Funereal Friday Reads: Life as a Dank Meme

Posted: April 26, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

The Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s immunity claim, John Buss, @repeat1968.

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

I got the cutest picture of the granddaughters today. The girls were smiling and looking at each other with adoration. Both were pretty in pink. All I can think of is what kind of country they may inherit.

I watched and listened to trials and hearings that were so surreal that I was pretty sure we’d entered the Evil Spