Facebook</i> friends from around the country, and the world, sending her missives, essentially trying to grasp what they had just watched on live TV<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I've never been a fan of Richard Shelby for several reason: (1) He used the Democratic Party to launch his political brand, and when he saw an opportunity -- and realized he no longer could win as a moderate Dem amid the racism that hangs like a cloud over Alabama politics -- he became a Repug. To me, you have to be pretty low to conduct business that way, to show zero appreciation for the people who helped you get started; (2) Shelby has played a central role in appointing or approving federal judges around the country, with particular influence in the Deep South. <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2017/05/federal-judge-virginia-emerson-hopkins.html">I've watched three or four federal judges in Alabama up close, and I cannot think of a single ruling they made that was in line with the facts or relevant law.</a> In fact, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2007/11/assault-on-law.html">they might even be worse that the state judges I first witnessed in Shelby Country, south of Birmingham, and that is a very low bar, indeed</a>; (3) I still remember having lunch one day with a long-ago work colleague at UAB when the subject of Richard Shelby somehow came up. At the time, I was what you might call a centrist, and Shelby still was a Democrat, so I didn't think he was all that bad. But my lunch companion was an avowed liberal, who later moved to Oregon (where he probably is quite happy), and who upon hearing Shelby's name, immediately referred to the Congressman as a "reptile." I still laugh about that because <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-shelby-is-reptile.html">I went back to the office to check on a picture of Shelby and thought, "My God, he does look like a reptile</a>."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As for Katie Britt, I had low expectation's for her mainly because of her ties to Richard Shelby, who I have come to detest -- mainly because he reminds me of a <a href="https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/gila-monster">Gila monster</a> every time I look at him. Carol, however, hardly took her eyes off the screen during Britt's speech. Carol kept describing it as a "car wreck you couldn't keep from watching."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That is what prompted me to write my Friday post that compared the Biden and Britt speeches, which seems unfair in retrospect. How big has the Britt story become? It was <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCfLpuLdF8Q&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top">parodied on the cold open of <i>Saturday Night Live</i> last night</a>. Memes related to it have filled <i>Facebook</i> feeds.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But the most important repercussion might be this: The speech actually caused a rift between Donald Trump and his ardent MAGA followers. Here is how <i>Raw Story</i> put it, under the headline "<span class="widget__headline-text custom-post-headline" data-type="text"><a href="https://www.rawstory.com/rs-exclusive/katie-britt-sotu/">MAGA fans revolt after Trump praises Katie Britt's 'breathlessly weird' SOTU response</a>":</span></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Donald <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rawstory.com/trump-news/&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw0tV5EuRyCnK18VC-4rGzwi" href="https://www.rawstory.com/trump-news/" target="_blank">Trump</a>
praised the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqMyaE6kmKo">State of the Union Republican Party response given by Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL)</a> and he may be alone in his opinion that she was
"GREAT," with his fans on <i>Truth Social</i> pitching a fit about a kitchen
talk that one GOP operative admitted was "...<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thedailybeast.com/official-katie-britt-gop-response-to-state-of-the-union-has-republicans-losing-it?ref%3Dhome?ref%3Dhome&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw3P5m95H766lVg8Ky9vM6-p" href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/official-katie-britt-gop-response-to-state-of-the-union-has-republicans-losing-it?ref=home?ref=home" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">one of our biggest disasters ever.”</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">While
<i>X </i>was flooded with comments, many comparing her "deeply weird" speech
to a <i>Saturday Night Live</i> skit, the former president seemed to be
impressed.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">On <i>Truth Social</i>, <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112058146852380083&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw1qYyjkGE4l5adQExaJpAsi" href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112058146852380083" target="_blank">he wrote</a>,
"<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Katie Britt was a GREAT contrast to an Angry, and obviously very
Disturbed, 'President.' She was compassionate and caring, especially
concerning Women and Women’s Issues. Her conversation on Migrant Crime
was powerful and insightful. Great job Katie!"</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">MAGA followers wasted little time in letting Trump know they did not share his opinion: From <i>Raw Story</i>:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Supporters of the former president who responded to his post, could not have disagreed more with one writing, "<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://truthsocial.com/@insidetrackcoach/posts/112058187797125054&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw2SiKjvbVv7Lr2jUbx68r3V" href="https://truthsocial.com/@insidetrackcoach/posts/112058187797125054" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Totally disagree</a>.
Didn’t need a bedtime story. We should have called out the lyes (sic),
explained the bs bills, and hit hard that the border could have been
closed by an executive order. Republican rebuttal sucked."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"It was actually pretty embarrassing. Her speech was okay. But her delivery was terrible," <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://truthsocial.com/@Kjkj629/posts/112058207224019963&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw3eAREo8mmFXDXFW9Vnk9Ki" href="https://truthsocial.com/@Kjkj629/posts/112058207224019963" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">another added</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Truth Social</i> commenter Maddy Fox fired back at Trump, writing, "<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://truthsocial.com/@maddyfox/posts/112058186927236904&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw2QPB2nuWi7u7N4LXQlmreO" href="https://truthsocial.com/@maddyfox/posts/112058186927236904" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">I thought she was horrible</a>.
The affect was terrible. She sounded phony and insincere. Didn’t know
whether she was laughing or crying about inflation, the border. It was a
ridiculous response The Republicans will never learn."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://truthsocial.com/@grifterspy/posts/112058186247849285&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw2qFLiHhJ9ea4nVv4FHGAQK" href="https://truthsocial.com/@grifterspy/posts/112058186247849285" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Gimme a break!</a> She belongs reading books to children in a daycare! She was a terrible choice! Yawn," a user named "Grifter Spy" wrote.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Jake
Roxen added, <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">"She was the opposite of why people like and support you.
She wasn’t authentic, and she talked in a manner as if she thought it
would tug at our heart strings. Putting too much emphasis on trying to
emotionally manipulate the viewers rather than just speaking off the
cuff facts. My wife and I already don’t trust her, and this was many
people’s first impression of her."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">"<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://truthsocial.com/@Bill_DaWall/posts/112058191181268551&source=gmail&ust=1710118847584000&usg=AOvVaw0gtU1DqW_5rF1OIGmrK9uX" href="https://truthsocial.com/@Bill_DaWall/posts/112058191181268551" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">She seemed a bit psycho</a>,
she SMILED the whole time talking about horrible things. That's crazy,"
Bill DaWall commented to which Cathy Meehan agreed and added, "Exactly!
I kept telling my husband.. wtf is she smiling? Quit acting.. she was
not a good choice. It was like a Miss America contest...fake af!"</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Another
added, "With respect Sir, she was breathlessly weird. I felt her
over-the-top dramatic presentation was spectacularly off-putting."</span></span></p><div class="social-author__avatar image"><div class="cover-all image" style="background-image: url("https://www.rawstory.com/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8zMzA4MjYxMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTcyMTkwNjcxOX0.fzbwQ2dOGeG_7ghgxqdbzDWwtNejjzGGaP5KFhf-WaE/image.jpg?width=210");"></div></div><a class="social-author__name rm-stats-tracked" data-type="text" href="https://www.rawstory.com/u/tom_boggioni"></a>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-20960658185892151322024-03-08T11:40:00.012-06:002024-03-10T14:48:53.162-05:00Biden's triumph: His SOTU receives bipartisan praise; meanwhile, even Republicans call the response of Alabama's Katie Britt "one of our biggest disasters"<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL0H8RHAeYS-xkkcZJ-dIzhceGGSoTiif78ckpYHPWbUwUeHoxRhy_MQV0II2EkVM1_H-j2Dg1ckhoYTNvn8HA4r2vbjYyZldTQRSK0zhGLkYPLmyib0e4sK6UaWdC2ZrfX4970o7Yl7jgt6037L72RB7MqfvzL9QbUVscq2EIolyAD03r1_JY9nSA_90/s3579/Biden%20the%20Boxer.webp" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2386" data-original-width="3579" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL0H8RHAeYS-xkkcZJ-dIzhceGGSoTiif78ckpYHPWbUwUeHoxRhy_MQV0II2EkVM1_H-j2Dg1ckhoYTNvn8HA4r2vbjYyZldTQRSK0zhGLkYPLmyib0e4sK6UaWdC2ZrfX4970o7Yl7jgt6037L72RB7MqfvzL9QbUVscq2EIolyAD03r1_JY9nSA_90/w400-h266/Biden%20the%20Boxer.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Biden comes out punching (AP)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"> <br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Comparing him to a boxer, <i>Axios</i> joined the chorus of praise for President Joe Biden's State of the Union address last night, stating Biden "helped ease Democrats' concerns about his age with a feisty and commanding (SOTU) address." The speech even received high marks from some conservative commentators. (see <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-of-the-union-shows-there-s-life-in-the-old-boy-yet-e1319b97">here</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYbmCyhJhX8">here</a>). In short, Biden's speech was a triumph, despite the childish, fact-challenged, lightweight, and "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4518107-farrah-griffin-critizes-gop-for-putting-britt-in-kitchen-bizzare/">bizarre</a>" response from U.S. Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Britt, essentially was a go-fer girl for former U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) until Alabama voters <a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-alabama-richard-shelby-congress-a7b0c19d4ec1874f2d2742189638047d">inexplicably picked her to occupy Shelby's seat</a>. Even members of her own party were turned off by her school-girlish voice, and shallow content -- all delivered with an expression that ranged from vacant to almost tearful. Some <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/08/katie-britt-sotu-reaction">Republicans called her speech "one of our biggest disasters</a>." Meanwhile, there was speculation, apparently sparked by a comment from CNN's <a href="https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Kaitlan Collins, </a>that Britt was on Donald Trump's "short list" for a running mate. The notion of Katie Britt as vice president is laughable, but I'm a never-Trumper, so I hope he chooses her. Britt would make Sarah Palin look like Winston Churchill.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjwzUuKFsS7Q-BYK21bijvoOdY9XNCoOtOYf1at1Bns4QjHAFqiiUf4R8EwEnjJweZr2c6vuTxM4BUs6hZYWNWDX6pRzTd5nQxpVFkgkzcwzfFKn12Df6Hyr8U90HXRz7LH3ywoGdjL_qwcbf_2KQT_6VyXUmEOvo8AzXIBWozoJy6d_hSKg6RXfkvFhE/s1024/Katie-Britt%20-%20SOTU.webp" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1024" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjwzUuKFsS7Q-BYK21bijvoOdY9XNCoOtOYf1at1Bns4QjHAFqiiUf4R8EwEnjJweZr2c6vuTxM4BUs6hZYWNWDX6pRzTd5nQxpVFkgkzcwzfFKn12Df6Hyr8U90HXRz7LH3ywoGdjL_qwcbf_2KQT_6VyXUmEOvo8AzXIBWozoJy6d_hSKg6RXfkvFhE/w400-h225/Katie-Britt%20-%20SOTU.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Katie Britt: An SOTU 'disaster"<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"> As for Biden's address, <i>Axios</i> reporters Alex Thompson and Hans Nichols write:</span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">With anger, humor and frequent ad-libs that baited his Republican
critics, Biden, 81, tried to show voters he's capable of serving another
four-year term at a time when polls show voters don't think he is.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>"Hard for anyone</b> at any age to give that performance," former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on CNN.</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>"Nobody is going </b>to talk about cognitive impairment now," cameras caught Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) telling Biden after the speech.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Peggy Noonan </b>— a <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3NqLmNvbS9uZXdzL2F1dGhvci9wZWdneS1ub29uYW4_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NhbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B1a868455&source=gmail&ust=1710000904277000&usg=AOvVaw2kMq2OZ0NDk3SVgMXe2Osw" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3NqLmNvbS9uZXdzL2F1dGhvci9wZWdneS1ub29uYW4_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NhbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B1a868455" target="_blank">former speechwriter</a> for Ronald Reagan who doesn't like former President Trump — writes in her <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3NqLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlcy9zdGF0ZS1vZi10aGUtdW5pb24tc2hvd3MtdGhlcmUtcy1saWZlLWluLXRoZS1vbGQtYm95LXlldC1lMTMxOWI5Nz91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B072d2fce&source=gmail&ust=1710000904277000&usg=AOvVaw3M5NTl5uZv2h_X1f_HDuMZ" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3NqLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlcy9zdGF0ZS1vZi10aGUtdW5pb24tc2hvd3MtdGhlcmUtcy1saWZlLWluLXRoZS1vbGQtYm95LXlldC1lMTMxOWI5Nz91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B072d2fce" target="_blank"><i>Wall Street Journal</i> column</a> that Biden's SOTU "showed energy and focus, blurred some words and thoughts, maintained a brisk pace"</span></p><div style="margin: 20px 40px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"He
almost never spoke softly. He sometimes yelled. There was a
give-'em-hell-Harry vibration, as if he'd been reading up on Truman."</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The <i>Axios</i> reporters came away with four key takeaways:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>1. Came ready to fight.</b></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Biden's speech </b>became raucous as he repeatedly<b> </b>looked to engage with GOP lawmakers.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Without ever saying Trump's name,</b>
Biden repeatedly attacked "my predecessor" (a phrase he used 13 times)
on everything from Ukraine to immigration, abortion and democracy.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Biden drew attention</b> to Trump's age — 77 — by saying, "Some other people my age" have a darker view of America.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>2. Spread the blame on immigration</b></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>After embracing restrictive immigration policies</b>
— including some he campaigned against in 2020 — in a failed bipartisan
Senate deal, Biden tried to portray Republicans as responsible for the
ongoing problems.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>"We can fight </b>about fixing the border, or we can fix it," he said.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>One misstep:</b> Biden <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly94LmNvbS9yZXBkZWxpYXJhbWlyZXovc3RhdHVzLzE3NjU5MzgxODAxNTc1NDY4ODc_cz0yMCZ1dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B16155b53&source=gmail&ust=1710000904277000&usg=AOvVaw3TFKekccmQyFuLNBTCoZ0p" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly94LmNvbS9yZXBkZWxpYXJhbWlyZXovc3RhdHVzLzE3NjU5MzgxODAxNTc1NDY4ODc_cz0yMCZ1dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B16155b53" target="_blank">infuriated some Democrats</a>
in an ad-libbed moment by using language they find degrading. He called
the alleged killer of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student, "an
illegal." (Former Speaker Pelosi <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVkaWFpdGUuY29tL3R2L2hlLXNob3VsZC1oYXZlLXNhaWQtdW5kb2N1bWVudGVkLW5hbmN5LXBlbG9zaS1jb3JyZWN0cy1iaWRlbi1mb3Itc2F5aW5nLWtpbGxlZC1ieS1hbi1pbGxlZ2FsLz91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Bc9a38470&source=gmail&ust=1710000904277000&usg=AOvVaw0WM2SjgMjyriKS7wyzyUV6" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVkaWFpdGUuY29tL3R2L2hlLXNob3VsZC1oYXZlLXNhaWQtdW5kb2N1bWVudGVkLW5hbmN5LXBlbG9zaS1jb3JyZWN0cy1iaWRlbi1mb3Itc2F5aW5nLWtpbGxlZC1ieS1hbi1pbGxlZ2FsLz91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Bc9a38470" target="_blank">said on CNN</a> that Biden "should have said 'undocumented.'") And he called the student "Lincoln" instead of Laken.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>3. Calls voters to back abortion rights.</b></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>"Those bragging</b> about overturning <i>Roe v. Wade</i>
have no clue about the power of women in America," he said. "But they
found out when reproductive freedom was on the ballot, and we won in 2022,
2023, and they will find out again in 2024."</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>4. Gambled on the economy.</b></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Biden continued to argue</b>
that his economic record is better than voters give him credit for — a
tactic some Democrats worry is tone-deaf, noting polls that indicate
most Americans don't agree.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Biden went further </b>than
in the past, predicting that inflation will continue to decline without
an increase in unemployment. "The landing is and will be soft," he
promised, a line that wasn't in his prepared remarks.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>He cited</b>
familiar numbers about record-low unemployment, especially for Black
and Hispanic Americans. He repeated his plans to increase corporate tax
rates from 21% to 28%.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>But in his victory lap,</b>
Biden acknowledged that many Americans aren't satisfied, especially when
it comes to housing. He unveiled a plan for a two-year tax credit of
$400 a month, geared to first-time homebuyers, to help take the sting
out of high mortgage rates.<br /></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMy8wOC91cy9wb2xpdGljcy9zdGF0ZS1vZi10aGUtdW5pb24tdHJhbnNjcmlwdC1iaWRlbi5odG1sP3VubG9ja2VkX2FydGljbGVfY29kZT0xLmJFMC4yaTIyLjdsOWlQQUhMeEFJXyZzbWlkPXVybC1zaGFyZSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B27c3449d&source=gmail&ust=1710000904277000&usg=AOvVaw2J0s0rVDi31UI8pz8CCvsu" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMy8wOC91cy9wb2xpdGljcy9zdGF0ZS1vZi10aGUtdW5pb24tdHJhbnNjcmlwdC1iaWRlbi5odG1sP3VubG9ja2VkX2FydGljbGVfY29kZT0xLmJFMC4yaTIyLjdsOWlQQUhMeEFJXyZzbWlkPXVybC1zaGFyZSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B27c3449d" target="_blank">Read the speech</a> ... <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vd2F0Y2g_dj1uRlZVUEFFRi1zdyZ0PTdzJnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B365e65f9&source=gmail&ust=1710000904277000&usg=AOvVaw3nvRMGKcljoMhgNaD288zO" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vd2F0Y2g_dj1uRlZVUEFFRi1zdyZ0PTdzJnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zYW0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B365e65f9" target="_blank">Watch the speech</a> ... <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDMvMDgvYmlkZW4tdGFrZWF3YXlzLXNvdHUtaW1taWdyYXRpb24tYWJvcnRpb24tZWNvbm9teT91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Bf0486147&source=gmail&ust=1710000904277000&usg=AOvVaw1MRqnBS-rVcehAcPq3MXm-" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34610576.155337/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDMvMDgvYmlkZW4tdGFrZWF3YXlzLXNvdHUtaW1taWdyYXRpb24tYWJvcnRpb24tZWNvbm9teT91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2FtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991Bf0486147" target="_blank">Share this story</a>.<br /></i></span></p></li></ul></blockquote><br /></div>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-58725057998819476702024-03-07T17:40:00.007-06:002024-03-07T17:45:39.023-06:00Biden's State of the Union Address will be driven by a backstory about a GOP bag man and three Trump-loving justices on a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQOg-0HYb4hksg7El3Hhx1E4cpfN32vQZmWiUVKff96_qeE702a7wsdXN8Hiqi6otkmcqvH46IOYqjqCLx7Rk-yVJAxUvT-JKR4uMRbRDsZfNJwdINciwgtPkreQKQKUDLIi1JJotGWhKNUmTonpKL3kI2zxlDgsNNO7BZk-g15GvHTaz-rl6Auk9EQQE/s300/Biden%20-%20sotu24.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQOg-0HYb4hksg7El3Hhx1E4cpfN32vQZmWiUVKff96_qeE702a7wsdXN8Hiqi6otkmcqvH46IOYqjqCLx7Rk-yVJAxUvT-JKR4uMRbRDsZfNJwdINciwgtPkreQKQKUDLIi1JJotGWhKNUmTonpKL3kI2zxlDgsNNO7BZk-g15GvHTaz-rl6Auk9EQQE/w400-h224/Biden%20-%20sotu24.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Joe Biden's campaign is set to go on the offensive against Republican challenger Donald Trump, starting with a focus on Project 2025, an effort to plan for a second Trump term, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/13/heritage-foundation-voter-suppression-lobbying-election-action-plan">led by the dark-money, big-spending Heritage Foundation</a> and <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority">back-room GOP operative Leonard Leo</a>, who has ties to <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/samuel-alito-clarence-thomas-supreme-court-ethics.html">scandals surrounding U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito. and John Roberts</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At the heart of the Biden offensive is a plan to upstage Project 2025 by injecting it with a dose of its own medicine. The plan likely will serve as a backstory in Biden's State of the Union Address (SOTU) tonight. <i>Axios</i>' Mike Allen writes:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><strong>The Biden-Harris campaign </strong>plans to try to usurp <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34592452.100868/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjMvMTEvMTMvdHJ1bXAtbG95YWxpc3RzLTIwMjQtcHJlc2lkZW50aWFsLWVsZWN0aW9uP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zcG0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B6d4f24d7&source=gmail&ust=1709938217435000&usg=AOvVaw0avB3XL2h9LEm2NLEzyAfz" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34592452.100868/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjMvMTEvMTMvdHJ1bXAtbG95YWxpc3RzLTIwMjQtcHJlc2lkZW50aWFsLWVsZWN0aW9uP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zcG0mc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B6d4f24d7" target="_blank">Project 2025</a> — the name of a well-funded <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34592452.100868/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHJvamVjdDIwMjUub3JnLz91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc3BtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B6588c2f4&source=gmail&ust=1709938217435000&usg=AOvVaw3lQkhjUkB26vqAXjAuaxgy" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34592452.100868/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHJvamVjdDIwMjUub3JnLz91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc3BtJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B6588c2f4" target="_blank">Heritage Foundation effort</a> to prepare for a second Trump administration — to brand warnings about the former president's policies.</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Project 2025 </strong>is<strong> </strong>the
most extensive effort ever to prepare for a presidential transition —
laying out policy priorities on health care, abortion, immigration and
more.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">How does Team Biden plan to draw Project 2025 into a spotlight Leonard Leo probably does not welcome? Mike Allen explains: <br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><strong>President Biden's campaign </strong>tells
me Project 2025 resonates on social media, and in conversations with
voters, as shorthand for what former President Trump would do if he won
in November.</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>So the Biden campaign's </strong>rapid-response architects will start using the term themselves. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>They'll use this frame</strong> to go after Trump on abortion, tax fairness, lowering health care and housing costs, and Social Security and Medicare.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>What's next:</strong> <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">In conjunction with tomorrow's <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://link.axios.com/click/34592452.100868/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDMvMDYvc3RhdGUtb2YtdGhlLXVuaW9uLWJpZGVuLTIwMjQ_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NwbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B15ac899e&source=gmail&ust=1709938217435000&usg=AOvVaw3_CXgY5mz_xdv7AcJTJAsI" href="https://link.axios.com/click/34592452.100868/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDMvMDYvc3RhdGUtb2YtdGhlLXVuaW9uLWJpZGVuLTIwMjQ_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NwbSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5c58522324c17c463ff96991B15ac899e" target="_blank">State of the Union address</a>, look for Biden campaign officials to unveil a slew of "Trump's Project 2025" documents, amplified through social channels.</span> </span></p><br />legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-1014581052894749652024-03-07T07:15:00.066-06:002024-03-07T09:33:08.625-06:00Mary Trump, Donald's niece and one of his most fierce critics, says exit-poll data illuminates a pathway to defeat her uncle and protect America's democracy<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0cDLlUUmKOhxCu1GzV7Bdr3GIWvKsNv0NPFKIScicWn6SGmxxloizKi0tj1umv9eS-lrNGmU8tbStbb0Qx-Czh8oWAluFD13NLDx8mRuYK20Ig1OvzGTfn6TvcCfemOtGi715CplPQqyYwcndOthcapMU5WvwGjBr8KA0h_StDgJGQZXnZ9cjbvp4D1A/s273/Mary%20Trump%20-%20book.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="184" data-original-width="273" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0cDLlUUmKOhxCu1GzV7Bdr3GIWvKsNv0NPFKIScicWn6SGmxxloizKi0tj1umv9eS-lrNGmU8tbStbb0Qx-Czh8oWAluFD13NLDx8mRuYK20Ig1OvzGTfn6TvcCfemOtGi715CplPQqyYwcndOthcapMU5WvwGjBr8KA0h_StDgJGQZXnZ9cjbvp4D1A/w400-h270/Mary%20Trump%20-%20book.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Donald Trump, a potential convicted felon, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/06/politics/trump-presumptive-nominee-analysis/index.html">is the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee</a>, but exit polls show his support is weak, and that should provide hope for the Democrats, Never-Trump Republicans, and independents who want to deny him a chance to carry out his threats to upend American democracy. That is the latest message from Mary L. Trump, psychologist, author, and Donald's niece -- who also happens to be one of her uncle's sharpest and most vocal critics. She says weak exit polls are a sign that Donald Trump can be beaten, denying him a chance to implement an extremist agenda that could break the U.S. constitutional order as we have come to know it. Writes Mary Trump:</span></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"></h3><blockquote><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Donald
will inevitably clinch the Republican nomination, but the media ignored exit data that shows a clear path to Donald LOSING in 2024. It’s
game on.</span></h3><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Lessons of Super Tuesday</span></h3><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">At
first glance, seeing a twice-impeached, 91-count-criminally-indicted
defendant, who’s been found liable for fraud and RAPE become the
de facto Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States is
horrifying.</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Before Super Tuesday polls even opened, I was greeted with this headline from </span><i>The Washington Post’s, “The Early 202”</i><span> in my inbox yesterday morning: </span><i><span>“</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/ae81e2c8-b80f-452a-817d-8d14447b57a9?j%3DeyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0&source=gmail&ust=1709878630934000&usg=AOvVaw2K8xskdB2xEQV_dX0rzfv-" href="https://substack.com/redirect/ae81e2c8-b80f-452a-817d-8d14447b57a9?j=eyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0" rel="" style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Super</a><span> Tuesday Caps a Strong Political Week for Trump,”</span></i><span> which is not how I wanted to start my day.</span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>The
degree to which Donald’s criminality (alleged and actual),
authoritarianism, bigotry, and unfitness (both characterological and
temperamental) </span><b>all continue to be normalized by a weak, complacent, and, in some cases, complicit media</b><span>. It surpasses belief.</span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The idea that Donald could win a single vote, let alone an election, is almost too much to bear. </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But Mary Trump sees shining light beneath <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/06/politics/trump-campaign-promises/index.html">the dark, dystopian path Donald Trump has planned for America</a>. And that light comes from exit-poll data. Mary writes</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>The exit data shows something promising – how WEAK Donald will be in the general election.</b></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>When I hear what some Republican voters are </span><i>actually</i><span> saying, </span><b>I feel hope</b><span> – not because we know anything with certainty, but because a path to defeat Donald is clearly emerging.</span></span></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Inspiring data – Donald’s Nikki Haley headache </span></h3><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">No
one can or should spin the fact that Donald commands a hefty lead of
support with Republican voters. Considering the state of the Republican
party, there are no surprises here. </span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Nikki
Haley was never going to win the primary, but what she accomplished was
perhaps even more important. She helped to cultivate a significant and
growing electorate — Never-Trump Republicans. These voters include:</span></p><ul style="margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Republicans who never supported Donald;</span></p></li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Republicans who previously voted for Donald, but are now waking up.</span></p></li></ul><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>The second group provides the biggest chance for coalition-building in 2024.</b><span> We know this because these voters are engaged.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Consider the Haley voter who gave the best reason -- in a TV interview -- for switching from Donald to Haley — “because the man is a lunatic.”</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">When
this voter was asked what she will do in the general election, when
there is a binary choice between Donald and Biden, she said, “I don’t
know. It will be a hard decision.”</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><i><b>This</b></i><b> is the audience we must reach: the swing voters who need to hear just how much better Biden is than the “lunatic.</b><span>”</span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff; font-size: medium;">There
are many people like her in key swing states and it’s telling that
Haley performed best in the states that are the most important for
Democrats to win, such as Virginia and Colorado, where she pulled in more than 33 percent
of the vote. </span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This phenomenon goes beyond anecdotal evidence. </span></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Exit data is horrible for Donald</b></span></h3><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Let’s take a deeper look at the numbers.</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>Consider </span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/4b00a0ad-814e-4a73-9945-c8ee2a523a82?j%3DeyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0&source=gmail&ust=1709878630934000&usg=AOvVaw2k8pHXzftJJewpoeWWoK2b" href="https://substack.com/redirect/4b00a0ad-814e-4a73-9945-c8ee2a523a82?j=eyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0" rel="" style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">CNN</a><span>’s
exit-poll data, which Manu Raja called a “warning sign” for Donald in
the general election. In North Carolina, a state that is a much better
representation of the country than some of the other deep red states: </span></span></p><ul style="margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff; font-size: medium;">A significant 66 percent of Haley voters said Donald is not physically or mentally fit to be president.</span></p></li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">A vast majority, 81 percent of Haley voters, said they’re not an automatic vote for Donald.</span></p></li></ul><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>According to </span><a href="https://news.yahoo.com/trump-biden-show-signs-weakness-223200520.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email"><span style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;">ABC News</span></a><span>, In Virginia, a </span><b>plurality of Haley voters said they approved </b><span>of the job Joe Biden was doing as president. In North Carolina, the number was 50 percent.</span></span></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Haley voters have much more in common with Biden voters</b></span></h3><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The candidate who captures more of Haley’s voters will have the best path to victory in the general election.</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">And if you are looking for more encouragement, check out the priorities of these voters:</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>According to </span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/760964a5-3210-4993-bcb7-d6da7cf630c4?j%3DeyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0&source=gmail&ust=1709878630934000&usg=AOvVaw1GtrFAqnb42JmTIs-NfgpM" href="https://substack.com/redirect/760964a5-3210-4993-bcb7-d6da7cf630c4?j=eyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0" rel="" style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">ABC News</a></span></p><ul style="margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">76 percent of Haley voters oppose a federal abortion ban </span></p></li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">60 percent support a chance for most undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.</span></p></li></ul><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff; font-size: medium;"><span>While 59 percent of Donald’s voters say they are “angry about the way things are going in this country,” only 21% of Haley’s voters </span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/760964a5-3210-4993-bcb7-d6da7cf630c4?j%3DeyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0&source=gmail&ust=1709878630934000&usg=AOvVaw1GtrFAqnb42JmTIs-NfgpM" href="https://substack.com/redirect/760964a5-3210-4993-bcb7-d6da7cf630c4?j=eyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0" rel="" style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">feel</a><span> that way.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The key, Mary writes, is to reach these voters with a central, cohesive message:</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>These
people need to hear just how much they have in common with Democrats,
and just how determined Donald Trump is to derail progress on the issues
they claim to care about, while destroying everything they claim to
value.</b><span> </span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">We just need to reach them.</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>Because, as Bob Cesca of </span><i><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/c294ff64-90ab-4c79-8ef9-b39d17f3a34a?j%3DeyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0&source=gmail&ust=1709878630934000&usg=AOvVaw1owzDIUzk9N7245_DfpFej" href="https://substack.com/redirect/c294ff64-90ab-4c79-8ef9-b39d17f3a34a?j=eyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0" rel="" style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Bob Cesca Show</a><span>, </span></i><span>says, Donald always makes things worse for Donald, the leader of the Republican Party is giving us a head start.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Donald Trump's disrespectful, self-centered personality already has opened a pathway to Haley voters, Mary writes:</span></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"></h3><blockquote><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Donald insulted Haley’s voters… then tried to bully them into voting for him</span></h3><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Before Super Tuesday, Donald made his stance on Haley donors crystal clear (while calling Haley a “birdbrain” in the process).</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>“Anybody
that makes a ‘contribution’ to Birdbrain [Haley], from this moment
forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp,” Donald </span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/4ba0670f-10ab-4459-9862-aa5525db6965?j%3DeyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0&source=gmail&ust=1709878630934000&usg=AOvVaw0UfLy-Wyz0-ig1p2dSr0hD" href="https://substack.com/redirect/4ba0670f-10ab-4459-9862-aa5525db6965?j=eyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0" rel="" style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">wrote</a><span> on <i>Truth Social</i>. “We don’t want them, and will not accept them.”</span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>After Super Tuesday, Donald </span><a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4428148-trump-warns-haley-donors-will-be-permanently-barred-maga-camp/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email"><span style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;">wrote</span></a><span>
again on <i>Truth Social</i>, "Much of [Haley’s] money came from Radical Left
Democrats, as did many of her voters, almost 50%, according to the
polls." </span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>It’s now up to us to remind these voters what Donald really thinks of them, and how unwelcome they will be </span><i>in their own party</i><span>—every chance we get.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Clear, consistent communication is central to Mary's efforts to keep her uncle out of the White House. She writes:</span></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"></h3><blockquote><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The path is clear</span></h3><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>In the eight months between now and Election Day, we need to pull out all of the stops in order to </span><b>ensure that Donald loses, we dominate in the House, and win a meaningful majority in the Senate this November.</b></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>The
corporate media has proven they either can’t or won't report accurately
on the existential threat Donald and the Republican Party pose to the
American Experiment or tell the full story of his worsening </span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/d0989d35-301f-49cc-88d1-78e810f4be4d?j%3DeyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0&source=gmail&ust=1709878630935000&usg=AOvVaw0gb6cjycUABwQIgZmCOqht" href="https://substack.com/redirect/d0989d35-301f-49cc-88d1-78e810f4be4d?j=eyJ1IjoiMTUwYXB3In0.QJF8T2OcEkKcaO6lQ2gi6zER8HZaklEZrYJoauPxsu0" rel="" style="color: #889187; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">mental decline</a><span>.
They refuse to focus on Donald’s his increasingly fascistic rhetoric,
his clearly stated authoritarian plans for a second, and the collection
of vicious sycophants (e.g. Stephen Miller) upon whom he plans to bestow
real power.</span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">People like me, who have platforms, have to do everything in our power to fill that void.</span></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: "SF Pro Display", -apple-system-headline, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It’s go time</span></h3><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">My goal is to find as many ways as possible to</span></p><ul style="margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Win over swing voters</span></p></li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Win over former Haley voters</span></p></li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Get our friends and families to the polls (especially those who usually sit out elections)</span></p></li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Wake up even more Republicans currently lukewarm on Donald (and make sure they have the facts they need to make the right choice)</span></p></li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 4px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Amplify progressive voices</span></p></li></ul><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Thanks to your incredible support, </span><i>The Good in Us </i><span> (my <i>Substack</i> page0 is becoming an increasingly strong platform from which to accomplish all of this — and more. </span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And
with your continued engagement, I can spend as many hours a day as
possible to make sure Donald never possesses real power again, and the
Republican Party becomes a hobbled, toothless minority party.</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why?</span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Ramping up our efforts worked in 2020.</b><span> It’s even more urgent now. We need to go even bigger. </span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>America remains on a knife’s edge between democracy and fascism. </span><b>There is too much at stake</b><span> to pretend otherwise.</span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>Scores
of studies show citizens need to feel hopeful their candidate can win
the election in order to turn out — and I am
determined to convince voters with hard-hitting facts, that Donald can,
and will be held accountable in the court of law </span><b>and</b><span> at the polls.</span></span></p><p style="color: #404040; line-height: 26px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I
currently have 190,265 free subscribers. If just 5% chipped in for a
membership at the price of a small coffee, I could reach even more
voters with the hope and inspiration we need to save our democracy. </span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://marytrump.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=email&utm_source=post&utm_content=142354265&utm_campaign=email-checkout&next=https%3A%2F%2Fmarytrump.substack.com%2Fp%2Frevealed-donalds-weak-exit-polls&r=150apw">Upgrade to Paid</a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> <br /></span></div><div><p><span style="font-size: medium;">THANK YOU for your support, and for being by my side on this journey! – Mary</span></p></div></blockquote><div><p></p></div>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-61426227479312088862024-03-06T16:21:00.001-06:002024-03-06T16:24:27.139-06:00Despite its best efforts to unlawfully give Trump's presidential campaign a significant boost, SCOTUS might not have done him any favors in the long run<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZvvcYsHgtH3qH-CHy0EyVZG-3NADBC0gbm6yFpe3uaNVpzhtgB_hl68pjmfT_6WSro54O2ciWCMoceAy6ifscdt44Ff6-7nLZXKaDUChRV7362tLp-07s0RVTvxDRES0AEpfT1zCmUZbVkhmEfcmiZHWQ5wcy3ytMckArLr_P_ZR1FIsLLfYEd6AkOFY/s275/Trump%20-%20courtroom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZvvcYsHgtH3qH-CHy0EyVZG-3NADBC0gbm6yFpe3uaNVpzhtgB_hl68pjmfT_6WSro54O2ciWCMoceAy6ifscdt44Ff6-7nLZXKaDUChRV7362tLp-07s0RVTvxDRES0AEpfT1zCmUZbVkhmEfcmiZHWQ5wcy3ytMckArLr_P_ZR1FIsLLfYEd6AkOFY/w400-h266/Trump%20-%20courtroom.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Donald Trump in a familiar spot -- a courtroom<br /></td></tr></tbody></table> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In a five-day period, spanning the past two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court twice issued rulings that unlawfully will boost Donald Trump's chances in the 2024 presidential race. <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/5/bad-sign-legal-scholars-question-us-supreme-courts-trump-primary-ruling">The rulings have drawn widespread criticism</a> because . . . well the evidence is overwhelming that the justices threw the rule of law (and their own precedent) aside and decided they were going to help Trump and the Republican Party, no matter how low their status sinks in public-opinion polls. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The public is left with this question: While the SCOTUS justices apparently let partisan politics carry the day in their pro-Trump rulings, did they actually do Trump any favors in the long run? The answer is "probably not," according to an opinion piece from <i>Washington Post</i> columnist Jennifer Rubin.Under the headline "<span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/05/supreme-court-timing-trump-trial/">The Supreme Court did Trump no favors. He’ll be facing a fall trial</a>," Rubin writes:</span></span></p><div><div><div><p dir="null"></p></div></div></div><blockquote><div><div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">While <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/supreme-court-trump-ballot-decision/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_2&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw2fwre8Abx9ErHDA8zHOC0H" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/supreme-court-trump-ballot-decision/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2" target="_blank">leaving him on the ballot in the 14th Amendment case</a> (but refusing to rule out that <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/january-6-capitol-riot/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_2&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw2RsLbjXhSFteVaFxPxlkqT" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/january-6-capitol-riot/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2" target="_blank">Jan. 6</a>,
2021, was an “insurrection”), the Supreme Court has taken every
opportunity to delay four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump’s
Jan. 6 trial.</span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><div role="separator"><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">In late December, the court <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw3CE3eux6hWjGr24jF0T-hx" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html" target="_blank">declined to consider</a>
the absolute immunity claim, preferring to wait for the ruling from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. After the appellate
decision, the high court was not obliged to take the case. It could have
affirmed summarily. Nevertheless, after nearly two weeks, the court
decided it <i>did </i>need to take the case. Then it set the hearing for
April 22. Trump’s team undoubtedly celebrated the latest delay. But
should it?</span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">As
a preliminary matter, the Justice Department has clarified that its
guideline to refrain from initiating indictments or investigations about
60 days before an election is <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/fact-check-trump-justice-department-rules-prosecution-during-campaign/index.html&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw3xthFH5_qZL4B02Gmaye9x" href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/fact-check-trump-justice-department-rules-prosecution-during-campaign/index.html" target="_blank">inapplicable to pending cases</a> that a court schedules during that time frame. Cases that are ready to go can start regardless of the campaign calendar.</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That, Rubin writes, means the Jan. 6 election-subversion case in Washington, D.C., likely will start before the Nov. 5 general election:</span></p><div><p dir="null"></p></div><blockquote><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Supreme Court could — <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/opinions/supreme-court-trump-january-6-lithwick-vladeck/index.html&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw3opSMyY0Wm4qKH-glYvtrC" href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/opinions/supreme-court-trump-january-6-lithwick-vladeck/index.html" target="_blank">as it did</a> in Watergate, emergency cases involving the <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/coronavirus/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_9&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw2FDoEuTnC4L8cFl53gyM88" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/coronavirus/?itid=lk_inline_manual_9" target="_blank">coronavirus</a> or <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/12/12/bush-v-gore/3af4c604-6456-4960-bd98-7e046943a784/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_9&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw0TJTrYW_PasigM4i2tf3Dk" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/12/12/bush-v-gore/3af4c604-6456-4960-bd98-7e046943a784/?itid=lk_inline_manual_9" target="_blank"><i>Bush v. Gore</i></a>
— move promptly and decide the immunity case within a few weeks of the
hearing. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua Kolb at<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.justsecurity.org/92965/when-special-counsel-smiths-january-6th-trial-will-reach-a-verdict-analyzing-the-alternative-timelines/&source=gmail&ust=1709844146433000&usg=AOvVaw2w3gGg588g552OXYNgmrRQ" href="https://www.justsecurity.org/92965/when-special-counsel-smiths-january-6th-trial-will-reach-a-verdict-analyzing-the-alternative-timelines/" target="_blank"> <i>Just Security</i> </a>explained: “For example, in <i>U.S. v. Nixon</i>,
the Court held oral argument on July 8, 1974, and issued its decision on
July 24, 1974 — an interval of three weeks. If the Court were to follow
that example here, we would receive a decision around Tuesday, May 13.”
(In the 14th Amendment case, the opinion came in slightly less than a
month after oral arguments.) Arguably, any further delay would look
hyper-partisan even for this court.</span></span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">With
a May ruling, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan could stick to her schedule (i.e.,
each day lost since the December stay gets added back to the schedule,
and the trial could start on Aug. 2. The trial would run through the
campaign’s final months. Trump, rather than campaigning in the last
months of the election season, would be sitting (pouting, if his previous
courtroom demeanor is predictive) in court. During the fall, daily
testimony concerning his 2020-2021 coup attempt would be front and
center. As Eisen, Seligman and Kolb calculated, “If the trial starts on
Aug. 2 and lasts eight weeks it will be submitted to the jury on <b>Sept. 27</b>; and if the trial lasts 12 weeks, it will be submitted to the jury on <b>Oct. 25</b>.”</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Would Trump be pleased if the calendar plays out that way? Definitely not, Rubin says:</span></p><div><p dir="null"></p></div><blockquote><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">That
schedule is Trump’s worst nightmare. Then-FBI Director James B. Comey
claimed 11 days before the 2016 election that “new” documents had turned
up concerning former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails. That threw a monkey
wrench into the campaign, <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/&source=gmail&ust=1709844146434000&usg=AOvVaw0kAr57DhyJJCGye1Xr8HrR" href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/" target="_blank">arguably costing her the election</a>.</span> Here, an October guilty verdict — even if appealed — would be curtains for the MAGA crowd.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">What if the court’s decision requires further fact-finding to apply its holding (e.g., <i>“Does the indictment involve official acts?”</i>)?
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"> If Chutkan needs to hear evidence outlining Trump's complicity in the coup,
voters would still get an earful about Trump’s betrayal of the
Constitution.</span></span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Alternatively,
<i> Just Security’s </i>authors calculated a trial start date around Sept. 20
if the Supreme Court slow-walks a ruling on the immunity claim until the
end of June, the session’s traditional endpoint. A verdict would be
nearly impossible before the election, but the campaign’s close <i>would be consumed with testimony about Trump’s alleged involvement in the coup. </i>That would be nearly as devastating as a verdict.</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Rubin lists four other issues to consider as Trump's criminal trials draw closer:</span></p><div><p dir="null"></p></div><blockquote><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">First,
any prospect of starting the Jan. 6 trial before the election
evaporates if the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves application of immunity
to this case less than airtight.</span> After Chutkan rules, Trump then might
take <i>another</i> interlocutory appeal, effectively foreclosing any pre-election trial.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Second,
however, no serious lawyer thinks the court would agree that Trump
enjoys absolute immunity for alleged crimes in office. Even a court this
partisan would not countenance immunity for assassinating political
enemies, as the D.C. Circuit postulated. Whatever the timing, therefore,
the court almost certainly would issue a stark rebuke to Trump’s
fantasy of absolute immunity. Voters would still have the benefit of the
court’s rejection of his view of the presidency as dangerous and
unconstitutional</span>, infuriating Trump and giving <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/candidates/joe-biden-2024/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_21&source=gmail&ust=1709844146434000&usg=AOvVaw0XnEE_ASQr4a5_q2j26AIH" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/candidates/joe-biden-2024/?itid=lk_inline_manual_21" target="_blank">President Biden</a> a powerful closing message.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Third, the Jan. 6 trial delays have opened up the calendar. New York’s hush-money trial is scheduled to get <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/15/trump-new-york-hush-money-trial-schedule/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_24&source=gmail&ust=1709844146434000&usg=AOvVaw18Q3XbQJGTdfYcV5x5UUbS" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/15/trump-new-york-hush-money-trial-schedule/?itid=lk_inline_manual_24" target="_blank">under way March 25</a>, with a likely May verdict. Disregard <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/18/bragg-trial-critics/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_24&source=gmail&ust=1709844146434000&usg=AOvVaw0Oby4K2PHjM1mhfJ0ZhP5O" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/18/bragg-trial-critics/?itid=lk_inline_manual_24" target="_blank">pundits’ sneering</a>:
The facts and the law strongly favor prosecutors. A conviction (maybe
with an embarrassing cross-examination if Trump insists on testifying)
surely would be a blow to Trump. “<i>The first former president convicted of a felony!</i>”</span> would dominate the news, as would discussion about whether to incarcerate him.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">It
is also possible, although unlikely, given Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s
slow-walking, that the Jan. 6 delays would allow the trial for <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/28/trump-cannon-classified-documents-ruling/?itid%3Dlk_inline_manual_25&source=gmail&ust=1709844146434000&usg=AOvVaw32q59lB7sgeGNW0_Z6mhQH" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/28/trump-cannon-classified-documents-ruling/?itid=lk_inline_manual_25" target="_blank">Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents</a>
to begin, if not finish, before the election. </span>(Special counsel Jack
Smith wants to start the case in July; Trump’s lawyers counteroffered
August.) A trial highlighting Trump’s disdain for national security and
alleged obstruction of justice would easily monopolize fall campaign
coverage.</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps the most important consideration, Rubin notes, is this: Trump could spend much of the fall on trial, not on the campaign trail:</span></p><div><p dir="null"></p></div><blockquote><div><p dir="null"><span style="font-size: medium;">Fourth,
beginning but not completing the Jan. 6 and/or classified documents
trials before the election would have a silver lining: The prosecution
could present devastating evidence without the risk of losing before
voters cast ballots.</span></p></div><div><p dir="null"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Any
not-guilty verdict would give Trump an enormous boost, vindicating his
persecution claim. But despite the slothlike pace of the Supreme Court,
through much of the fall, Trump likely will be off the trail<b> </b>and on trial<b> </b>— as voters get nonstop reminders about his contempt for the law.</span></p></div></blockquote>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-13104533041102352432024-03-06T07:14:00.003-06:002024-03-06T07:14:00.247-06:00We aren't the only ones to notice SCOTUS is infested with pro-Trump politics; The New York Times has noticed, too -- and that could spell trouble for the court<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxAkYDUDjkUAJxM4zpdlqYy5mRuGW5jwN1DEsdG-3i94yWtlzLER7F0RVhNwJmcxJ12NzdpiIEN7bYOdaFf9ud2SuiiQ8FdaUR9MWwpMO-fP4q59bq4VAx_sIyLtf03Xm4WvzmO4b9eUF9e0S8u7GysPmyhh6zKlkJrpjp0LQGP9m0vfKyHBFooBemRlY/s2560/Trump%20-%20Gorsuch%20handshake.webp" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1760" data-original-width="2560" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxAkYDUDjkUAJxM4zpdlqYy5mRuGW5jwN1DEsdG-3i94yWtlzLER7F0RVhNwJmcxJ12NzdpiIEN7bYOdaFf9ud2SuiiQ8FdaUR9MWwpMO-fP4q59bq4VAx_sIyLtf03Xm4WvzmO4b9eUF9e0S8u7GysPmyhh6zKlkJrpjp0LQGP9m0vfKyHBFooBemRlY/w400-h275/Trump%20-%20Gorsuch%20handshake.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (Getty)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> <p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As we reported on Monday, the <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/03/harvard-prof-scotus-answers-questions.html">U.S. Supreme Court's dubious decision to allow Donald Trump to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot</a> gives a reasonable American grounds to believe the justices are acting corruptly, favoring Trump at most every turn. It turns out that we aren't the only ones thinking along those lines. <i>The New York Times (NYT)</i> is having similar thoughts, and that could pose a threat to the court's already diminished reputation. If the justices are wise -- and they obviously aren't -- they will recognize that their lofty positions also could be at risk.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Specifically, <i>The Times</i> notes that the ballot ruling on a case out of Colorado, combined with the court's decision to hear Trump's outlandish presidential-immunity claim, indicate it is not above engaging in partisan politics. That's a polite way of saying the court is acting corruptly.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It's one thing for <i>Legal Schnauzer</i> to call the high court corrupt, as I have done on multiple occasions (see <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/03/in-trying-to-help-trump-for-short-run.html">here</a> and <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/03/harvard-prof-scotus-answers-questions.html">here</a>). To have <i>The New York Times</i> join the chorus raises the bar of seriousness to a whole new level. It puts the court's legitimacy -- perhaps even its existence, as we have come to know it -- at risk. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This much is clear. <i>The Times</i> has seen enough of the justices' "Let's favor Trump game" to be disgusted by it. The disgust has reached such a level that one of the nation's two or three most influential newspapers is openly questioning the Supreme Court's integrity -- perhaps even it's usefulness.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>The Times</i>' disgust shines through in a piece by David Leonhardt, editor of the paper's <i>The Morning</i> newsletter. Under the headline "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/briefing/supreme-court-trump-campaign-bush-v-gore.html">The Supreme Court and the election; A decision by the court will delay Trump’s federal trial for election subversion. In doing so, it has almost certainly helped his campaign</a>," Leonhardt writes:</span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>For
six weeks in June and July 2022, a House committee held public hearings
about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. During those hearings,
millions of Americans heard new details about the efforts by Donald
Trump and his supporters to overturn the 2020 election result.</span></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Less
than four months later, Americans voted in the midterm elections — and
rejected many of Trump’s favorite candidates. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Republicans whom he had
backed in primaries performed </span></span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/kWchRW6KEsDK-cdNiNPN_A~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TjaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMi8xMS8xNi91cHNob3QvdHJ1bXAtZWZmZWN0LW1pZHRlcm0tZWxlY3Rpb24uaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw27dlDKycF1sLMik2DGPYKt" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/kWchRW6KEsDK-cdNiNPN_A~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TjaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMi8xMS8xNi91cHNob3QvdHJ1bXAtZWZmZWN0LW1pZHRlcm0tZWxlY3Rpb24uaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD" style="background-color: #fcff01; color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">about five percentage points worse on average</a><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
in the general election than other Republicans, a <i>Times</i> analysis found.</span>
The difference was large enough to decide several races.</span></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>The message seemed clear. Americans may be politically divided and (as I’ve written before) dissatisfied with both </span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/n5wqiX0mi_1Ii4Ot3L1jQw~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TvaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMS8xMS8wNC9icmllZmluZy9kZW1vY3JhdHMtZWxlY3Rpb24td29ya2luZy1jbGFzcy12b3RlcnMuaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw22vb9BLC4gJ4J73GrwvtY1" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/n5wqiX0mi_1Ii4Ot3L1jQw~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TvaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMS8xMS8wNC9icmllZmluZy9kZW1vY3JhdHMtZWxlY3Rpb24td29ya2luZy1jbGFzcy12b3RlcnMuaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD" style="color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">the Democratic Party’s liberalism</a><span> and </span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/qRyn-UwzyEebsvzlgl5Nog~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TbaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMy8wMi91cHNob3QvcG9sbC1iaWRlbi10cnVtcC0yMDI0Lmh0bWw_Y2FtcGFpZ25faWQ9OSZlbWM9ZWRpdF9ubl8yMDI0MDMwNCZpbnN0YW5jZV9pZD0xMTY2Njkmbmw9dGhlLW1vcm5pbmcmcmVnaV9pZD0xMDY5NjM3ODEmc2VnbWVudF9pZD0xNTk3NzImdGU9MSZ1c2VyX2lkPTQ2ZjlhNzQ0MDZjOWMyMWI1MzMzZTJhNzE0MTQwNjM2VwNueXRCCmXj27TlZR6Y_vZSFXJzaHVsZXIzMTU2QGdtYWlsLmNvbVgEAAAAAw~~&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw1hQo5aUFN2iVkRhhedRDfe" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/qRyn-UwzyEebsvzlgl5Nog~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TbaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMy8wMi91cHNob3QvcG9sbC1iaWRlbi10cnVtcC0yMDI0Lmh0bWw_Y2FtcGFpZ25faWQ9OSZlbWM9ZWRpdF9ubl8yMDI0MDMwNCZpbnN0YW5jZV9pZD0xMTY2Njkmbmw9dGhlLW1vcm5pbmcmcmVnaV9pZD0xMDY5NjM3ODEmc2VnbWVudF9pZD0xNTk3NzImdGU9MSZ1c2VyX2lkPTQ2ZjlhNzQ0MDZjOWMyMWI1MzMzZTJhNzE0MTQwNjM2VwNueXRCCmXj27TlZR6Y_vZSFXJzaHVsZXIzMTU2QGdtYWlsLmNvbVgEAAAAAw~~" style="color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">President Biden’s performance</a><span>.
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"> But when voters focus on the anti-democratic behavior of Trump and his
allies, a small but critical slice becomes less willing to vote for
them.</span></span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>This history feels particularly relevant after the Supreme Court issued a decision last week </span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/8gqqqkGwxFwnNVOVEMuPgQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TkaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMi8yOC91cy9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LXRydW1wLWltbXVuaXR5LXRyaWFsLmh0bWw_Y2FtcGFpZ25faWQ9OSZlbWM9ZWRpdF9ubl8yMDI0MDMwNCZpbnN0YW5jZV9pZD0xMTY2Njkmbmw9dGhlLW1vcm5pbmcmcmVnaV9pZD0xMDY5NjM3ODEmc2VnbWVudF9pZD0xNTk3NzImdGU9MSZ1c2VyX2lkPTQ2ZjlhNzQ0MDZjOWMyMWI1MzMzZTJhNzE0MTQwNjM2VwNueXRCCmXj27TlZR6Y_vZSFXJzaHVsZXIzMTU2QGdtYWlsLmNvbVgEAAAAAw~~&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw0zRgPhb0qVA3wjXQEfy7iH" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/8gqqqkGwxFwnNVOVEMuPgQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TkaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMi8yOC91cy9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LXRydW1wLWltbXVuaXR5LXRyaWFsLmh0bWw_Y2FtcGFpZ25faWQ9OSZlbWM9ZWRpdF9ubl8yMDI0MDMwNCZpbnN0YW5jZV9pZD0xMTY2Njkmbmw9dGhlLW1vcm5pbmcmcmVnaV9pZD0xMDY5NjM3ODEmc2VnbWVudF9pZD0xNTk3NzImdGU9MSZ1c2VyX2lkPTQ2ZjlhNzQ0MDZjOWMyMWI1MzMzZTJhNzE0MTQwNjM2VwNueXRCCmXj27TlZR6Y_vZSFXJzaHVsZXIzMTU2QGdtYWlsLmNvbVgEAAAAAw~~" style="color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">that will delay</a><span>
Trump’s federal trial for election subversion. The court agreed to hear
Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution because the alleged
crimes occurred while he was president. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The justices scheduled arguments
about his immunity claim for April, which is likely to push back the
start of any trial until at least September. The court’s move reduces
the chances of a trial verdict before Election Day.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">In
doing so, the court has almost certainly helped Trump’s campaign. He
has made clear that delay is central to his strategy for fighting the
cases against him. </span>And for obvious reason: If he becomes president
again, he can order the Justice Department to end any federal case
against him.</span> <br /></span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Leonhardt calls this a "benefit to Trump," which it clearly is, especially when you consider the former president's primary legal strategy has been to delay the four criminal cases against him, perhaps because he has no valid defense to some, or all, of the charges. Leonhardt writes:</span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>The delays also make it more likely that he </span><span style="font-style: italic;">will</span><span>
become president again. The public will be less focused on his attempts
to overturn the 2020 election if he isn’t on trial for them. Polls have
also found that </span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/FY4V-Zkmn2yzrigWqxxBxg~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TnaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMy8xMi8yMC91cy9wb2xpdGljcy90cnVtcC1wb2xsLWNvbnZpY3Rpb24tdHJpYWxzLmh0bWw_Y2FtcGFpZ25faWQ9OSZlbWM9ZWRpdF9ubl8yMDI0MDMwNCZpbnN0YW5jZV9pZD0xMTY2Njkmbmw9dGhlLW1vcm5pbmcmcmVnaV9pZD0xMDY5NjM3ODEmc2VnbWVudF9pZD0xNTk3NzImdGU9MSZ1c2VyX2lkPTQ2ZjlhNzQ0MDZjOWMyMWI1MzMzZTJhNzE0MTQwNjM2VwNueXRCCmXj27TlZR6Y_vZSFXJzaHVsZXIzMTU2QGdtYWlsLmNvbVgEAAAAAw~~&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw0a9k-0YRpIdCBOiSu4ScEn" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/FY4V-Zkmn2yzrigWqxxBxg~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TnaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMy8xMi8yMC91cy9wb2xpdGljcy90cnVtcC1wb2xsLWNvbnZpY3Rpb24tdHJpYWxzLmh0bWw_Y2FtcGFpZ25faWQ9OSZlbWM9ZWRpdF9ubl8yMDI0MDMwNCZpbnN0YW5jZV9pZD0xMTY2Njkmbmw9dGhlLW1vcm5pbmcmcmVnaV9pZD0xMDY5NjM3ODEmc2VnbWVudF9pZD0xNTk3NzImdGU9MSZ1c2VyX2lkPTQ2ZjlhNzQ0MDZjOWMyMWI1MzMzZTJhNzE0MTQwNjM2VwNueXRCCmXj27TlZR6Y_vZSFXJzaHVsZXIzMTU2QGdtYWlsLmNvbVgEAAAAAw~~" style="color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">a significant share</a><span> of Trump’s current supporters claim they will not vote for him if he is convicted.</span></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>As
Nate Cohn, <i>The Times’s</i> chief political analyst, told me: “<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The
possibility that Trump would be convicted of federal crimes by the
election was one of the better reasons to think the race could shift
toward Biden. That’s looking less likely now, especially as the D.C.
case seemed like the fastest and clearest path to a conviction.</span>” And as
my colleagues Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman </span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/kunRdpeRmxEscY8iN6c6NQ~~/AAAAAQA~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-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw0qNt_1Dvc92c5o5ltth-NV" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/kunRdpeRmxEscY8iN6c6NQ~~/AAAAAQA~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-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD" style="color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">wrote</a><span>, “Trump’s delay strategy seems to be working.”</span></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>(Two
other cases — a Georgia trial involving his attempts to overturn the
result and a federal trial involving his handling of classified
documents — have moved even more slowly. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The charges in a fourth case — a
New York trial set to start this month, involving hush money to conceal
a sexual affair — </span></span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/y6zy2Z8IceZZ_LsAGoQ3Zw~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMy8wNC8wNC9ueXJlZ2lvbi90cnVtcC1odXNoLW1vbmV5LWNoYXJnZXMuaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw1yqDx-ubcqZ4XCJIyBRUMq" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/y6zy2Z8IceZZ_LsAGoQ3Zw~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMy8wNC8wNC9ueXJlZ2lvbi90cnVtcC1odXNoLW1vbmV5LWNoYXJnZXMuaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD" style="background-color: #fcff01; color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">may not seem as serious</a><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"> to many voters.</span>)</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Delay comes into play in a number of ways, Leonardt writes, even though the Supreme Court has shown it can move quickly on high-profile election matters when it feels inclined to do so:</span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>The
Supreme Court is not the only reason that the cases are moving slowly.
Prosecutors in both federal cases and the Georgia case have moved with </span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/a/SDjE6gmeCzwbaRcXvfzGPQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP4QRAWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9pbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9ucy8yMDIzLzA2LzE5L2ZiaS1yZXNpc3RlZC1vcGVuaW5nLXByb2JlLWludG8tdHJ1bXBzLXJvbGUtamFuLTYtbW9yZS10aGFuLXllYXIvP2NhbXBhaWduX2lkPTkmZW1jPWVkaXRfbm5fMjAyNDAzMDQmaW5zdGFuY2VfaWQ9MTE2NjY5Jm5sPXRoZS1tb3JuaW5nJnJlZ2lfaWQ9MTA2OTYzNzgxJnNlZ21lbnRfaWQ9MTU5NzcyJnRlPTEmdXNlcl9pZD00NmY5YTc0NDA2YzljMjFiNTMzM2UyYTcxNDE0MDYzNlcDbnl0Qgpl49u05WUemP72UhVyc2h1bGVyMzE1NkBnbWFpbC5jb21YBAAAAAM~&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw0x1n8v6J8ByDNYWazBEZBc" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/a/SDjE6gmeCzwbaRcXvfzGPQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP4QRAWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9pbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9ucy8yMDIzLzA2LzE5L2ZiaS1yZXNpc3RlZC1vcGVuaW5nLXByb2JlLWludG8tdHJ1bXBzLXJvbGUtamFuLTYtbW9yZS10aGFuLXllYXIvP2NhbXBhaWduX2lkPTkmZW1jPWVkaXRfbm5fMjAyNDAzMDQmaW5zdGFuY2VfaWQ9MTE2NjY5Jm5sPXRoZS1tb3JuaW5nJnJlZ2lfaWQ9MTA2OTYzNzgxJnNlZ21lbnRfaWQ9MTU5NzcyJnRlPTEmdXNlcl9pZD00NmY5YTc0NDA2YzljMjFiNTMzM2UyYTcxNDE0MDYzNlcDbnl0Qgpl49u05WUemP72UhVyc2h1bGVyMzE1NkBnbWFpbC5jb21YBAAAAAM~" style="color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">less urgency</a><span>
than some legal observers thought was savvy. And the Supreme Court
justices will no doubt argue that they are merely following a reasonable
timetable for an important case.</span></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>But
the court has acted very quickly when dealing with past cases related
to elections, including in <i>Bush v. Gore</i> in 2000. This year, by contrast,
the justices have made two different decisions that have pushed back
Trump’s trial for election subversion.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So why is the current version of SCOTUS, with its six Republican appointees (including three by Trump), dragging its feet compared to the <i>Bush v. Gore</i> court? Leonhardt takes a hard look at that question:</span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">First,
the justices rejected a request in December from Jack Smith, the
special prosecutor, that they immediately consider Trump’s claim of
immunity.</span> The case was so important, Smith said, that only the Supreme
Court could resolve it and should not wait for an appeals courts to hear
it first. The justices said no to Smith.</span></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Second,
after the appeals court ruled against Trump, the justices agreed last
week to hear his challenge — and scheduled the hearing for late April,
almost two months from now.</span> “The schedule the court set could make it
hard, if not impossible, to complete Mr. Trump’s trial before the 2024
election,” Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for <i>The Times</i>,
wrote. (</span><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/DktT6qdeY8g0eD9bqGJp1w~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TmaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMi8yOS91cy9wb2xpdGljcy9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LWltbXVuaXR5LWNhc2UuaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw3DrlLjySEXiKWrim1IpO1w" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/DktT6qdeY8g0eD9bqGJp1w~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TmaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMi8yOS91cy9wb2xpdGljcy9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LWltbXVuaXR5LWNhc2UuaHRtbD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD05JmVtYz1lZGl0X25uXzIwMjQwMzA0Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTExNjY2OSZubD10aGUtbW9ybmluZyZyZWdpX2lkPTEwNjk2Mzc4MSZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE1OTc3MiZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9NDZmOWE3NDQwNmM5YzIxYjUzMzNlMmE3MTQxNDA2MzZXA255dEIKZePbtOVlHpj-9lIVcnNodWxlcjMxNTZAZ21haWwuY29tWAQAAAAD" style="color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">I recommend this article by Adam</a><span>, in which he explains the relevant history, such as <i>Bush v. Gore</i>.)</span></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="m_-1871136916130961817css-sdwaa1" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/GZdLCHZspqvBIy3aOxbEyQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TlaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMi8yOC9icmllZmluZy90aGUtc2F0LWFuZC10aGUtc3VwcmVtZS1jb3VydC5odG1sP2NhbXBhaWduX2lkPTkmZW1jPWVkaXRfbm5fMjAyNDAzMDQmaW5zdGFuY2VfaWQ9MTE2NjY5Jm5sPXRoZS1tb3JuaW5nJnJlZ2lfaWQ9MTA2OTYzNzgxJnNlZ21lbnRfaWQ9MTU5NzcyJnRlPTEmdXNlcl9pZD00NmY5YTc0NDA2YzljMjFiNTMzM2UyYTcxNDE0MDYzNlcDbnl0Qgpl49u05WUemP72UhVyc2h1bGVyMzE1NkBnbWFpbC5jb21YBAAAAAM~&source=gmail&ust=1709768511084000&usg=AOvVaw2iy4KxqDUQvrWnIjlNBtKm" href="https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/GZdLCHZspqvBIy3aOxbEyQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRnyDnbP0TlaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyNC8wMi8yOC9icmllZmluZy90aGUtc2F0LWFuZC10aGUtc3VwcmVtZS1jb3VydC5odG1sP2NhbXBhaWduX2lkPTkmZW1jPWVkaXRfbm5fMjAyNDAzMDQmaW5zdGFuY2VfaWQ9MTE2NjY5Jm5sPXRoZS1tb3JuaW5nJnJlZ2lfaWQ9MTA2OTYzNzgxJnNlZ21lbnRfaWQ9MTU5NzcyJnRlPTEmdXNlcl9pZD00NmY5YTc0NDA2YzljMjFiNTMzM2UyYTcxNDE0MDYzNlcDbnl0Qgpl49u05WUemP72UhVyc2h1bGVyMzE1NkBnbWFpbC5jb21YBAAAAAM~" style="background-color: #fcff01; color: #286ed0; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">In a newsletter last week</a><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">,
I argued that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on diversity and high
school admissions offered a reason for Americans to be less cynical
about the court. On that subject, the justices seemed to be following a
consistent principle across several cases. </span>Sometimes that principle
disappointed the political left, and sometimes it disappointed the
right.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In short, Leonhardt says, the court again is giving the public reason to be cynical about it -- to believe the court has no guiding principles, other than to help Trump.</span></p><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-language-override: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 25px; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>Last
week’s decision feels different. When urgent action could help a
Republican presidential candidate in 2000, the court — which was also
dominated by Republican appointees at the time — acted urgently. When
delay seems likely to help a Republican presidential candidate in 2024,
the court has chosen delay. The combination does not make the court look
independent from partisan politics.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Why is that? I can think of only one answer: This court is not independent from partisan politics, and it's not trying very hard to fool anybody. The justices' guiding ethos seems to be: Anything Trump and the Republican Party want, they will get."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>The New York Times</i> has taken notice, and the justices should be smart enough to realize that is not a good thing for them. In fact, it could eventually upend their insular world in a big way.</span></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-80437856657635289332024-03-04T16:57:00.011-06:002024-03-04T20:15:43.771-06:00Harvard prof: SCOTUS answers questions that weren't before it and ignores issues that were on the table in a ruling that -- you guessed it -- favors Donald Trump<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPIBQlnVqsUt7plh1Cp_Yvr0MMn0LHoAwXorjewcZwgXu_Up6O4ZcBGPMjWLpZNnTwMnLjsLzWoeQpxe06HMuzc-Sn1QkokvveAdoPo2wvN05e5kzF6Z4huOSBV_QADU3k48TWURT3B-ydjNWI18QP_FabqwyNXZLeaus2pamUIbiG0xQhbrYsZPEcm1U/s259/Laurence%20Tribe.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPIBQlnVqsUt7plh1Cp_Yvr0MMn0LHoAwXorjewcZwgXu_Up6O4ZcBGPMjWLpZNnTwMnLjsLzWoeQpxe06HMuzc-Sn1QkokvveAdoPo2wvN05e5kzF6Z4huOSBV_QADU3k48TWURT3B-ydjNWI18QP_FabqwyNXZLeaus2pamUIbiG0xQhbrYsZPEcm1U/w400-h300/Laurence%20Tribe.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291">Colorado cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot</a> even though the high court made no finding that Trump did not engage in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. In essence, SCOTUS found that it's OK for an insurrectionist to lead the government he sought to obstruct or overthrow -- even though <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/">Section 3, 14th Amendment</a> of the U.S. Constitution says that cannot happen.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Does that smell fishy to you? It does to me. More importantly, it apparently smells fishy to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard Law prof I consider to be our foremost Constitutional scholar. Tribe is a gentleman who has a far greater intellect, with way more honesty, than any of the right-wing hacks who populate our current Supreme Court. When Laurence Tribe speaks, I listen -- and I encourage our readers to do the same by following him at <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=laurence%20tribe&src=typed_query"><i>X </i>(fomerly <i>Twitter</i>) to keep up with his insights</a> in the coming days. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For my part, I intend to thoroughly research issues raised in the Trump appeal and report my findings in a series of upcoming posts. We already have written two pieces (<a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/with-oral-arguments-set-for-tomorrow.html">here </a>and <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Trump+and+Colorado+and+oral+arguments">here</a>) that SCOTUS was taking dubious actions in the Trump appeal. It's possible we will find SCOTUS got this one right, but I doubt it. Either way, I want to know what this court, clearly favoring Trump for months, has wrought</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is Laurence Tribe's initial reaction to today's ruling:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">Justice Barrett told us what “message Americans should take home” from today’s ruling that, even if Trump’s role in the insurrection we just barely survived disqualifies him under the Constitution from ever holding office again, only congressional legislation under Sec 5 of the 14th Amendment can implement that absolutely vital ban.
The message Barrett tells us to “take home” from that fiat is that we should just chill because all 9 justices agreed that Colorado overstepped what any one state should’ve been able to do.
I’ll discuss that point later, but for now I’d stress what Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson reminded Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts about: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">as Roberts rightly wrote in <i>Dobbs</i>, the Court should avoid deciding any more than it needs to decide when ruling on a case.
To reach out and resolve in advance all sorts of issues that might arise in the future is to take on the role of a super-legislature, not a court of law.</span></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is more from Laurence Tribe:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="background-color: #fcff01; text-overflow: unset;">It’s staggering that not one of the 9 justices said a word to support Trump’s claims that trying to overturn Biden’s 2020 election wasn’t an “insurrection,” that anyway he didn’t “engage” in it, and that as president he was exempt from Sec 3’s disqualification from future office!</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;">We have more of Laurence Tribe's insights from later in the day:</span></span></p><p></p><div class="css-175oi2r"><div class="css-175oi2r r-1s2bzr4"><div class="css-1rynq56 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-37j5jr r-1inkyih r-16dba41 r-bnwqim r-135wba7" data-testid="tweetText" dir="auto" id="id__ak3t0guuha8" lang="en" style="color: #0f1419; text-overflow: unset;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;"></span></span></div></div></div><blockquote><div class="css-175oi2r"><div class="css-175oi2r r-1s2bzr4"><div class="css-1rynq56 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-37j5jr r-1inkyih r-16dba41 r-bnwqim r-135wba7" data-testid="tweetText" dir="auto" id="id__ak3t0guuha8" lang="en" style="color: #0f1419; text-overflow: unset;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;">Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were right to protest the majority’s choice to go far “beyond the necessities of [Colorado’s] case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming President.” <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">There was virtually “no support for [the majority’s] requirement that [such] disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted [by Congress] for that purpose.”</span></span></span></div></div></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is a final thought, for now, from Laurence Tribe:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;">I had predicted that requiring congressional enforcement was the likely off-ramp & SCOTUS took it.
But don’t overlook the other major headline: they had the chance to repudiate the finding that Trump was an insurrectionist
They didn’t!</span></span></p></blockquote>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-15361506190138435992024-03-04T08:53:00.007-06:002024-03-04T09:29:53.115-06:00Rolling Stone shows Trump White House was infested with illicit drugs, including speed and Xanax, as staffers struggled to cope in a chaotic administration<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY1rR_9K78t7jihkek4uUArPggOlfAF0pNvbhyphenhyphen0i54fOjlnlST_5nmf3OuyHtkOeZXRAo1kOZVFNKQBteP0LUdFKMPSD6zspgWkwvWqj1KUxMBfgP0cyaS5OxAV-JoDAkUp48nuvoMmT0RP9am-n-knlOy462GYSNmZhPdesMxR0LG7Xq8a6TVGgC3F-I/s720/Trump%20White%20House%20-%20drugs.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="692" data-original-width="720" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY1rR_9K78t7jihkek4uUArPggOlfAF0pNvbhyphenhyphen0i54fOjlnlST_5nmf3OuyHtkOeZXRAo1kOZVFNKQBteP0LUdFKMPSD6zspgWkwvWqj1KUxMBfgP0cyaS5OxAV-JoDAkUp48nuvoMmT0RP9am-n-knlOy462GYSNmZhPdesMxR0LG7Xq8a6TVGgC3F-I/s320/Trump%20White%20House%20-%20drugs.jpg" width="320" /></a></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i>Part One</i></b> <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The White House, during Donald Trump's term as president (2017-2021) was fueled by illicit and improperly used drugs -- uppers and downers -- that were readily available through an internal source, according to a report this weekend from<i> Rolling Stone (RS)</i>. The report raises questions about Trump's lax oversight over the United States' chief governing office. It also raises questions about an administration that apparently was violating drug laws, while engaging in the "War on Drugs." It raises questions about <a href="https://people.com/tv/former-apprentice-noel-casler-accuses-donald-trump-drug-use/">Trump's alleged ties to drug use, dating to his days on the reality-TV series </a><i><a href="https://people.com/tv/former-apprentice-noel-casler-accuses-donald-trump-drug-use/">The Apprentice</a> -- and even earlier. </i>The<i> RS </i>story appears tied to reports from late last year, <a href="https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-smells-kinzinger-armpits-ketchup-b2471229.html">driven by a <i>Tweet </i>from former U.S. Rep. (R-IL) Adam Kinzinger</a>, that Trump consistently gives off a foul odor to those around him. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Finally, <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">the odor story appears tied to reports that Trump must wear adult diapers due to years of abusing stimulants, such as Adderall</span>. Noel Casler, a former staffer on <i>Celebrity Apprentice</i>, says <a href="https://www.politicalflare.com/2019/11/former-employee-says-trump-wears-adult-diapers-due-to-incontinence-from-repeated-stimulant-abuse/">drugs were a regular presence in Trump's orbit</a>. From a report on Casler's disclosures:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">A former staffer on <i>The Celebrity Apprentice</i> is breaking his NDA and
spilling the beans on the Trump family. More specifically, he’s spilling
the beans on the president himself…as well as some very personal
details.</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Former talent handler and current
stand up comic Noel Casler talked about working with Donald Trump on
<i>The Apprentice</i> and his teen beauty pageants in the 90s. </span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">According to Casler, Donald Trump
is a “speed freak” who snorts Adderall, which is something we pretty
much guessed—and he’s also invited teen beauty pageants up to his suite,
which we pretty much knew already.</span></p>
<div class="advertisement in-article in-article-1 paragraph-placement-4 ad-desktop-300x250 ad-mobile-300x250 align-center">
</div>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">But Casler also claims that Trump uses adult diapers. Casler tweeted, “Anyone who thinks I’m joking about Trump wearing
Depends . . . I’m not, it was a known fact on <i>Apprentice</i> he is incontinent from all the years of stimulant abuse and
fast food. Right Don?”</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">From the <i>Rolling Stone</i> piece abut drugs in the Trump White House. Under the headline "<a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-white-house-drugs-speed-xanax-1234979503/#recipient_hashed=0c6dae81510b3785b984a2ce7b6518e222ec2f1674e7e38928e390a47812a30d&recipient_salt=c13e903745c61a089aba001fd297ffc8a360bfc174166839177d6df106933166">Trump’s White House Was ‘Awash in Speed’ — and Xanax; Under
Trump, the White House Medical Unit was “like the Wild West,” and
staffers had easy access to powerful stimulants and sedatives, sources
tell <i>Rolling Stone</i></a><i>," </i>Reporters Noah Shachtman and Asawin Suebsaeng write:</span></p><p>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>If you ever</span> looked at the actions of the Trump <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rollingstone.com/t/white-house/&source=gmail&ust=1709611066433000&usg=AOvVaw2RIhqnHnsCV8y3MDC4MeXA" href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/white-house/" id="m_4827581894644881745gmail-auto-tag_white-house" target="_blank">White House</a> and wondered, ‘Are they on <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rollingstone.com/t/drugs/&source=gmail&ust=1709611066433000&usg=AOvVaw28sY8c-Hpe8rzOnvz4LsaM" href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/drugs/" id="m_4827581894644881745gmail-auto-tag_drugs" target="_blank">drugs</a>?’ — the answer was, in some cases, yes. Absolutely, yes.</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
In January, the Defense Department’s inspector general released a <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-white-house-pharmacy-prescription-drugs-1234953535/&source=gmail&ust=1709611066433000&usg=AOvVaw08ylJ-StbymO__gHx2HGR3" href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-white-house-pharmacy-prescription-drugs-1234953535/" target="_blank">report</a>
detailing how the White House Medical Unit during the Trump
administration distributed controlled substances with scant oversight
and even sloppier record keeping. Investigators repeatedly noted that
the unit had ordered thousands and thousands of doses of the stimulant
<a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/modafinil-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064870?p=1#:~:text=Modafinil%20is%20used%20to%20help,you%20continue%20to%20take%20it.">modafinil</a>, which has been used by military pilots for decades to stay
alert during long missions. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
The report didn’t say why so many of those pills had been given out.
But for many who served in the Trump White House, the investigation
highlighted an open secret. According to interviews with four former
senior administration officials and others with knowledge of the matter,
the stimulant was routinely given to staffers who needed an energy
boost after a late night, or just a pick-me-up to handle another day at a
uniquely stressful job. As one of the former officials tells <i>Rolling Stone</i>, the White House at that time was “awash in speed.”</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The usual trick went like this: An amphetamine, such as Adderall, provided a high, while a sedative, such as Xanax, helped the user come down. From the <i>RS</i> report:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Knowledgeable sources say that samples of the stimulant were passed
around for those contributing lines to major Trump speeches, working
late hours on foreign policy initiatives, responding to Special Counsel
Robert Mueller’s probe, coping with the deluge of media inquiries about
that investigation, and so much more. </span>(Trump’s campaign did not respond
to an email seeking comment for this story.)
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
<a href="https://americanaddictioncenters.org/adderall/vs-modafinil#:~:text=Modafinil%20is%20a%20much%20milder,its%20use%20must%20be%20tempered.">Modafinil</a> — also known by its brand name, Provigil — wasn’t the only
controlled substance that Trump officials young and old routinely
acquired. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">“It was kind of like the Wild West. Things were pretty loose.
Whatever someone needs, we were going to fill this,” one source with
direct knowledge of the matter recalls.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
The anti-anxiety medication Xanax was also a popular, easy-to-get drug
during the Trump years, three sources tell us. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Neither Xanax nor its
generic, alprazolam, is mentioned in the <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/09/2003373440/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2024-044_REDACTED%2520SECURE.PDF&source=gmail&ust=1709611066433000&usg=AOvVaw2l0fN1Df4Cda49FFUCy-UF" href="https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/09/2003373440/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2024-044_REDACTED%20SECURE.PDF" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Pentagon report</a>,
which notes that it is not a comprehensive list of the controlled
substances ordered during the Trump years. Two people with direct
knowledge of the situation recall senior officials getting Xanax from
the White House Medical Unit — and sharing it with colleagues.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Trump "management style" -- which is pretty much to say no management at all -- helped drugs proliferate in the White House. And people think Bill Clinton defiled the nation's citadel of government. The Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sexcapades seem almost quaint compared to the picture <i>RS </i>draws of the Trump White House. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">One official blamed Trump's chaotic style for creating undue stress that led staffers to abuse drugs -- including some practices, such as chasing Xanax with alcohol -- that could prove deadly:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">
The Trump administration was well known for its chaotic, often-erratic
approach to policymaking — and for its atmosphere of paranoia, where
staffers regularly spilled their colleagues’ secrets and bureaucratic
factions often spent as much energy attacking one another as addressing
matters of state. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">It’s impossible to know how much of that was fueled by
the widespread availability of drugs like Xanax and Provigil. But
what’s clear is that there was a breakdown of medical standards and
safeguards at the highest levels of the American government; some
staffers even believed that confidential information about their mental
health was at risk. With Trump pushing to return to power on an agenda
even more vicious than his first, a full accounting of the misuse of
powerful stimulants and sedatives by his staff isn’t just a matter of
historical interest. It’s a preview of a possible future.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
During Trump’s presidency, two sources say, senior staffers would repeatedly down Xanax with alcohol. Such a combination <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a684001.html&source=gmail&ust=1709611066433000&usg=AOvVaw2lID8z37yuQTpJLCFOLwSI" href="https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a684001.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">increases</a>
the risk of “serious, life-threatening side effects,” according to the
National Library of Medicine. Nevertheless, senior officials would use
Xanax and alcohol together to soothe themselves while enduring the
sky-high levels of stress that come with working at the highest pressure
environment in America — with the added pleasure of serving the
whims of the infamously volatile, intemperate Trump.</span>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #01ffff; font-size: medium;">As one former senior administration official puts it: “You try working for him and not chasing pills with alcohol.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Dispensing drugs to help staffers deal with stressful jobs and often extensive travel has been part of the White House routine for many years, <i>RS</i> reports:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">
THE WHITE HOUSE MEDICAL UNIT has been handing out prescription
medications to staffers for decades — especially when they’re traveling
abroad, and need to combat jet lag. “I think any White House staff knows
that overseas trips are very grueling,” Stephanie Grisham, Trump’s
former White House press secretary, recalls. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">“For us, you’d be on a
flight with a president who never sleeps, and then you hit the ground
running in a foreign country, and you have to be alert and ready for the
president and other foreign leaders.”</span> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
She describes a procedure broadly familiar to staffers across
administrations: On overseas trips, physician to the president Dr. <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rollingstone.com/t/ronny-jackson/&source=gmail&ust=1709611066434000&usg=AOvVaw0h7qSn3VnkNku9j5pFN9Dn" href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/ronny-jackson/" id="m_4827581894644881745gmail-auto-tag_ronny-jackson" target="_blank">Ronny Jackson</a> “would come around Air Force One asking <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rollingstone.com/t/donald-trump/&source=gmail&ust=1709611066434000&usg=AOvVaw3zQy0eZuaSsGPlpVT-Aul9" href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/donald-trump/" id="m_4827581894644881745gmail-auto-tag_donald-trump" target="_blank">Donald Trump</a>’s
senior staff if they needed anything. This included Provigil and [the
sleep aid] Ambien, and he would hand them out, typically in the form of
packets with two or three pills in them. When this happened on Air Force
One, a nurse would be trailing him, writing down who got what.” </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">It’s back home where things got sloppier, the Defense Department
investigation and our sources note. Pills were often handed out without a
specific need or diagnosis. Black-and-white procedures that doctors and
pharmacists routinely follow when prescribing controlled substances
were ignored. Orders for pills were often written down incorrectly, or
not at all. One former White House Medical Unit staffer told Pentagon
investigators that the unit “work[ed] in the gray… helping anybody who
needs help to get this mission done.” Another said, “Is it being done
appropriately or legally all the time? No. But are they going to get to
that end result that the bosses want? Yeah.”</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
</span>So while prescription drugs have long been in the White House — <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">John F. Kennedy reportedly took a <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id%3D125593%26page%3D1&source=gmail&ust=1709611066434000&usg=AOvVaw0FczEhDAwuaVU2xtehlvjx" href="https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125593&page=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">cocktail of uppers and downers</a> to fight back pain, and Richard Nixon allegedly took an anti-epileptic drug “<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id%3D123027%26page%3D1&source=gmail&ust=1709611066434000&usg=AOvVaw1XNPmwESAIz6qGC7r65LZ9" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123027&page=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">when his mood wasn’t too good</a>” — they have rarely been dispensed as widely as they were in the Trump administration.</span> <br /></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
</div></div>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
The anything-anytime-anywhere approach inspired a sense of entitlement
among Trump staffers. Some senior administration officials would
casually mention their Xanax intake, one source with direct knowledge of
the matter recalls. The source describes a time when an aide to Melania
Trump walked into the White House Medical Unit and said, “‘Could you
prescribe me Xanax.’ She just came in and demanded it.” The source
wasn’t a doctor or pharmacist, however, and wasn’t allowed to prescribe
the anti-anxiety drug. The source politely turned the aide down. “She
stormed out,” the source says.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">This is not, to put it mildly, how these drugs are ordinarily handled.
“We tightly track controlled substances like this because they’re
addictive or can cause overdoses,” says Dr. Beata Lewis, a psychiatrist
based in Brooklyn. “It sounds like with all of these substances, people
could get whatever they wanted. That puts people at risk for addiction.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
She adds: “The significant thing is these rules apply to everyone …
except for the White House. It’s a culture of entitlement and being
above the rules to the point of putting people in danger.”</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The White House Medical Unit, at times, got caught in the crossfire:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">There wasn’t much the medical unit staffers could do, even if they
wanted to hold the line. Several told Pentagon investigators “they
feared they would receive negative work assignments or be “fired” if
they spoke out.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
ADDING TO THE CLIMATE OF FEAR was the sense that even private therapy
sessions would not be kept private in the Trump White House. The medical
unit provided psychological counseling on request. But White House
staffers were instructed to be on their guard. One former senior
administration official tells <i>Rolling Stone</i> that within the
first two years of the Trump presidency, they were warned by a colleague
against divulging anything during a private White House medical session
that they “would not want to be used against” them.</span> At the time, this
source notes, this puzzled the official, who was then told that under
Trump, the office had a reputation for being more porous with private
information “than you might expect.”
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
The former administration official didn’t think much of it at the time.
The source shrugged the warning off as mere gossip and moved on.
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">However, according to other individuals with intimate knowledge of the
matter, it was hardly an idle rumor. Immediately after counseling
sessions, therapists were pressed for information about what they were
told.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
“They’d say, ‘We need you to see this person.’ They’d walk me over
there. I’d see this person. Then as soon as I got out, they would ask,
‘Hey what happened?’” one of these sources tells us. To this source,
this was a blatant violation of patient confidentiality. The source
would try to be as vague as possible in their responses to the
questions, but in the Trump White House, “it was all kind of open
kimono,” they say. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
Keith Bass, who led the White House Medical Unit from 2017 to 2019,
confirms that these sorts of debriefs did, in fact, happen after
counseling sessions. But he says they never went into details; they were
merely to determine whether a “medical/behavioral health event” would
prevent a “military/DoD staff” member “from performing their duties or
impac[t] their ability to maintain a [top secret] clearance while
assigned to the White House,” Bass says in an email. “Detailed clinical
notes were not required from the psychologist; only a broad overview to
determine fitness for duty status.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
Our source says that’s not entirely accurate. For starters, these
debriefs happened after therapy sessions with civilian staffers as well.
And while the questions may have been “seemingly innocent,” the source
says they could be seen as the start of a “slippery slope,” which would
then “drif[t] down into asking for information that was not
appropriate.” </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
The White House Medical Unit’s often casual approach to giving out
controlled substances didn’t exactly inspire confidence. “The sloppiness
around handing out medications had me highly concerned about the
protection of behavioral health information — medical information at
large. There was no protection of sensitive patient information,
period,” the source says. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Any attempts to add more rigor were entirely unwelcome, the source
adds. “The more I held to professional standards” — the more the source
objected to the pressure to divulge details about therapy sessions, and
to keep patient information private — the worse it got. White House
staffers “ostracized me,” the source says. “Nobody would talk to me. The
culture was toxic as hell.” </span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Donald Trump would preside over a drug-fueled, toxic culture? That should not be a surprise to anyone who kept up with Noel Casler and his reports about <a href="https://www.politicalflare.com/2019/11/former-employee-says-trump-wears-adult-diapers-due-to-incontinence-from-repeated-stimulant-abuse/">Trump, Adderall, and the alleged drug abuse that caused the former president to suffer from incontinence to the point that he must use adult diapers</a>.</span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i>(To be continued)</i></b></span></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-84659345552074001932024-03-03T07:19:00.084-06:002024-03-03T20:13:35.186-06:00In trying to help Trump for the short run, the Supreme Court might hurt him in the long run as Americans recognize the court is infested with noxious cheaters<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWIoLpKsMPu2ZugyLheR8d9nuklFbzdXaZwofwiAXQSkYHySb9eaLMARdRDSNLNXk6ZilXyRucp0VTAd-MncA8VP-_hTt8PkXH1aXYkd0PzYDv47LorTwNIG7hS3ikUwB2EUW1doIngZq4iqXQjGQNs34prs7wNnwemeT-UXItTYMYdtTDOXyPzx1HQYw/s630/SCOTUS%20-%20corrupt.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="416" data-original-width="630" height="264" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWIoLpKsMPu2ZugyLheR8d9nuklFbzdXaZwofwiAXQSkYHySb9eaLMARdRDSNLNXk6ZilXyRucp0VTAd-MncA8VP-_hTt8PkXH1aXYkd0PzYDv47LorTwNIG7hS3ikUwB2EUW1doIngZq4iqXQjGQNs34prs7wNnwemeT-UXItTYMYdtTDOXyPzx1HQYw/w400-h264/SCOTUS%20-%20corrupt.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has given Donald Trump a short-term gift in his quest to receive presidential immunity for criminal acts he allegedly committed in office, but the high court might wind up costing him down the road. That's from a piece by <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/author/joe-patrice/">Joe Patrice</a> (a lawyer and full-time staff member) at the <i>Above the Law (ATL)</i> legal website:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Under the headline "<a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2024/02/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity/?utm_campaign=Above%20the%20Law%20Daily&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=296388314&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8A3WsU4fmLM7pQ2r1mxspV-CGIBpAjIU8_m_QSKeafnZCcKxLyS7CgZB4MhUmdlBhCvmUgTyjf1kVCSg_LwCsqMh40qQ&utm_content=296388314&utm_source=hs_email">Supreme Court Takes Up Immunity Case, Winning Donald Trump A Battle... Maybe Costing Him The War</a>," Patrice writes:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Richard Nixon once said that if the president does it, it’s not a
crime. The Supreme Court didn’t shield Nixon back then, but Richard
Nixon didn’t have anyone around to buy Lewis Powell <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2023/08/clarence-thomas-rv-supreme-court-ethics-scandal/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">a shiny new RV</a>. Rookie mistake.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Supreme Court has decided to take up Donald Trump’s claim
that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed while
in office unless impeached AND convicted of that specific crime by
the Senate. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Argument is set for April 22 — two months from now — and the
criminal trial is paused until the Court ultimately rules, <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/supreme-court-donald-trump-trial-january-6.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">strongly increasing the probability that Trump’s federal criminal fate is pushed past the election</a>.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Trump+immunity+and+Watkins">we have reported previously</a>, there is no support in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, or the Code of Federal Regulations for the kind of immunity Trump seeks. As a matter of law, Trump's appeal must be dead on arrival. So why is SCOTUS hearing it, given that the lawful outcome is a foregone conclusion? Joe Patrice provides his thoughts on that tricky question, and without using the "C" word, essentially calls the court's right-wing justices corrupt -- and he does it FOUR TIMES (bravo, Joe!):</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The Supreme Court is unlikely to rule in Trump’s favor, of course.
Discovering an absolute presidential immunity ensconced within the
penumbra of Article II seems like a stretch even for the most
reactionary members of the Court. Though these arguments have <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2024/01/trump-lawyers-magical-immunity-arguments-take-a-real-world-beating-at-dc-circuit/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">never been more than a delay tactic</a>
to push his various trials past the election so Trump can — he hopes —
retake the presidency and shut down the DOJ. On that front, whatever
assemblage of conservative justices who blessed this delay have granted
Trump the victory he sought.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">But if Trump loses in November… none of this really matters. And it
feels like the Court just gave Trump the Pyrrhic victory that he and his
supporters lack the classical education to understand.</span></span></p>
<div class="ad-story-inline ad--desktop">
<div id="div-id-for-storycontent-440x100">
</div></div><div class="ad--desktop">
</div><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff;">The justices who granted cert definitely want to help Trump win
that election. As <i>The Nation’s</i> Elie Mystal points out, Alito and Thomas
don’t want to Ginsburg themselves by rolling into another four years of
Joe Biden being able to pick their successors if they die <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2023/06/sam-alito-pro-publica-wall-street-journal-ethics/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">while vacationing at a billionaire’s resort</a>.</span>
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">They can’t grant him immunity but they can drag this out with a
mummer’s farce of disingenuous hand-wringing over the “oh so
complicated” constitutional question of whether a president can legally
assassinate a general-election opponent — <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">an actual argument that Trump’s team endorsed</a>.</span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We invite you reread the words highlighted in blue above. In short, Patrice says SCOTUS justices want Trump to win the 2024 election, they are taking steps to help him win -- and Patrice even provides hints about why they want him to win. Any way you slice it, that is corruption, big time. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Could it turn out, however that SCOTUS has done Trump more harm than good? Patrice says it is quite possible. He writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Does the high court's move actually help Trump win in November?
Democratic politicians are already <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">spinning the Supreme Court’s decision
to take up the case at all as transforming the race into <a href="https://x.com/tedlieu/status/1762992160696078549?s=20" rel="noopener" target="_blank">a referendum on the rule of law in the Donald Trump era</a></span>.
Joe Biden hasn’t whipped up a lot of enthusiasm for his re-election, but
nothing focuses the mind quite like watching the other candidate
explicitly make pro-political assassination arguments on a national
stage. (Please notice the language highlighted in blue directly above. In so many words, Patrice says the Supreme Court's actions call into question its commitment to the rule of law. Again, that points to corruption.)</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">Patrice points to what might be the best outcome of all -- for the country and the rule of law:</span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The biggest losers in this war might be the conservative justices
themselves. Since taking over the institution, the right-wing justices
have bristled at the attention they’ve received. Justice Barrett whines
about how much better it was when <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2023/08/amy-coney-barrett-longs-for-the-days-the-supreme-court-could-ruin-your-life-in-obscurity/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the Supreme Court could ruin people’s lives in obscurity</a>. Sam Alito raged at the notion that ethicists noticed that he was having lawyers <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2023/09/samuel-alito-isnt-going-to-recuse-himself-no-matter-how-bad-that-makes-him-look/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">write fawning puff pieces about him while they had business before the Court</a>. John Roberts will <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2024/01/john-roberts-annual-report-2023/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">literally talk about the history of typewriters</a>
rather than acknowledge the Supreme Court’s substantive work. And
Clarence Thomas is incensed that anyone might want to know that <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2023/12/clarence-thomas-thinks-he-was-practically-forced-to-take-all-that-under-the-table-money/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">he’s collecting hundreds of thousands from interested parties</a>. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">A couple of years back, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wrote a piece about the paradoxical situation of <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-samuel-alito-conservatives-legitimacy-crisis.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">conservative justices getting angrier just as they get everything they ever wanted</a>. Stern hypothesized at the time:</span></span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">My theory of the case is essentially that they watched
for decades while the court was center-right or moderate, or
occasionally handed down liberal rulings, and the country largely
accepted those decisions. The legal establishment accepted them. There
was not a call generally to expand the court, and the court’s approval
ratings remained high. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">I think Alito and Thomas feel like they’ve now
won fair and square, they’re in the driver’s seat, they’re issuing all
of the decisions that they think are right, that they believe are
certainly no more radical than same-sex marriage or abortion, and
suddenly their approval rating is plummeting.</span></span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Imagine that: Deep thinkers like Thomas and Alito, who always have their palms out, ready to be greased, can't imagine why the public suddenly sees them as glorified whores. What conclusion does Patrice reach? Here it is:</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For a group so outraged that the country has turned its ire upon
them, taking up an <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">absurdist</span> immunity claim will only supercharge public
cynicism. Alito and Thomas want the country to think there’s principle
behind their decisions, <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">but they’ve staked the credibility of the
institution on a claim that can only be read as mendacious partisan
gamesplaying. (<span style="background-color: white;">We invite you to reread the words highlighted in blue directly above. First, Patrice calls Trump's immunity claims "absurdist," suggesting they are "</span></span></span><span><span class="AraNOb"><a class="rMNQNe" data-ved="2ahUKEwi7h_uni9eEAxV8lIkEHRMNBU4QyecJegQIGxAO" href="https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=2d3a2588b0a29a87&sxsrf=ACQVn0_56zhPU4yNnxF4QSuc_mY87igNTQ:1709434380147&q=intentionally&si=AKbGX_o31t0LiMsEloM2rO5Vmah9rz83WoA-0HR-8nCW2RZamDRtMbqbne8Ssncea95Ey68gI--dYASlA-sDCyhiQXQCvrPY8bUyOJ5zQ7jKuZ1eaoB2zJk%3D&expnd=1" tabindex="0">intentionally</a></span><span> ridiculous or bizarre." That the nation's highest court would take up such a claim poin<span style="font-size: medium;">ts to corruption.</span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff;"><span style="background-color: white;"> Patrice also accuses the justices of engaging in "</span></span><span style="background-color: #01ffff;"><span style="background-color: white;">mendacious partisan
gamesplaying" That's a fancy way of saying they are acting corruptly.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">That's four times in one article that a lawyer and author at <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2013/08/legal-schnauzer-earns-prominent-place.html">one of the nation's most widely read legal websites </a>has pointed toward The Supreme Court acting with corrupt intent.</span> That should tell you the court's reputation is heading into the tank -- and it likely will only get worse as the justices continue to make unlawful rulings designed to help Donald Trump. Americans can recognize cheaters, and as Richard Nixon learned, they do not hold them in high regard. The court's right-wing cheaters might wind up having that tough lesson jammed</span> <span style="background-color: white;">down their throats.) Patrice concludes:<br /></span></span></span></p><blockquote>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">They likely think that the Supreme Court’s procedural machinations
will fly under the radar and they can lend Trump a hand without finding
themselves plastered on every headline and at the center of the campaign
itself. But that cloistered world no longer exists.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
<p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">They <i>could</i> have walked away from the controversy. Postured
themselves as devoutly conservative but aloof to petty political
hackery. Used this move to drape future decisions in a thin air of
legitimacy.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">In the end, they couldn’t help themselves.</span></span></p></blockquote>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-37184468009458063902024-03-01T07:15:00.064-06:002024-03-01T07:15:00.130-06:00U.S. Supreme Court gives three clues on how it will resolve Trump immunity case, but undue delay designed to benefit Trump has become issue No. 1<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1N91xPzLoEcdu0n83VNqw1ZCendSAySdsIye_JJSa4CnyqVKxrn07xYE6iIbxUvIMQ5IVHxvFL-j1XAPhgfpa0BnocVKTUXyWG6C28b0zdPwBnYrz8dlHwY9YfrSqM-TYPgQttB_xA6ceLPdJoSaNnpXUGhuSR-aGct5Iwkex0Qpg9a7pivyDpiAoEnI/s225/SCOTUS%20-%20Trump%20immunity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1N91xPzLoEcdu0n83VNqw1ZCendSAySdsIye_JJSa4CnyqVKxrn07xYE6iIbxUvIMQ5IVHxvFL-j1XAPhgfpa0BnocVKTUXyWG6C28b0zdPwBnYrz8dlHwY9YfrSqM-TYPgQttB_xA6ceLPdJoSaNnpXUGhuSR-aGct5Iwkex0Qpg9a7pivyDpiAoEnI/w400-h400/SCOTUS%20-%20Trump%20immunity.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Despite its decision to hear Donald Trump's presidential immunity case, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) still is expected to reject Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution for any criminal acts he is alleged to have committed during his first term in office (2017-21), according to three legal analysts at MSNBC. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Norman Eisen, former impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Committee; joshua Kolb, former law clerk on the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21. write under the headline "<a href="https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-trump-immunity-timeline-rcna141053?cid=eml_mda_20240229&user_email=0c6dae81510b3785b984a2ce7b6518e222ec2f1674e7e38928e390a47812a30d">The Supreme Court’s terse immunity order gives three clues about Trump’s claim: The most important factor in the case, however, is timing</a>." The analysts say SCOTUS' order gives three clues about how the court will ultimately resolve the case. They write:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-supreme-court-immunity-review-rcna139183">Supreme Court's decision to take up Donald Trump's presidential immunity appeal sets </a>up the final adjudication for the jaw-dropping claim that the former president is protected from criminal prosecution. The court has framed the question in such a way that it is almost certain to reject Trump's outlandish position. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The real question is whether the court will unduly delay resolution of the appeal and push a verdict past Election Day. To reward <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-trump-january-6-immunity-stay-rcna139050?cid=eml_mda_20240229&user_email=0c6dae81510b3785b984a2ce7b6518e222ec2f1674e7e38928e390a47812a30d">Trump's open strategy of delay</a> would be a catastrophe, both for the court and the nation.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The most likely resolution of the case remains clear. As we have <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-immunity-ruling-supreme-court-rcna134600?cid=eml_mda_20240229&user_email=0c6dae81510b3785b984a2ce7b6518e222ec2f1674e7e38928e390a47812a30d">explained</a> before, Trump's blanket assertions of impunity make a mockery of the Constitution. The consequences of his position <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-immunity-ruling-supreme-court-rcna134600?cid=eml_mda_20240229&user_email=0c6dae81510b3785b984a2ce7b6518e222ec2f1674e7e38928e390a47812a30d">were laid bare during oral argument</a> before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for .Washington, D.C.: Trump's lawyer argued that a former president could not be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of a rival unless he were first impeached and convicted by Congress (an event that has never happened in the 235-year history of our nation.) <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The justices will not undo the revolutionary work of the founders by reimposing a system of government in which one ruler stands above everyone else before the law.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">Is it possible to make an educated guess about how the court will act going forward? Yes, say the analysts: </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The court's terse two-paragraph order provides three important clues about how it views the presidential immunity issue -- and on what grounds it may reject Trump's claim. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">First, the court was clear it is interested only in whether <i>former </i>presidents are immune from prosecution, thus following the D.C. Circuit in explicitly cutting off more difficult questions about <i>sitting</i> presidents. Second, the court asked not just whether a former president is immune but also "to what extent." suggesting that official acts may not fully immunize a president -- a measure short of the absolute immunity Trump was seeking. And third, the court framed the question as being decided based on "conduct alleged" -- that is on the allegations of the indictment and not, therefore, requiring remand to a lower court and a protracted evidentiary hearing.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The most important factor in the case, however, is timing. And the justices have given mixed signals on this score.</span> The schedule laid out in the order is more expedited than in a typical case, with briefing completed by April 8 and oral argument set for the week of April 22. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">But the court waited weeks to issue that schedule. In an ordinary case, arguments in April would typically mean a decision issued in late June. In this extraordinary case, waiting that long could push the start of trial to late September, making a verdict before the election difficult, if not impossible.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Trump appeal will be watched closely -- especially since a number of legal experts have stated there is no way the court lawfully can grant Trump immunity. Any irregularities -- <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/breaking-law-constitution-says-trump-as.html">beyond those that already have popped up in Trump-related matters</a> -- could erode public trust in the court and inflict damage to its reputation, the MSNBC team suggests:<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">That would be a grave error. To serve its function in our democracy, the court should issue its decision within days or weeks -- not months -- of the argument in April. That is what the court did in <i>U.S. v. Nixon</i>, when it made its ruling just 16 days after oral argument. On that timetable, the appeal could be resolved in early May, and the trial could begin in early August.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Once the Supreme Court issues its ruling, the district court stay will immediately be lifted. At that point, the schedule of the pretrial proceedings will be left up to Judge Tanya Chutkan. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Importantly, there is no legal principle preventing the trial from commencing before the election or causing the Justice Department to oppose such a schedule. With an estimated trial schedule of eight to 12 weeks , an August start date could still mean a verdict before the election.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thee is no excuse for the court to drag its feet. The issues already have been fully briefed multiple times, and the justices are well aware of both the legal arguments and the stakes. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Unnecessary delays risk depriving voters of knowing whether Trump attempted to criminally subvert our democracy when they cast their ballots for president.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-size: medium;">SCOTUS" decision <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/really-bizarre-and-poorly-written-thats.html">to hear the dubious Trump appeal</a>, a surprise to many observers, now puts the New York hush-money case, involving porn actress Stormy Daniels, first in line among Trump's four criminal cases:<br /></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Regardless of how the Supreme Court proceeds, it is now clear that the case involving the 2016 election and hush money, brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, will be the first criminal trial Trump faces. Indeed that case could reach a verdict before the Supreme Court reaches a decision on presidential immunity.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Fortunately, Trump has no viable immunity defense to those charges, regardless of how the Supreme Court resolves the federal immunity appeal. None of the conduct charged -- falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to an adult actress, with the express intent of affecting the presidential election -- is remotely an official act.</span> A federal judge has already rejected Trump's claim to immunity for this conduct. And Trump abandoned his appeal, meaning the immunity argument is waived.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Piecing together the swirling chaos of his multiple criminal trials, Trump faces a perilous path from now until Election Day. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">He faces a factually and legally sound case in New York that should reach a verdict by May. He will almost certainly suffer a resounding defeat with the Supreme Court rejecting his immunity defense by May or June. And then, he should spend the last months of his third presidential campaign where he belongs: facing a jury of his peers for his crimes against democracy. <br /></span></span></p></blockquote>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-68063118247576827032024-02-29T07:16:00.001-06:002024-02-29T07:16:00.146-06:00The myth of Donald Trump as a business titan gets blasted, but the myth of an honest SCOTUS also collapses as court agrees to hear Trump immunity case<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit0CDwR3Qfi3aDV1Xi7HkHG1ukrh3yBSvcikuiNnnYAMiQ2qsw7oUwn6iON-xDNLg4hkntaCtfvpgWPutMk_1cQyuKzeMUM61gRuTB5JuV7i1pZbOBOy5tVoo__rlOmOYHvn-w04zPikQd2cdmtFHVQ4mgsOFAcm9aZNMDrtzQeT0tU0TFNPc1tDEKtV4/s225/Trump%20-%20immunity%20meme.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="224" data-original-width="225" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit0CDwR3Qfi3aDV1Xi7HkHG1ukrh3yBSvcikuiNnnYAMiQ2qsw7oUwn6iON-xDNLg4hkntaCtfvpgWPutMk_1cQyuKzeMUM61gRuTB5JuV7i1pZbOBOy5tVoo__rlOmOYHvn-w04zPikQd2cdmtFHVQ4mgsOFAcm9aZNMDrtzQeT0tU0TFNPc1tDEKtV4/w400-h398/Trump%20-%20immunity%20meme.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Two myths of modern political life absorbed major blows yesterday.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The first is the myth that Donald Trump is a highly competent business titan -- a myth that was cultivated on the reality game show <i>The Apprentice </i>and allowed Trump to achieve a dubious victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, a campaign that likely was aided by Vladimir Putin and Russia.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The second myth is that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) can be trusted to abide by the rule of law and its own precedent.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">An appellate judge in New York blew up the first myth when, according to a report from Associated Press (AP), he "refused to
halt collection of Donald Trump’s $454-million civil-fraud penalty while
he appeals, rejecting the former president’s request that he be allowed
to post a bond covering just a fraction of what he owes.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In the second instance, SCOTUS blew up its own myth by deciding to hear Trump's presidential-immunity case. <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immunity-election-interference-trial-ff4b251967b4f1ae85bd01a0db24931f">From an AP report</a>:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The <span class="LinkEnhancement"><a class="Link AnClick-LinkEnhancement" data-gtm-enhancement-style="LinkEnhancementA" href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a></span> on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on <span class="LinkEnhancement"><a class="Link AnClick-LinkEnhancement" data-gtm-enhancement-style="LinkEnhancementA" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc" rel="noopener" target="_blank">charges he interfered with the 2020 election</a></span>, calling into question whether his case could go to trial before the November election. While
the court set a course for a quick resolution, it maintained a hold on
preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his
election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a
decision likely no later than the end of June.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The second item is by far the more troubling of the two. Why? There is no such thing in American law as presidential immunity, so there is no reason for an honest court to hear the case. But the SCOTUS' decision to hear Trump's immunity claim, which has zero support in American law, is the latest evidence that this court is not honest -- and the justices are determined to give Trump all kinds of breaks that might allow him to be unlawfully elected president in November.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The issue before the court in Trump's immunity case could not be more simple. Perhaps no one has put it more succinctly tha longtime Alabama attorney Donald Watkins, who has tried some of the nation's best-known cases in criminal-defense and civil-rights law. He also has become a leading voice in online investigative journalism.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">From a <i>Legal Schnauzer</i> post dated Feb. 6, 2024, under the headline "Criminal-defense expert: Trump's attempt to have appeals court grant him
immunity was doomed from the outset, which former president should have
known":</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Donald V. Watkins, longtime Alabama attorney and one of the nation's foremost authorities on criminal defense (see <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/09/donald-trumps-lawyers-seem-unable-to.html">here</a> and <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/12/in-matter-of-life-and-death-hunter.html">here</a>),
says Donald Trump's attempt to have a court declare that absolute
immunity shielded him from prosecution for alleged criminal acts
committed while he served his first term as president (2017-2021) was an
exercise in futility. That's because no provision of law allowed the
D.C. Circuit Court to grant the relief Trump was seeking. In short,
Trump's complaint was little more than a glorified "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt">snipe hunt</a>,"
which he is expected to continue by filing an appeal with the U.S.
Supreme Court. -- even though there is little chance the result will
change.<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Under the headline "<span class="post-title__text blog-post-title-font blog-post-title-color"><span class="blog-post-title-font blog-post-title-color"><a href="https://www.donaldwatkins.com/post/d-c-appeals-court-there-is-no-presidential-immunity-for-criminal-acts?fbclid=IwAR0WtJ7nysuuzZZkLjH8S0CC9E-k6uXvG6OuTkAgG7v-hudaTGqrXlnpxhw">D.C. Appeals Court: There is No Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts,</a>" Watkins writes:</span></span></span></span></p><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="_8lDmD RG0XO _6y8tI _8lNYy rQtlz" id="viewer-shrwq210"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span class="UYHF3"><span></span></span></span></span></p></div><blockquote><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="_8lDmD RG0XO _6y8tI _8lNYy rQtlz" id="viewer-shrwq210"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><span class="UYHF3"><span>Today,
a federal court of appeals in Washington confirmed for the public what
most competent lawyers knew all along – there is no such thing in U.S.
law as presidential immunity for criminal acts. </span></span></span></span></p></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="_8lDmD RG0XO _6y8tI _8lNYy rQtlz" id="viewer-7otr1214"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><span class="UYHF3"><span></span></span></span></span></p></div></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="_8lDmD RG0XO _6y8tI _8lNYy rQtlz" id="viewer-7otr1214"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><span class="UYHF3"><span>None of the 46 U.S. presidents has ever enjoyed such immunity. <br /></span></span></span></span></p></div><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="_8lDmD RG0XO _6y8tI _8lNYy rQtlz" id="viewer-2p78i218"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><span class="UYHF3"><span>Presidential
immunity for criminal acts is not authorized in the U.S. Constitution.
It is not authorized in any federal statute. It is not authorized in
the Code of Federal Regulations. <br /></span></span></span></span></p></div><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="_8lDmD RG0XO _6y8tI _8lNYy rQtlz" id="viewer-8s2y9224"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><span class="UYHF3"><span>Such an immunity claim is merely a figment of Donald Trump’s imagination. This was a “</span><span style="font-weight: 700;"><span>bullshit</span></span><span>” legal argument when it was first asserted by Trump’s lawyers. <br /></span></span></span></span></p></div><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="_8lDmD RG0XO _6y8tI _8lNYy rQtlz" id="viewer-52tzi230"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span class="UYHF3"><span>We are </span><span style="font-weight: 700;"><span>NOT</span></span><span> running a </span><span style="font-weight: 700;"><span>monarchy</span></span><span> in America. There is no King, Queen, or Emperor, who is above in law.</span></span></span></span></p></div></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This is how Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics counsel for the George W. Bush administration, puts it: <span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;">"There is a substantial chance Trump is being blackmailed by Putin."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="css-1qaijid r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0 r-poiln3" style="text-overflow: unset;">Why would anyone question the integrity of SCOTUS justices based on their recent actions? Let's consider our reporting on oral arguments for Trump's ballot-disqualification case out of Colorado. In a post dated Feb. 8, 2024, we wrote under the headline "</span><a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/breaking-law-constitution-says-trump-as.html">Breaking the Law: The Constitution says Trump, as an insurrectionist on
January 6, cannot run for president, but SCOTUS justices seem just fine
with the idea</a>":</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>As <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/with-oral-arguments-set-for-tomorrow.html">we have reported</a>,
two big questions hung over today's oral arguments in the ballot-access
case involving Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Colorado: (1) <span>Did Trump engage in an insurrection or rebellion on Jan. 6? (2) </span><span> Does SCOTUS, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-more-justice-samuel-alito-tries-to.html">in its current disheveled state</a>, have the courage and integrity to apply constitutional law correctly?</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">After
today's oral arguments, the answer to both questions appears to be no.
That means Trump, clearly an insurrectionist based on the events of Jan.
6, 2021, will get a free pass into the general election -- and maybe
beyond. That leaves us with this problem: Anyone connected to the legal
profession is unlikely to say it -- but I'm a journalist, not a lawyer,
so I will say it -- this morning's oral arguments signal that we have a
compromised U.S. Supreme Court. And that is a polite way of saying some,
maybe all, of the justices, are crooked</span> -- so much so that they cannot
rule correctly on a simple provision of law -- <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569">Section 3, 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution</a>.
A first-year law student should be able to get that right. That the
SCOTUS justices apparently are not going to get it right -- suggests to
me that they are acting intentionally, meaning they probably had
determined how they were going to rule on this case before the first
word was spoken this morning.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>What
does that mean? For one, it means Trump, who incited, or engaged in, an
insurrection or rebellion on Jan. 6 -- with millions of Americans
watching on television -- would be put in charge of the very government
he sought to obstruct. That is the very thing Section 3 is designed to
prevent; it would be like putting Jefferson Davis, president of the
Confederacy, in charge of the post-Civil War U.S. government. That is a
prospect that should trouble all Americans, no matter their political
leanings.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Not only is presidential immunity nonexistent, Trump's arguments on the issue were weak, according to lawyers who have reviewed the briefs. From our post of Feb. 14, 2024, under the headline "<a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/really-bizarre-and-poorly-written-thats.html">'Really bizarre' and 'poorly written': That's the verdict from experts who reviewed documents
from Trump's effort to receive presidential immunity</a>":</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Legal analysts, who have reviewed
briefs in Donald Trump's presidential-immunity case, say the former
president presents weak arguments -- even calling the brief "poorly
written" and "really bizarre -- that should not prevail on the merits if
the case reaches the nation's highest court. That, of course, is
assuming the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is willing to rule on the
merits -- and that is a big "if", considering <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/with-oral-arguments-set-for-tomorrow.html">SCOTUS
already has sent signals that it is prepared to rule contrary to the
facts and law in Trump's ballot-disqualification case</a> out of
Colorado</span>. That means the U.S. has a deep and entrenched problem with
judicial corruption throughout our federal court system, and it might
require drastic measures to resolve -- if the American people and their
leaders even have the will and interest in resolving it, as opposed to
responding with shrugged shoulders. But that is a story for another day.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>For
now, our focus is on the experts who suggest Trump's immunity claim
should quickly go down in flames if it reaches the eyes of SCOTUS
justices. If that proves to be the case, it will mean Trump remains on
the hook for the four criminal cases on his crowded legal docket --
election interference cases in Washington, D.C., and Georgia, a
hush-money case involving porn star Stormy Daniels in New York, and a
classified-documents case in Florida. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>As for the immunity matter, <i>Salon</i> addresses that issue under the headline "'<a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/02/13/really-bizarre-legal-experts-trash-trumps-poorly-written-immunity-filing/">Really bizarre': Legal experts trash Trump’s 'poorly-written' Supreme Court immunity filing</a>" Writes Senior News Editor Igor Derysh:</span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Former
President Donald Trump on Monday asked the Supreme Court to
block a lower-court ruling and allow his D.C. criminal
election-subversion case to move forward, echoing his repeatedly
rejected
argument that he is immune from prosecution.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>“Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the presidency as we know it will cease to exist,” Trump’s lawyers <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24424194-trump-scotus-immunity-stay">claimed in the filing</a>,
arguing that if presidents can be charged for actions in office, “such
prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in
destructive cycles of recrimination.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week <a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/02/06/loses-immunity-bid-as-appeals-rules-hes-just-a-citizen/">rejected Trump’s claim</a>
that he is immune from prosecution, writing that “we cannot accept that
the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law
for all time thereafter.</span> <br /></span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">What happens next? My guess is that SCOTUS will concoct some way to grant immunity, freeing Trump from all of his criminal legal entanglements and allowing a disqualified candidate to remain on ballots, putting him in a general election he could win, which would put a man who tried to obstruct our government in charge of that government. That probably presents grounds to have all 12 justices criminally indicted, but we will have to see if anyone in our broken government has the guts to do that.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Let's review the destruction of myth No. 1 -- the notion that Trump is a business wizard, which is based largely on his ability to read cue cards that somebody else wrote for <i>The Apprentice</i>. For that review let's return to the AP report :</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Judge Anil Singh of the state’s mid-level appeals court rejected
Trump’s offer of a $100-million bond, though he did give Trump leeway
that could help him secure the necessary bond before New York Attorney
General Letitia James seeks to enforce the judgment starting March 25.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Singh
granted a stay, pausing part of Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 verdict
that barred Trump, his company. and co-defendants from borrowing money
from New York financial institutions. The Republican presidential
front-runner’s lawyers had told the appellate court earlier Wednesday
that the lending ban had made it impossible for him to secure a bond for
the full amount.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump’s lawyers warned he may need to sell some properties to cover
the penalty and would have no way of getting them back if he is
successful in his appeal. State lawyers said those disclosures suggested
Trump — who has more than a half-billion dollars in pending court debt —
was having trouble coming up with enough cash to foot the bill. The
penalty is increasing by nearly $112,000 each day because of interest
and will eclipse $455 million on Saturday.</span></p></blockquote><p>My, how the mighty Trump has fallen in a financial sense. But don't be surprised if a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court creates a path to usher him back into the White House.</p><p></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-87081054127910795762024-02-28T07:10:00.004-06:002024-02-28T07:10:00.150-06:00U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson unlawffuly received campaign cash from a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin, making the GOP look like an arm of the Kremlin<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ1EDO0VWAPDlhmNtl051thJ3bAhV8u8ldDcqAgCxJdat73XLbV9AUiPb_yZcI2AezqjmxWxTktGr62-5-BuDGSr1lC2FkRYrq0t4zwD6OU9AFQg0YeUTc66lvl2jC42Bb3H6Q24lDJflJNhSkdBGFKQAETLjM1ss6BzBSAeLO3ZKqhGKNPQHXV3UoqPg/s273/Mary%20Trump%20-%20book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="184" data-original-width="273" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ1EDO0VWAPDlhmNtl051thJ3bAhV8u8ldDcqAgCxJdat73XLbV9AUiPb_yZcI2AezqjmxWxTktGr62-5-BuDGSr1lC2FkRYrq0t4zwD6OU9AFQg0YeUTc66lvl2jC42Bb3H6Q24lDJflJNhSkdBGFKQAETLjM1ss6BzBSAeLO3ZKqhGKNPQHXV3UoqPg/w400-h270/Mary%20Trump%20-%20book.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has unlawfully received funds from a Russian oligarch with ties to dictator Vladimir Putin. Is this more evidence that the Republican Party has become an arm of the Kremlin? Mary L. Trump, Donald's niece and one of his most outspoken critics, suggests in an article at <i>Substcack</i> that the answer is yes. <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Mary+Trump">Mary Trump</a>, a psychologist, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/stores/Mary-L-Trump/author/B08BNB72N3?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true">author</a>, and insightful political observer, puts on her journalist's hat to help break a major story under the headline "<a href="https://marytrump.substack.com/p/caught-mike-johnson-takes-russian"><span>Speaker of the House Mike Johnson received illegal money from at least one Russian oligarch. </span></a><em><strong><a href="https://marytrump.substack.com/p/caught-mike-johnson-takes-russian">There could be more.</a>" </strong></em>Mary Trump writes under the secondary headline "<a href="https://marytrump.substack.com/p/caught-mike-johnson-takes-russian">Campaign Contributions Have Ties to Russia</a>":</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson received illegal money from at least one Russian oligarch.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><em><strong>There could be more.</strong></em></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">As
Mike Johnson settles in his role as the mysterious Christo-Fascist
second-in-line to the presidency, questions have arisen about
possible entanglements with the Kremlin.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>As always, we have to follow the money. </strong></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>In a piece that reads like a spy novel, </span><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/who-konstantin-nikolaev-money-mike-johnson-1870600"><em>Newsweek</em></a><span><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/who-konstantin-nikolaev-money-mike-johnson-1870600">’s
Ewan Palmer highlights a scheme that somehow failed to grab the
attention of the corporate media</a>. It’s a sordid tale about a group of
Russian nationals who circumvented U.S. political fundraising laws in
order to deliver campaign contributions to a slate of MAGA-entrenched
Congressmen: </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">One of whom is—you guessed it, Mike “America is not a democracy, it’s a Biblical republic” Johnson.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The financial ties between Johnson and Konstantin Niolaev go right up to the Kremlin's doorstep, Mary Trump reports:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In 2018, Johnson received campaign contributions from “American
Ethane,” a company that was 88 percent owned by three Russian nationals:
Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev, and Andrey Kunatbaev.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span>Johnson received at least three checks, </span><a href="https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7491/7491_20.pdf" rel="">each for $6,100</a><span>,
from the company. Why does that matter? At least one of the Russian
owners, oligarch Konstantin Nikolaev, has deep ties to Putin—and even
funded Russian national <a href="In 2018, Johnson received campaign contributions from “American Ethane,” a company that was 88 percent owned by three Russian nationals: Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev, and Andrey Kunatbaev. Johnson received at least three checks, each for $6,100, from the company. Why does that matter? At least one of the Russian owners, oligarch Konstantin Nikolaev, had deep ties to Putin—and even funded Russian national Maria Butina, who was deported back to Russia after spending 15 months in U.S. penitentiaries for acting as a Russian foreign agent after cozying up to Republicans in order to shape U.S. policy.">Maria Butina</a>, who was deported back to Russia
after spending 15 months in U.S. penitentiaries for acting as a Russian
foreign agent, developing close ties to the National Rifle Association (NRA), after cozying up to Republicans in order to shape U.S.
policy.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>As <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/04/email-from-nra-operative-shows-jeff.html">we reported in an April 2018 post here at <i>Legal Schnauzer</i></a>, former Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions (also a former AG and U.S. senator for Alabama) <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/04/email-from-nra-operative-shows-jeff.html">was </a></span><a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/04/email-from-nra-operative-shows-jeff.html">firmly in the loop on early efforts to build links between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign by taking advantage of Butina's NRA ties</a>. The goal was to form a "back channel" between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Johnson campaign has tried to dance around the Russian-money story for several years, but their explanations appear to make little difference under U.S. law, Mary Trump writes:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Johnson’s campaign<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/who-konstantin-nikolaev-money-mike-johnson-1870600"> claims they returned the money after the situation first came out</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But would Johnson have kept the money if his accepting the contribution hadn’t been exposed in the first place?</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Of
course, as Palmer notes, its “against federal law for a campaign to
knowingly accept donations from a foreign-owned corporation, a foreign
national, or any company owned or controlled by foreign nationals.” </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The FCC can take strict action once a situation like this presents itself.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But the FCC, for some reason, did not act strictly with Nikolaev, Mary Trump reports:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">In 2018, American Ethane was fined just $9,500 in civil penalties for donating to GOP candidates.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Why does it matter if Johnson has Russian ties? </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">As
Speaker of the House, Johnson faces one of the largest foreign policy
decisions of the last decade: Will the United States continue funding
Ukraine’s efforts against the illegal Russian invasion of their country?</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">That’s when things get even more interesting: </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Mike Johnson says he will get a Ukraine aid package to the floor. He SAYS he supports its passage. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">His ACTIONS tell a different story. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">The
organization, “Republicans for Ukraine,” who track Republican votes on
the Russia-Ukraine war, gave Mike Johnson an “F” grade for his support
to Ukraine’s efforts.</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">They note that Mike Johnson:</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><ul><li><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Voted against the 2022 Ukraine Supplemental Appropriation</strong></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Voted
in favor of Amendment 21 to H.R. 2670, the National Defense
Authorization Act, which would have stricken $300 million of assistance
for Ukraine.</strong></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Voted in favor of Amendment
22 to H.R. 2670, the National Defense Authorization Act, which would
have prohibited all security assistance for Ukraine.</strong></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Voted
in favor of Amendment 25 to H.R. 2670, the National Defense
Authorization Act, which would have removed the extension of lend-lease
authority to Ukraine.</strong></span></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Voted against H.R. 5692: Ukraine Security Assistance and Oversight Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2023.</strong></span></p></li></ul></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">What happens next? Mary Trump provides insights:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Despite the fact that Mike Johnson now holds a place of enormous
power in the American government, he remains an elusive character whose
perverted notions of American democracy and religious fanaticism still
aren’t completely understood. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">That’s partially because he ran
unopposed in his first election, has served fewer than eight years in
Congress, had no leadership experience, and never once chaired a
committee, all of which makes his remarkably quick—and essentially
unvetted— ascension to the speakership even more disconcerting.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As
the mysterious speaker of the House fails to walk the walk when it
comes to supporting Ukraine, he casts doubt on the integrity of his
attitude toward Putin’s Russia and casts yet another shadow over the
halls of power. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Once again, we’re left wondering about a possible
web of influence that raises unsettling questions regarding the allegiance
of key figures within the center of our country’s government and many of
the Republicans who are running it.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">One thing is certain: Our eyes are open. And we’re watching.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Mary Trump concludes her <i>Substack</i> piece with a personal message:</span></p><h2 class="header-with-anchor-widget"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Thank you for reading this far!</strong></span><div class="header-anchor-widget offset-top" id="§thank-you-for-reading-this-far"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button" href="https://marytrump.substack.com/i/139201796/thank-you-for-reading-this-far"><span style="font-size: medium;"><svg class="header-anchor-widget-icon" fill="none" height="20" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" stroke="currentColor" viewbox="0 0 24 24" width="20" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"></svg> </span></div><div class="header-anchor-widget-button" href="https://marytrump.substack.com/i/139201796/thank-you-for-reading-this-far"><span style="font-size: medium;">I
am going to be very real for a moment. I paid a high cost by
calling out my family’s corruption. But I cannot stand by and watch
Donald destroy our democracy.</span></div></div></div></h2><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I currently have 120,000 free
subscribers. If just 5% bought a membership at the price of a tall
coffee, I could reach even more voters with the truth:</span></p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{"url":"https://bit.ly/SubscribeJohnson","text":"Become a Paying Subscriber Now","action":null,"class":null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="button primary" href="https://bit.ly/SubscribeJohnson" rel=""><span>Become a Paying Subscriber Now</span></a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thank you for those who upgrade; it means the world to me.</span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="image-link image2" data-component-name="Image2ToDOM" href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3de0d933-dc4d-4c90-ac04-a4c5a27b94c7.heic" rel="" target="_blank"><div class="image2-inset"><picture></picture></div></a></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> Mary</span></p><p><br /></p><h2 class="header-with-anchor-widget"><div class="header-anchor-widget offset-top" id="§where-do-we-go-from-here"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button" href="https://marytrump.substack.com/i/139201796/where-do-we-go-from-here"><svg class="header-anchor-widget-icon" fill="none" height="20" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" stroke="currentColor" viewbox="0 0 24 24" width="20" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><br /></svg></div></div></div></h2><p> </p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p> </p></blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p><span> </span></p><p> </p><blockquote><p> </p></blockquote><p></p><br /> <p> </p><p>:<em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><br /></strong></em></p><h3 style="color: #404040; font-family: 'SF Compact Display',-apple-system,system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,'Apple Color Emoji','Segoe UI Emoji','Segoe UI Symbol'; font-size: 1.375em; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0 0.625em 0;"><strong><br /></strong></h3>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-6803662773329383822024-02-27T09:45:00.001-06:002024-02-27T10:09:46.480-06:00Trump's speech at CPAC 2024 was packed with lies, indicating he knowingly deceives his MAGA crowds because he assumes they won't use critical thinking<p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvJh2YIKY-4db3-AByQDipEPsX7watirCXqi2Zbub77OukZanxsk8wcPuy3fnYTMcQ0bbO9dksO5Ng6_OjkHNdaVP5ULeCdsEtHa9ajCZMYO-pfVgXPAQOjerBQzgDPnX3pDjtHncjQHNC0teXaSdpL4tuyY4SmEZhCJQdKKNCXcEreOEobqQq5qJo5M8/s2560/Trump%20-%20cpac%20-%20flag2.webp" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1440" data-original-width="2560" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvJh2YIKY-4db3-AByQDipEPsX7watirCXqi2Zbub77OukZanxsk8wcPuy3fnYTMcQ0bbO9dksO5Ng6_OjkHNdaVP5ULeCdsEtHa9ajCZMYO-pfVgXPAQOjerBQzgDPnX3pDjtHncjQHNC0teXaSdpL4tuyY4SmEZhCJQdKKNCXcEreOEobqQq5qJo5M8/w400-h225/Trump%20-%20cpac%20-%20flag2.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Trump wraps up an intimate moment with the U.S. flag at CPAC<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> <b>Part One<br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Do you struggle to listen to a Donald Trump speech? I do, and it's been that way for several years. The problem starts, I think, when you recognize up front that Trump never will be considered to have a Winston Churchill-style intellect, so you set the bar low -- and he still manages to dig a hole underneath it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">After reporting on <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2024/02/donald-trump-serves-up-rhetorical-bilge.html">his recent speech at the CPAC</a> convention for conservative activists, I think I gained some insight into Trump's problem -- or maybe it was my problem. Even by Trump's standards, the CPAC 2024 speech was a real stinker, with little in the way of meaningful content to keep your attention. But then, I noticed a trend: Trump tends to give his worst speeches when his audience is what you might call "the hometown crowd" -- as it was at CPAC. On those occasions, Trump's oratory is not so much a speech but a string of slogans, mindlessly thrown against the wall to push the emotions, and the hot buttons, of MAGA devotees. No wonder I didn't get Trump's speeches; I wasn't a member of the club, so he wasn't speaking to me. I don't live "inside the tent," so he probably did not care that he failed to reach me.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">My conclusion? Trump doesn't try to bring newcomers into the tent, so he probably doesn't care if someone like me zones out a few minutes after hearing him speak. His goal, it seems, is to fire up the base, and he probably is convinced that will carry him to victory in November. I'm not sure he's right about that, but I am sure he doesn't care what people like me think. If you aren't "loyal" to Trump right off the bat, then you aren't worth his attention. I'm not sure that is a smart way to run a campaign or a country -- especially when you are seeking to be president for all Americans. But Republicans have bought into the Trump Way, so that's what we are going to receive for the next eight months or so.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As for the CPAC 2024 speech, I wasn't the only one who found it lacking. CNN presented its own critique under the headline "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/24/politics/fact-check-trump-delivers-another-lie-filled-cpac-speech/index.html">Fact check: Trump delivers another lie-filled CPAC speech</a>." How's that for getting to the point? Something tells me they didn't much care for the speech. Here are some specifics:</span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mysx6001bncnx01hd55c3@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mysx6001bncnx01hd55c3@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
The Conservative Political Action Conference has been the venue for some of former President Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/world/60-false-claims-in-2-hours-trump-s-cpac-speech-was-by-far-his-most/article_83f15227-1a20-5368-8026-3a661abaf7b3.html" target="_blank">most dishonest speeches</a> – <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/05/politics/fact-check-trump-cpac/index.html">lengthy, lie-filled addresses</a> in which he has regaled friendly crowds with many of his favorite false claims.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj220002356h0h35n37e@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
He stuck to tradition in his CPAC speech on Saturday,
repeating more than a dozen previously debunked statements. (He also
made some dubious new claims we’ll look into.) Here’s a fact check of 12
of his remarks.</span> <br /></p></blockquote><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj220002356h0h35n37e@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj220003356hc4v2z140@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b><b>(1) Trump and the invasion of Iraq</b></span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj220003356hc4v2z140@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj230004356h0axym4oh@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/politics/fact-check-trump-invade-iraq/index.html">repeated his years-old claim</a> that he had warned the US not to launch an invasion of Iraq.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj230005356h6m94wtri@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
He said: “Remember I used to say a long time ago, ‘Don’t go
into Iraq. Don’t do it!’ But I was only a civilian, so I didn’t get that
much press. I said, ‘Don’t go into Iraq, but if you’re going to do it,
keep the oil.’ Do you remember I used to say that all the time? Keep the
oil. ‘Don’t do it, but keep the oil.’”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj230006356hhrr22g2n@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First: </b><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump’s claim that he warned the US not to invade Iraq is </i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/fact-check-trump-false-claim-opposed-iraq-invasion/index.html"><i>false</i></a><i>; the claim was </i><a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the" target="_blank"><i>debunked eight years ago</i></a><i>. In reality, Trump did not </i><a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christophermassie/a-guide-to-donald-trump-early-flip-flops-on-the-iraq-war" target="_blank"><i>publicly express opposition to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq before it occurred</i></a><i>.</i> <i>In </i><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=PV6qZU_xev8C&q=warmonger#v=snippet&q=warmonger&f=false" target="_blank"><i>his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,”</i></a><i> Trump argued a military strike on Iraq might be necessary; when radio host </i><a href="https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-howard-stern-show-september-11-2002" target="_blank"><i>Howard Stern asked Trump in September 2002</i></a><i> whether
he is “for invading Iraq,” Trump responded, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish
the first time it was done correctly”; and Trump did not express a firm
opinion about the looming war in </i><a href="https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-fox-neil-cavuto-january-28-2003" target="_blank"><i>a Fox interview in January 2003</i></a><i>,
saying that “either you attack or don’t attack” and that then-President
George W. Bush “has either got to do something or not do something,
perhaps.”</i></span></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj230007356h0zm2tek9@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Trump began criticizing the war in 2003, after the invasion,
and also said that year that American troops should not be withdrawn
from Iraq. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">He emerged as an explicit opponent of the war in 2004. You
can read more <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/fact-check-trump-false-claim-opposed-iraq-invasion/index.html">here</a> about his shifting positions.</span>
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj230008356hq9pk3i38@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">A CNN search in 2019 turned up no examples of Trump saying
anything before the war about keeping Iraq’s oil.</span> Trump’s White House
did not respond at the time to our request to provide any such evidence.</span></p></blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj230009356h3e0qgl0x@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj230009356h3e0qgl0x@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(2) Trump and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj23000a356h4iyadecz@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Claiming that he was tough on Russia during his presidency,
Trump brought up the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project from
Russia to Germany and claimed, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/politics/trump-dishonesty-avalanche-102-fall-false-claims/index.html">as he has repeatedly before</a>, that “I ended Nord Stream” and that “I stopped it, it was over.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000b356hsasicl0e@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump’s claim is false. He did not “end” Nord Stream or render it “over.” While he did </i><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-eu-decry-us-nord-stream-sanctions/a-51759319" target="_blank"><i>approve sanctions</i></a><i> on companies working on the project, that move came nearly three years into his presidency, when the pipeline was already </i><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/us-sanctions-on-nord-stream-2-pipeline.html" target="_blank"><i>around 90% complete</i></a><i> – and the state-owned Russian gas company behind the project </i><a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-s-gazprom-says-will-complete-nord-stream-2-alone/30403428.html" target="_blank"><i>said</i></a></span><i><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"> shortly after the sanctions that it would complete the pipeline itself.</span> The company </i><a href="https://www.ogj.com/pipelines-transportation/pipelines/article/14189195/nord-stream-2-pipelay-resumes" target="_blank"><i>announced</i></a><i> in December 2020 that construction was resuming. And with days left in Trump’s term in January 2021, Germany </i><a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/germany-nord-stream-2-construction-russia/31048298.html" target="_blank"><i>announced</i></a><i> that it had renewed permission for construction in its waters.</i></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000c356hmvhtydqk@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The pipeline never began operations; Germany ended up <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/business/nord-stream-pipeline-germany-russia.html" target="_blank">halting the project</a> as Russia was about to invade Ukraine in early 2022. The pipeline was damaged later that year in what has been <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/energy/nord-stream-pipeline-leaks-sabotage-intl-hnk/index.html">described as a likely act of sabotage</a>.</span></span></p></blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000d356hw8iptws2@published">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000d356hw8iptws2@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(3) The 2020 election</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000e356hrx1vd5ap@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Trump returned to his frequent lies about the 2020 election,
saying it was a “rigged election” and that “in 2020, they cheated like
dogs.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000f356htxej0ze7@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>These Trump claims are false. <i>The election wasn’t rigged and Trump’s opponents didn’t cheat. Joe Biden won fair and square. There was a </i></i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics/fact-check-republicans-voter-fraud-kirk-hartle/index.html"><i>tiny amount of voter fraud</i></a><i> that was </i><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html" target="_blank"><i>nowhere near widespread enough</i></a><i> to have changed the outcome in any state, let alone to have reversed Biden’s 306-232 victory in the Electoral College.</i></span></span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000g356hozdvgio3@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(4) Biden and Trump’s indictments</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000h356hw6b6uu3r@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Trump said of Biden: “He indicted me.” He also decried
supposed “Stalinist show trials carried out at Joe Biden's orders.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000i356h9i1n1xes@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First: </b><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>This claim is not
supported by any evidence. Grand juries made up of ordinary citizens –
in New York, Georgia, Florida and Washington, DC – approved the
indictments in each of Trump’s criminal cases. There is no basis for the
claim that Biden ordered Trump to be criminally charged or face civil
trials.</i></span></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000j356h2sn42qm4@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
Trump’s two federal indictments were brought by a special
counsel, Jack Smith. Smith was appointed in November 2022 by Attorney
General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, but that is not proof that
Biden was involved in the prosecution effort, much less that Biden
personally ordered the indictments; Garland <a href="https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2023/10/02/garland-trump-biden-resign-interview" target="_blank">has said he would resign</a>
if Biden ever asked him to take action against Trump but was sure that
would never happen.</span> And there is no sign that Biden has had any role in
bringing charges against Trump in Manhattan or Fulton County, Georgia;
those prosecutions have been led by elected local district attorneys. </span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000k356hv9fcc5mu@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(5) Trump’s indictments vs. Al Capone’s indictments</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000l356ht7rbprqj@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Repeating one of his <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/politics/fact-check-trump-al-capone-indicted-once/index.html">regular campaign claims</a>, Trump said, “I’ve been indicted more than Alphonse Capone,” even though Capone was a notoriously vicious gangster.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000m356hgejdiolp@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/politics/fact-check-trump-al-capone-indicted-once/index.html">Trump’s claim is false</a>. Trump has been indicted four times. Capone was indicted <i>at least six times, as </i></i><a href="https://abradschwartz.com/" target="_blank"><i>A. Brad Schwartz</i></a><i>, the co-author of a book on Capone, told CNN</i>.
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj24000n356hn0qks8cj@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
Also, Schwartz noted: “This isn’t a race, of course, but it
may be worth noting that Capone is also way ahead in individual counts
(the 1931 Prohibition indictment alone added up to 5,000
conspiracy charges).” Trump faces <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/trump-charges-jan-6-classified-documents/#:~:text=Former%20president%20Donald%20Trump%20faces,denied%20wrongdoing%20in%20each%20case.&text=The%20most%20severe%20federal%20counts,up%20to%2020%20years%20imprisonment." target="_blank">91 total counts</a> over his two federal indictments and two local indictments.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000o356hyif9z0mj@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
You can read more about Capone’s indictments <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/politics/fact-check-trump-al-capone-indicted-once/index.html">here</a>.</span> </span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000p356ha4wumowa@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(6) Trump and Minneapolis </b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000q356howak5hlm@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Reviving a claim he began making in 2020, Trump said that he
deployed the National Guard to Minneapolis in 2020 – over the
opposition of the state’s Democratic governor – during the unrest that
followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000r356hj3vwe9zw@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
“I’ll tell you what: If I didn’t bring in the National Guard
– ’cause the governor didn’t want to do it, they’d never want to do it …
I wish I didn’t wait six days – but if I didn’t bring in the National
Guard, wouldn’t even have a city there. That city was going down,” Trump
said.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000s356hoy03yyny@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>This is false – and a complete </i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/politics/fact-check-trump-walz-minnesota-national-guard/index.html"><i>reversal of reality</i></a><i>.
Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, not Trump, was the one who deployed
the Minnesota National Guard during the 2020 unrest; Walz first
activated the Guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly
threatened to deploy the Guard himself. Walz’s office told CNN in 2020
that the governor activated the Guard in response to requests from
officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul – cities also run by Democrats.</i></span></span></p></blockquote><p><i><b>Next: We will have CNN's fact-based analysis of Trump's CPAC speech on six additional issues (plus a bonus issue) -- from "Trump and the border wall" to "Trump and electric cars." We invite you to stay tuned.<br /></b></i></p><p> </p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000t356h7eyvdwb1@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(7) Trump and the border wall</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000u356h0vuaul8p@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Touting the wall construction on the border with Mexico
during his presidency, Trump said, “We built 571 miles of border wall.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000v356hmrkzwysq@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump’s “571 miles” claim is false, an even greater exaggeration than the </i><i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/politics/trump-dishonesty-avalanche-102-fall-false-claims/index.html"><i>inaccurate “561 miles” and “over 500 miles” claims he has made in the past</i></a>. </i><i>An </i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/19/politics/fact-check-christie-trump-border-wall/index.html"><i>official report by US Customs and Border Protection</i></a><i>, </i><i>written
two days after Trump left office and subsequently obtained by CNN’s
Priscilla Alvarez, said the total number built under Trump was 458 miles
(including both wall built where no barriers had existed before and
wall built to replace previous barriers). Trump has sometimes put the
figure, more correctly, at “nearly 500 miles.”</i></span></span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000w356h2nkgi5w9@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(8) Trump and the word ‘caravans’</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000x356ha5h5cjlm@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Speaking about immigration, Trump referred to migrant caravans – then <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/politics/trump-dishonesty-avalanche-102-fall-false-claims/index.html">repeated his common campaign claim</a> that he had personally coined the phrase “caravans”: “That was another name I came up with. I come up with good names.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000y356h47ywu535@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump did not come up with
the word “caravan,” either in general or to describe groups of migrants
traveling together toward the US border during his presidency.</i></span></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj25000z356h7dm198fw@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
Trump first publicly used a variation of the word as president in a tweet <a href="https://factba.se/trump/search#caravan" target="_blank">on April 1, 2018</a> (he wrote, in a tweet about immigration, “’caravans’ coming”). But the word had been <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/a-huge-caravan-of-central-americans-is-headed-for-the-us" target="_blank">used</a> <a href="https://nacla.org/blog/2018/01/29/migrant-trail-refugee-movement-emerges" target="_blank">by</a> <a href="https://cis.org/Luna/Caravan-Central-American-Illegal-Aliens-Heads-US" target="_blank">various others</a> in the same context in the days and weeks prior, including in a <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/a-huge-caravan-of-central-americans-is-headed-for-the-us" target="_blank">BuzzFeed News feature article, two days prior</a> to
Trump’s tweet, that was headlined, “A Huge Caravan Of Central Americans
Is Headed For The US, And No One In Mexico Dares To Stop Them.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj250010356hirvzh0ep@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
</span>Merriam-Webster <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/the-history-of-caravan-words-for-people-in-movement-invasion-migration" target="_blank">says</a> the word caravan “came to English in the late 16th century, from the Italian <i>caravana</i>, which itself came from the Persian <i>kārvān</i>.”</span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj250011356hcwayebdu@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><i><b>(9) Trump and ISIS</b></i></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj250012356hssblnde7@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Trump claimed, as he has on numerous previous occasions,
that although he was told it would take “four years” to defeat the ISIS
terror group, “</i>I knocked it out in four weeks.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj250013356h6g2bqduc@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump’s claim of having
defeated ISIS in “four weeks” isn’t true; the ISIS “caliphate” was
declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump’s presidency, </i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/23/middleeast/isis-caliphate-end-intl"><i>in 2019</i></a><i>. Even if Trump was starting the clock at the time of his visit to Iraq </i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/26/politics/donald-trump-iraq-visit/index.html"><i>in late December 2018</i></a><i>,
as he suggested later in the speech, the liberation was proclaimed more
than two and a half months later. In addition, Trump gave himself far
too much credit for the defeat of the caliphate, as </i><a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/trump-takes-too-much-credit-on-isis/" target="_blank"><i>he has before</i></a><i>,
when he said, “I knocked it out” with no caveats or credit to anyone
else: Kurdish forces did much of the ground fighting, and there was
major progress against the caliphate under President Barack Obama in
2015 and 2016.</i></span></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj260014356hnffn49mm@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
IHS Markit, an information company that studied the changing
size of the caliphate, reported two days before Trump’s 2017
inauguration that the caliphate shrunk by 23% in 2016 after shrinking by
14% in 2015.</span> “The Islamic State suffered unprecedented territorial
losses in 2016, including key areas vital for the group’s governance
project,” an analyst there said in a <a href="https://news.ihsmarkit.com/prviewer/release_only/slug/aerospace-defense-security-islamic-state-lost-almost-quarter-its-territory-2016-ihs-ma" target="_blank">statement</a> at the time. </span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj260015356hocvaqt8s@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(10) Electric cars</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj260016356hwg31688a@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Trump deployed his familiar criticism of Biden on
environmental policy, saying, “All- electric cars. The all-electric
mandate. Everybody has to have an electric car.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj260017356hh2ych01c@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump’s claim is false.
Biden has not mandated that “everybody has to have an electric car,”
though his administration has made an aggressive push to try to get
automakers and consumers to move toward electric vehicles.</i></span></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj260018356hwkbbc31j@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
The Biden administration has <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/politics/car-pollution-standards-electric-vehicles-biden-climate/index.html">proposed ambitious new tailpipe emissions regulations for automakers</a>, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/06/business/ev-tax-credit-up-front-climate/index.html">offered tax credits to people who buy certain electric vehicles</a>, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/joe-biden-detroit-auto-show/index.html">invested in new electric vehicle charging stations</a> and <a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/07/federal-agencies-plan-spend-770m-ramping-their-electric-vehicle-usage-year/388740/" target="_blank">ordered federal entities to purchase electric vehicles</a>,
among other policies promoting the adoption of these vehicles. But
there is no Biden requirement that “everybody” has to drive an electric
vehicle.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj260019356hdnd653gp@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Depending on how automakers were to respond, the Environmental Protection Agency’s <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/politics/car-pollution-standards-electric-vehicles-biden-climate/index.html">proposed new tailpipe rules</a> could, if adopted, require electric vehicles to make up two-thirds of new cars sold in the US by 2032. </span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj26001a356hccbj49wa@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(11)The trade deficit</b></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj26001b356hlsxo3c0n@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Returning to his criticism of US trade agreements with
various countries, Trump said, “And then you wonder why we have a $2
trillion deficit. If you look at it now, it’s gotten to a level that
nobody can even believe; it’s so bad under Biden.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj26001c356hr51yywxm@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump’s “$2 trillion” claim is false, a massive exaggeration. The US has </i><a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IEABCGSA" target="_blank"><i>never had a $2 trillion annual trade deficit</i></a><i> and does not have one under Biden. The overall deficit, which includes trade in both goods and services, </i><a href="https://www.bea.gov/news/blog/2024-02-07/2023-trade-gap-7734-billion" target="_blank"><i>was about $773 billion in 2023</i></a><i>, down from a record high of about $951 billion in 2022. </i></span></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj26001d356h31jfepjh@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>(12) China’s oil purchases from Iran</b></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj26001e356hckokjm6l@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Trump repeated a story about China and Iran that has become a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/politics/trump-dishonesty-avalanche-102-fall-false-claims/index.html">staple of his campaign speeches</a>.
He claimed that, as president, he had threatened that he would cut off
all US business with China if China bought even “one barrel of oil from
Iran.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj26001f356haj2n28e5@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
He continued: “And President Xi – I told him this – said,
‘All right, well, we won’t do it. We won’t do it.’ They didn’t buy. By
the way, they’re buying billions and billion worth of oil right now. But
China didn’t buy.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj26001g356hh1h5klv8@published">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Facts First</b>: <span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>Trump’s claim that China
“didn’t buy” oil from Iran is false. China’s oil imports from Iran did
briefly plummet under Trump in 2019, the year the Trump administration </i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/trump-administration-iranian-oil-sanction-waiver/index.html"><i>made a concerted effort to deter such purchases</i></a><i>,
but they never stopped – and then they rose sharply again while Trump
was still president. “The claim is untrue because Chinese crude imports
from Iran haven’t stopped at all,” Matt Smith,</i> <i>lead oil analyst for the Americas at Kpler, a market intelligence firm, said in November.</i></span></span>
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj27001h356hon424rjm@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
</span>China’s official statistics <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-reports-first-official-iranian-oil-imports-since-dec-2020-2022-01-20/" target="_blank">recorded no purchases</a> of
Iranian crude in Trump’s last partial month in office, January 2021,
and also none in most of Biden’s first year in office. But that doesn’t
mean China’s imports actually ceased; industry experts say it is widely
known that China has used a variety of tactics to mask its continued
imports from Iran. Smith said Iranian crude is <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=60401" target="_blank">often listed in Chinese data as being from Malaysia</a>;
ships may travel from Iran with their transponders switched off and
then turn them on when they are near Malaysia, Smith said, or <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Iranian-oil-flowing-past-Malaysia-on-way-to-Asian-customers" target="_blank">transfer the Iranian oil to other ships</a>.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj27001i356hwsrodddn@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis
Group, said in a November email: “China significantly reduced its
imports from Iran from around 800,000 barrels per day in 2018 to 100,000
in late 2019. But by the time Trump left office, they were back to
upwards to 600(000)-700,000 barrels.”
</span></span></p></blockquote><p>Here is a bonus critique from CNN:</p><p><b></b></p><blockquote><p><b>(13) Trump declares himself a ‘political dissident’ at CPAC, capping a conference catered to conspiracies </b></p><p><cite class="source__cite">
</cite>
</p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0oqnb0000emhqaataogmse@published">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Former President <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/president-donald-trump-45">Donald Trump</a>
declared himself a “proud political dissident” on Saturday, telling a
conservative gathering that his re-election would be “liberation day” for
his supporters and “judgment day” for his political enemies.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakb00063b6g1zz2dapb@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
</span>The striking choice of words, delivered in a speech to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/24/politics/cpac-trump-potential-running-mates/index.html">the Conservative Political Action Conference</a>, comes just days after <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/trump-legal-rulings-navalny-death/index.html">Trump likened his legal plight</a> to Russian opposition leader <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/24/europe/navalny-body-mother-russia-intl/index.html">Alexey Navalny</a>,
the leading dissident of Russian President Vladimir Putin before he
died this month in a state prison. Saturday’s remarks represented an
undeniable escalation of that rhetoric.
</span>
</p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc00073b6g9tg8r8fw@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">“In many ways, we’re living in hell right now, because the
fact is, Joe Biden is a threat to democracy,” Trump told a
standing-room-only CPAC audience. “I stand before you today, not only as
your past and hopefully future president but as a proud political
dissident. I am a dissident.” </span></span></p></blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc00073b6g9tg8r8fw@published"></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc00073b6g9tg8r8fw@published"></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">The comments capped a four-day gathering heavily influenced
by the most conspiratorial elements of Trump’s movement. Inside CPAC –
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">taking place in Maryland, across the Potomac River from the site of
Trump’s failed and unconstitutional attempts to hold on to power – the
former president is the rightful current president, mail-in voting is
rife with fraud, and a revisionist retelling of the bloody January 6,
2021, attack on the US Capitol is accepted as fact.
</span></span></blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc00083b6gi3mlowt8@published"></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc00093b6g36jzk2q2@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc00093b6g36jzk2q2@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">A year after telling CPAC, “I am your retribution” – the
early seeds for his campaign of retaliation that has dominated his stump
speeches since launching his third White House bid – Trump on Saturday
shared a new definition of political vengeance that stopped short of
punishing his opponents.
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000a3b6geb2r6act@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
“Your liberty will be our ultimate reward, and the
unprecedented success of the United States of America will be my
ultimate and absolute revenge,” he said. “That’s what I want. Success
will be our revenge.” </span></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000b3b6ggjpx2qcj@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
Others speaking at CPAC, though, remained committed to a more exacting fight.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000c3b6gbhw1q37b@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
“If the regime is going to change the rules so Trump can be
prosecuted, (former President Barack) Obama must be prosecuted,” said
Tom Fitton, president of the right-wing legal advocacy group Judicial
Watch, evoking chants of “Lock him up” from the audience.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000d3b6g2nkip8ru@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
</span>As Trump addressed CPAC, voters in South Carolina headed to the polls for the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/24/politics/what-to-watch-south-carolina-primary/index.html">Republican presidential primary</a>.
There, the former president defeated the state’s former governor,
Nikki Haley, who says she is committed to challenging Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/07/politics/nikki-haley-end-game-south-carolina/index.html">through Super Tuesday</a>.
</span></p></blockquote><blockquote>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000e3b6grg4d6tki@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Haley, though, went unmentioned during Trump’s remarks in
Maryland – an animated 90-minute speech in which he shared stories of
flying on Air Force One and mimicked President Joe Biden’s mannerisms.
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000f3b6g0eqgpnjt@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">
</span>Instead, Trump’s address set the stage for the general election and his likely rematch with Biden.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="on" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000g3b6gidoj5oif@published"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">In a speech cloaked in dark imagery, Trump predicted a
dystopian America under a second Biden term, suggesting the nation will
be beset by “constant blackouts” and “rampant inflation,” accompanied by
spikes in illegal border crossings and foreign policy decisions that he
said will lead to “World War III.”
</span></span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000h3b6go2dssgsq@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
“If crooked Joe Biden and his thugs win in 2024, the worst
is yet to come. Our country will go and sink to levels that were
unimaginable,” he said. “These are the stakes of this election. Our
country is being destroyed, and the only thing standing between you and
its obliteration is me.”
</span></p></blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000h3b6go2dssgsq@published"></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000i3b6gb3n2ydc6@published"></p><blockquote><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000i3b6gb3n2ydc6@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
A vote for him, he said, is a “ticket back to freedom.”
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000j3b6gxyju04ys@published"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">
Biden’s campaign in a press release called Trump’s remarks
“bizarre” and said Trump and Republicans are the ones who want to pull
back freedoms.
</span></p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000k3b6gv3mmkca4@published"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"> </span>“Donald Trump is a loser: under his presidency America lost
more jobs than any president in modern history, women in more than 20
states have lost the freedom to make their own health care decisions
because Trump overturned Roe, and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party
lost their damn minds putting Trump’s quest for power over our
democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa said.</span></p></blockquote><p>What are the key takeaways from CNN's analysis of Trump's speech. Two points jump out at me:</p><p>(1) In No. 4 above, CNN shows that the central contention of Trump's standard campaign speech -- that Joe Biden had him indicted -- is a lie. In clear and direct language, CNN knocks that tall tale out of the ballpark:</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b> </b><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>This claim is not
supported by any evidence. Grand juries made up of ordinary citizens –
in New York, Georgia, Florida and Washington, DC – approved the
indictments in each of Trump’s criminal cases. There is no basis for the
claim that Biden ordered Trump to be criminally charged or face civil
trials.</i></span></span> </p><p>CNN's retort suggests two things: (a) Trump has no clue how our legal system works; or (b) he is pulling a con game, a hoax, on his most ardent followers -- probably because he knows he can get away with it. I suspect bot of those are correct, which means the MAGA crowd is being duped -- but many of them have not figured it out yet. </p><p>(2) In No. 3 above, Trump drags out his tired claim that the 2020 election was "rigged" and the Biden side "cheated like dogs." CNN bats that one down easily:</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i><i>The election wasn’t rigged and Trump’s opponents didn’t cheat. Joe Biden won fair and square. There was a </i></i><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics/fact-check-republicans-voter-fraud-kirk-hartle/index.html"><i>tiny amount of voter fraud</i></a><i> that was </i><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html" target="_blank"><i>nowhere near widespread enough</i></a><i> to have changed the outcome in any state, let alone to have reversed Biden’s 306-232 victory in the Electoral College.</i></span></span></p><p>CNN has done a huge public service by showing in straightforward language that Trump's two central grievances -- that Biden had him indicted, and the 2020 election was rigged against him -- are false.</p><p>That leaves this message for the MAGA crowd: Your "Orange Idol" is lying to you, playing you for fools. Let's hope you come to recognize that soon. </p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0otakc000k3b6gv3mmkca4@published"></p><p class="paragraph inline-placeholder" data-analytics-observe="off" data-article-gutter="true" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clt0mzj260014356hnffn49mm@published"></p>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-87082084045874445122024-02-26T07:15:00.051-06:002024-02-26T07:15:00.133-06:00Donald Trump serves up rhetorical bilge about being a "political dissident" as the brain-dead crowd of conservative activists lap it up at 2024 CPAC event<p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqzVE1j82WmqHRpcV_HRcMixjM3kO8GtqxcmJ0sivYWzm-fY8rIxTL6JwRL1Cxpy-PkWYFQbg2jpbN2-SUKUMY6-7Dj4WQhTSSO0A0RItaou0ET0kDCP7qUgR_1swD_xIhpe1sPJBXBkzDm9KxF2Ww-irMmUZrjv3DtPANekm2mcLq6pMcw-heBjI8nG0/s970/Trump%20-%20flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="647" data-original-width="970" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqzVE1j82WmqHRpcV_HRcMixjM3kO8GtqxcmJ0sivYWzm-fY8rIxTL6JwRL1Cxpy-PkWYFQbg2jpbN2-SUKUMY6-7Dj4WQhTSSO0A0RItaou0ET0kDCP7qUgR_1swD_xIhpe1sPJBXBkzDm9KxF2Ww-irMmUZrjv3DtPANekm2mcLq6pMcw-heBjI8nG0/w400-h266/Trump%20-%20flag.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Donald Trump desecrates the American flag<br /></td></tr></tbody></table> </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump cloaked himself in religious imagery, casting himself as his followers' savior against the alleged incompetence and faulty policies of he Joe Biden administration. He even referred to himself as a "political dissident," an apparent reference to the late Alexey Navalny, who recently died in a Russian penal colony. A number of world leaders, including Biden, have publicly stated that Navalny was murdered by Vladimir Putin, Russia's president and long one of Trump's favorite dictators. After several days of silence, Trump finally <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/19/donald-trump-alexei-navalny-death">acknowledged Navalny's death but did not mention Putin and mostly used the occasion to whine about his own legal troubles</a>. Just <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2019/11/donald-trump-is-in-midst-of-hypomanic.html">what you would expect from a malignant narcissist</a>. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">CPAC is a large annual conference for conservative activists, usually held in the Washington, D.C., area. <i>U.S. News & World Report</i> covered the 2024 event, in Oxon Hill, MD< under the headline "<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maryland/articles/2024-02-24/trump-calls-himself-a-proud-political-dissident-in-cpac-speech">Trump Calls Himself a 'Proud Political Dissident' in CPAC Speech; </a><span><a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maryland/articles/2024-02-24/trump-calls-himself-a-proud-political-dissident-in-cpac-speech">Former
President Donald Trump casts November’s presidential election as
“judgment day” and declared himself a 'political dissident' during a
speech before conservative activists outside of Washington</a>."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump comparing himself to Navalny was not the only moment of irony at the event. The photograph above shows Trump hugging and kissing the American flag. This is the same guy <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/09/donald-trumps-assertion-that-as.html">who has talked of suspending the U.S. Constitution, prosecuting his political enemies (contrary to the 14th Amendment and other provisions of law)</a>, and even talked of having a top U.S. military commander executed.That's some kind of patriotism, isn't it? From the <i>U.S. News</i> report:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Former President <a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>
cast November's presidential election as “judgment day” and declared
himself a “proud political dissident” during a speech before
conservative activists outside of Washington Saturday as he again
cloaked his campaign in religious imagery. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) ahead of his <a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-nikki-haley-south-carolina-primary-republicans-13237d287ce770e0a45e9bccee78e8ee">win in the </a><a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-carolina">South Carolina</a> Republican primary, Trump painted an apocalyptic vision of the future if President <a href="https://apnews.com/hub/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> wins a second term as the two prepare for an expected rematch election.</span></p></blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“For hardworking Americans, Nov. 5
will be our new liberation day. But for the liars and cheaters and
fraudsters and censors and imposters who have commandeered our
government, it will be judgment day,” he said to loud applause. “When we
win, the curtain closes on their corrupt reign and the sun rises on a
bright new future for America." (So, the guy who is facing four federal indictments, totaling 91 criminal counts, is claiming someone else is corrupt? That's rich. Did anyone in the CPAC audience even notice the irony?)<br /></span></p></div><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Trump also cast himself as a “proud political dissident” days after <a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-navalny-russia-putin-2024-indictments-71513abe8f128ab885d9d2382f92e9d6">comparing himself</a> to Russian dissident <a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-navalny-dead-opposition-leader-2d11644f7ae5332587b39150f1fd1738">Alexei Navalny</a>,
the top political opponent of Russia’s autocratic leader Vladimir
Putin, who died in a remote Arctic prison after being jailed by the
Kremlin leader.</span></p></div></blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p></p></div><blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“I stand before you today only as
your past and hopefully future president, but as a proud political
dissident. I am a dissident," he told the crowd.</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Do people buy this rhetorical sludge? At CPAC, where you apparently must turn off your brain before entering the building, people seem to buy it. Here is more from <i>U.S. News</i> on the atmosphere surrounding CPAC 2024:</span></p><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump was speaking at this year's CPAC gathering as <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-haley-biden-south-carolina-2024-campaign-6cd4466441aec9455f0254315c6a5db1">voters headed to the polls</a>
in South Carolina. The former president easily beat his last remaining
Republican primary rival, Nikki Haley, in the state where she served as
governor for two terms. While Haley has vowed to remain in the race
until next month's “Super Tuesday" — when more than a dozen states will
vote — Trump's campaign is hoping he can reach the delegate threshold to
clinch the nomination in March.</span></p><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Last year, Trump used his speech at CPAC to tell his supporters that his 2024 campaign would be one of “retribution.”</span></p></div><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“In
2016, I declared: I am your voice. Today I add: I am your warrior. I am
your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am
your retribution,” he said then.</span></p></div><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">This
time, he cast himself as a savior standing between his supporters and
near-anarchy as he spoke of “hoards of illegal aliens stampeding across
our borders," warned the country's social safety net and education
system would “buckle and collapse," and claimed that, “the gangs will be
invading your territory." (Trump is concerned about America's safety net? Isn't he the guy who has indicated <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/12/social-security-works/did-trump-say-he-will-terminate-social-security-if/">he wants to eliminate Social Security by ending the payroll tax that supports the program</a>. (America's seniors, supposedly a powerful voting bloc, want their Social Security benefits to vanish? That's what a vote for Trump is likely to get you. Have general-election voters given this stuff any thought? Republican primary voters obviously have not.)<br /></span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The <i>U.S. News</i> report continues:</span></p><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p></p></div><blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“These are the stakes of this
election: Our country is being destroyed and the only thing standing
between you and its obliteration is me," he declared, casting Biden's
leadership as “an express train barreling toward servitude and to ruin.”</span></p></div><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">”A
vote for Trump is your ticket back to freedom, it’s your passport out
of tyranny and it’s your only escape from Joe Biden and his gang’s fast
track to hell. And in many ways, we’re living in hell right now," he
said, adding that: “the unprecedented success of the United States of
America will be my ultimate and absolute revenge.”</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It should surprise no one that Trump, <a href="https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2023/12/donald-trump-takes-psychological.html">a chronic liar of epic proportions</a>, would resort to distortions and flat-out lies to describe the Biden record. <i>U.S. News</i> made sure to point out that Trump was lying to his audience. Here is some truth to chew on:</span></p><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p></p></div><blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Violent crime is, in fact, down nationwide, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/fbi-crime-report-violence-property-carjacking-murder-fa7c6e3879d3bf16f93bdfa42683b100">the most recent FBI statistics.</a> And despite public perception, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-poll-survey-economy-trump-election-dca1b60f6749d5eb50bc0e7600814855">recent data on the economy</a>
has shown that growth accelerated last year while inflation returned
closer to the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, proving wrong Wall Street and
academic economists who had been predicting a recession.</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Was anyone at CPAC interested in the truth? Probably not<i>. </i>After all, much of the rhetoric was based on a lie -- that Biden did not win the 2020 election fair and square -- and<i> U.S. News </i>takes pains to point that out</span></p><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p></p></div><blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">This year's CPAC conference has
featured a parade of Republican lawmakers and MAGA personalities who
have echoed Trump's attacks on Biden’s border policies, his handling of
the economy and Trump's assertion that the 91 felony charges he faces
across four separate jurisdictions are nothing more than a baseless
attempt by the Biden administration to damage his candidacy.</span> <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">There's no
evidence that Biden influenced the charges in any way.</span></span></p></div><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In
response to Trump's speech, Ammar Moussa, the Biden campaign's rapid
response director, called the former president a “loser.”</span></p></div><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">“Under
his presidency, America lost more jobs than any president in modern
history, women in more than 20 states have lost the freedom to make
their own health-care decisions because Trump overturned Roe, and the
MAGA wing of the Republican Party lost their damn minds putting Trump’s
quest for power over our democracy,” Moussa said in a statement.</span></p><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The lineup has featured a handful of
Republican vice presidential hopefuls including former candidate Vivek
Ramaswamy and U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, as well as foreign leaders like
El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, former British Prime Minister Liz
Truss, and the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-milei-cpac-argentina-biden-f8e97d401a13318f8cc55faf29021030">president of Argentina, right-wing populist Javier Milei.</a></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div class="Raw-slyvem-0 ijnuAG"><p></p></div></div></div>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-45574312668256813512024-02-25T16:13:00.001-06:002024-02-25T16:15:15.998-06:00Right-wing extremist Jack Bosobiec says he intends to help dump democracy and welcome theocracy, as Dan Rather is on hand to spotlight a political stunner<p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO0yBpiBYNZbnd_cC1sxbxEIT2Lz2BGl64QXHc83ubfEaYU7B-9xRvpAq5AjA-kmpqMnSlCysqRsKJwic5pWWo_T7wFSIUeKGXBFNlRAi4cRikbOUjjcycH1s17q1hiRZg8Fnnd9vIBGkR_zCw4HdL4Gl380x4m0wU2hk1Lg0IHCUWl4g2J4iQ4iuOefY/s768/Jack%20Pesobiec%20-%20CPAC24.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="768" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO0yBpiBYNZbnd_cC1sxbxEIT2Lz2BGl64QXHc83ubfEaYU7B-9xRvpAq5AjA-kmpqMnSlCysqRsKJwic5pWWo_T7wFSIUeKGXBFNlRAi4cRikbOUjjcycH1s17q1hiRZg8Fnnd9vIBGkR_zCw4HdL4Gl380x4m0wU2hk1Lg0IHCUWl4g2J4iQ4iuOefY/w400-h266/Jack%20Pesobiec%20-%20CPAC24.jpeg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jack Posobiec at CPAC 2024<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The annual CPAC confab, which was held over the weekend in Oxon Hill, MD, quickly became a contest to see who could be the loudest and most outrageous loon. Jack Posobiec, <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/splc-investigation-far-right-oann-anchor-jack-posobiecs-rise-tied-white-supremacist-movement">known for his extensive ties to white supremacy</a>, was the leader in the clubhouse after openly proclaiming that the driving goal behind the event was to overthrow democracy and replace it with a theocracy. The "Orange Menace" himself, Donald Trump, was scheduled to speak later in the event, so there was a chance he would catch Posobiec from behind. But openly admitting you intend to ditch democracy is one way to get attention, and Posobiec grabbed the opportunity with gusto -- even though his background suggests. he is probably not the best guy to be touting Christian principles.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Iconic newsman Dan Rather describes the Posobiec spectacle, reporting at his <a href="https://steady.substack.com/">"Steady" <i>Substack</i> page</a>, which has 299,000 subscribers. Rather writes:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">The annual Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC) is seldom
subtle. This year they aren’t just saying the quiet part out loud — they
are screaming it.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">At a panel session Wednesday, right-wing
conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec said without irony or sarcasm, “I just
wanted to say, welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to
overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on January 6,
but we will endeavor to get rid of it.” </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">He then held up a
Christian cross and added, “We’ll replace it with this right here.
That’s right, because all glory, all glory is not to government, all
glory is to God." Was the remark in jest? No. And the crowd knew it. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">His
comments got big applause and an “amen” from moderator Steve Bannon,
who, by the way, is set to stand trial in a New York state court for
fraud and money laundering in May and only escaped federal prosecution
because of a presidential pardon. As far as I have seen, no Republican
attendee denounced Posobiec’s comments. (I, <i>Legal Schnauzer</i>, would give Bannon an "amen" if he would take a bath every now and then.)<br /></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">When Posobiec waves a cross and claims to have insight on Biblical ideas, should you take him seriously -- should any sentient being take him seriously? Unless you equate the Bible with white supremacy, it probably would be best to ignore this loudmouth.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Leadership Conference (SPLC) describes Posobiec's rise in right-wing circles under the headline "<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/splc-investigation-far-right-oann-anchor-jack-posobiecs-rise-tied-white-supremacist-movement">SPLC Investigation: Far-right OANN Anchor Jack Posobiec’s Rise Tied to White Supremacist Movement</a>. From the SPLC investigative report:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">J<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jack-posobiec">ack Posobiec</a>,
a correspondent for <i>One America News Network (OANN)</i> <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">whose work has been
embraced by President Trump, collaborated for years with white
supremacists, neo-fascists and antisemites, a <i>Hatewatch</i> investigation
has determined.</span></span>
</p><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even"><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #01ffff;">Posobiec’s ties to
far-right extremists travel beyond borders into Europe. His connections
to white supremacy are too numerous to compile into one article, so
<i>Hatewatch</i> is running a series of stories on the correspondent’s ties to
the movement and promotion of it.</span> This first story in the series lays
out how Posobiec rose from being a pseudonymous <i>Game of Thrones</i> blogger
to <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">linking up with such white supremacists as Richard Spencer and a
neo-Nazi who endorsed terrorism while using the online handle
@PureWhiteEvil.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;">Posobiec, 34, described himself in his <i>Twitter</i> bio as being “fmr CBS
News” during chapters of his life detailed in this story. CBS News told
<i>Hatewatch</i> he never worked for them. At the time Posobiec introduced
himself to the public on <i>Twitter</i> as “fmr CBS News,” he promoted
now-infamous disinformation campaigns such as <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/anatomy-of-a-fake-news-scandal-125877/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">“Pizzagate.”</a> He built up a larger audience during this time, gaining more than 9,000 followers per month from September 2016 to March 2017.</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">Posobiec used <i>Twitter</i> to target Jewish journalists with antisemitic
hate. <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">His targets included CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, whose Polish family
survived the Holocaust during World War II. Posobiec also targeted a
group of journalists reporting on a press conference hosted by Peter
Thiel.</span> Three Jewish rights groups – the Anti-Defamation League, the
Simon Wiesenthal Center and Bend the Arc: Jewish Action – described
Posobiec’s behavior as antisemitic or condemned OANN’s relationship to
him after <i>Hatewatch</i> reached out for comment on this investigation. <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">The
full statements of those groups as well as additional evidence of
Posobiec’s antisemitic remarks can be found <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/07/08/twitter-gave-free-rein-jack-posobiec-publish-antisemitic-hate-and-disinformation">here</a>. . .</span></span>
</p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">On May 2, President Donald Trump praised Posobiec in a tweet: <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">“That’s
right Jack. Keep up the good work!”</span> Trump was referring to the OANN
anchor boasting on <i>Twitter</i> that the President reads his feed. <span style="background-color: #01ffff;">It was not
the first time Trump promoted Posobiec to his millions of followers. He
also did so on <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/15/trump-retweets-right-wing-provocateur-known-for-pushing-false-conspiracy-theories/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Aug. 14, 2017</a>,
two days after the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville,
Virginia. In the tweet Trump boosted, Posobiec commented on violent
crime commonly associated with Black suspects, comparing it to a white
supremacist murdering an antiracist demonstrator at the Charlottesville
event.</span></span> Trump also posted a self-promotional video to <i>Twitter</i> on May 16,
where he was depicted as being surrounded by his allies while he gives a
speech from the movie <i>Independence Day</i>. Posobiec’s face was included
in the video <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6893212-Posobiec-Trump-Meme.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> alongside Vice President Mike Pence. </a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;">Posobiec is on pace to reach one million <i>Twitter</i> followers by the end
of the year. He has nearly as many as the official account for OANN
itself. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Posobiec’s following and Trump’s endorsements help make him
arguably the most recognizable person linked to OANN’s brand. Critics of
President Trump have questioned his repeated praise of OANN.</span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">As for the rest of CPAC 2024, let's return to Dan Rather:</span><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">CPAC is the annual
four-day conference for extremist Republicans. In recent years it has
become a litmus test for MAGA bona fides and a place to show loyalty to
Donald Trump.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">You may be reading about Posobeic's appalling speech here
first because it seems many of my brethren in the media are not
reporting the story.</span> If you Google “CPAC,” you will get a few hits, but
it isn’t on the front page of any major news organization’s website.
Perhaps they think it is so outlandish that it isn’t worth reporting.
</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">But that is exactly the point. The right wing wants to topple our
democracy and replace it with Trump’s authoritarian rule. This is not
hyperbole. It is not fear-mongering. They are saying it. Out loud.</span> </span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If
you think Posobeic’s words were the only troubling moment at the
conference, you would be wrong. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">In another speech, Michael Knowles,
Trump’s spokesperson, said Trump will eliminate marriage
equality if he is re-elected. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Failed British Prime Minister Liz
Truss addressed the conference. “Unless conservatives become more active
in speaking out, Western civilization is doomed,” she threatened.</span> </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">In
contemplating all of this, you may want to consider one of my favorite
quotes from Maya Angelou: “When people show you who they are, believe
them the first time.” </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: large;">We are well past the first time. </span></p>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-75333354044751170362024-02-25T07:21:00.058-06:002024-02-25T07:21:00.149-06:00Earthquake Brewing: Trump Republicans show extremism has downsides, as they confoundingly continue to oppose issues the voting public supports<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhptGDKx-EqzGQQqHppp_whK_1jVtVIKQJLpDIJTDdm7HoAjggaeIJZvE3VMMzIgJl_M-X4tfyhLlbHpSv1IfPihCzPGgXhJe3EuhJgZ-H0yJPNTKxlfcnUI9Grt3D_0lwLlj9r744LDHGRzoZ0S4cbdddbpJLi8N1Qa-_LYOGwnoGxgftCKrBQzsfiiLs/s275/Tommy%20Tuberville%20-%20IVF.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhptGDKx-EqzGQQqHppp_whK_1jVtVIKQJLpDIJTDdm7HoAjggaeIJZvE3VMMzIgJl_M-X4tfyhLlbHpSv1IfPihCzPGgXhJe3EuhJgZ-H0yJPNTKxlfcnUI9Grt3D_0lwLlj9r744LDHGRzoZ0S4cbdddbpJLi8N1Qa-_LYOGwnoGxgftCKrBQzsfiiLs/w400-h266/Tommy%20Tuberville%20-%20IVF.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tommy Tuberville: Confused as usual.<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Weeks like this one could cost Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans at general-election time, according to a report at <i>Axios</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-lindsey-20052730/">David Lindsey</a>, the website's managing editor for politics, explains under the headline "<a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/24/trump-gop-extreme-maga-ivf-cpac-putin">Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November</a>." A big chunk of a potential roadblock originated in Alabama, Lindsey writes <span data-schema="smart-brevity"></span></span></p><p></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span data-schema="smart-brevity"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="former President Trump" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_self">former President Trump</a> and his fellow Republicans lose in November, weeks like this might be to blame. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><b>Why it matters:</b>
Trump is beloved by the Republican Party's MAGA base. But the far-right
stamp he's put on the GOP is bursting into view in ways that are giving
even some Republicans pause — and could complicate their push for the
swing voters they'll need in November.</span> <br /></span></p><p></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span data-schema="smart-brevity"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">By week's end,
Trump's GOP was tied to calling frozen embryos children, appeals to kill</span><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><span> </span></span><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">democracy, and giving Vladimir Putin a pass on targeting his enemies.</span><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><p></p></blockquote><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">It's
all giving Democrats another chance to cast MAGA Republicans as
extremists bent on destroying rights and traditions that most Americans
support. </span></li><li><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Zoom in:</b> A conservative <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/22/alabama-ivf-legal-uncertainy" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="Alabama court's ruling" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/22/alabama-ivf-legal-uncertainy" target="_self">Alabama court's ruling</a> that frozen embryos are children has prompted fertility clinics in the Republican-led state to <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/22/house-republicans-alabama-ivf-ruling" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="shut down" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/22/house-republicans-alabama-ivf-ruling" target="_self">shut down</a> out of fear of being prosecuted. </span></p></li><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Now Trump and <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/22/house-republicans-alabama-ivf-ruling" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="Republicans in Congress" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/22/house-republicans-alabama-ivf-ruling" target="_self">Republicans in Congress</a>
are scrambling to denounce the decision, which stemmed from a
Trump-orchestrated ruling they loved — the U.S. Supreme Court's
rejection of abortion rights under <i>Roe v. Wade</i>. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Trump, who frequently brags about appointing three of the justices who helped overturn <i>Roe</i>, on Friday <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/23/trump-ivf-alabama-2024-republicans" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="called on Alabama's legislature" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/23/trump-ivf-alabama-2024-republicans" target="_self">called on Alabama's legislature</a> to protect in vitro fertilization (IVF), the procedure the clinics performed.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>* <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">At <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.digital.cpac.org/" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="CPAC" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.digital.cpac.org/" target="_blank">CPAC</a></span></b><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">,
the annual conservative convention (now Trump-fest) just outside D.C.,
there were calls for a Trump-led end to America's democracy — and a move
toward a Christian state. "Welcome to the end of democracy!" online activist Jack Posobiec proclaimed</span> </span></p></blockquote><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">I<a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/posobiec-democracy-cpac-january-6-b2501566.html" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="in his speech" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/posobiec-democracy-cpac-january-6-b2501566.html" target="_blank">n his speech</a>.
Posobiec said, "We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way
there on January 6th, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace
it." <br /></span></li><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Trump was scheduled to speak there yesterday afternoon. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"> <br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">In trying to defend their opposition to issues that are popular with the voting public, Republicans created a mud puddle that they might find difficult to escape -- and, again, there is an Alabama connection to the GOP's self-inflicted wounds. Lindsey writes:</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Earlier this week, </b>the former president's reaction to the death of imprisoned Russian dissident <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/20/alexei-navalny-death-kremlin-investigation" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="Alexei Navalny" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/20/alexei-navalny-death-kremlin-investigation" target="_self">Alexei Navalny</a>
— comparing Trump's own legal situation to Navalny's, and declining to
call out Putin — drew heat from Democrats and Trump's GOP rival, Nikki
Haley.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">"Donald Trump is siding with a dictator who kills his
political opponents," Haley said at a rally ahead of today's GOP primary
in South Carolina.</span></p></blockquote><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Trump later called Nalvany's death
"horrible." But Haley, and President Biden's campaign, called the
episode a reminder of Trump's tendency to admire dictators.</span></li></ul><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>Between the lines:</b>
The fallout from the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling was top of mind for
many Republicans and Democrats on Friday, as the ruling's implications —
preventing many Alabama couples from being able to have children
through IVF — became apparent.</span></blockquote><p></p><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">After several days in which many Republicans avoided the issue, they rushed to make clear they want to protect IVF.</span></li><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) reflected some Republicans' confusion. He <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/23/tommy-tuberville-alabama-embryo-ruling" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="initially said" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/23/tommy-tuberville-alabama-embryo-ruling" target="_blank">initially said</a> he was "all for" the ruling, before his office said he was "in no way" in favor of clinics' decisions to halt IVF procedures.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">"Alabama
law needs to change," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told CNN. "The
Republican Party cannot be the party against family formation."</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">How are Democrats responding to the corner Republicans have painted for themselves? With a fair measure of glee, Lindsey writes:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b>The other side: </b>Democrats are in "I told you so" mode, blaming Republicans for stripping away reproductive rights favored by most Americans.</span></p><ul><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">House Democrats' main super PAC <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/23/house-democrats-attack-republicans-ivf-alabama" data-vars-content-id="450d52bd-8e0d-4190-9995-ff5a23ed1008" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-headline="Trump's GOP shows its extremism could be a problem in November" data-vars-item="in_content_link" data-vars-link-text="announced plans" data-vars-sub-category="story" href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/23/house-democrats-attack-republicans-ivf-alabama" target="_self">announced plans</a> to pour money into ads attacking Republicans in swing districts over the IVF ruling.</span></li><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">Biden's campaign unloaded on Trump. "Make no mistake, this is a direct result of the overturning of <i>Roe v. Wade</i>," Biden said in a statement late Thursday.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">"Trump
is responsible for 20-plus [state] abortion bans, restrictions on
women's ability to decide if and when to grow a family, and attacks on
contraception," Biden's campaign manager, Julie Chávez Rodríguez, said
in a statement Friday.</span></li><li><span style="background-color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;">"He proudly overturned <i>Roe</i>, and brags about it on the campaign trail."</span></li></ul><i></i>legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com0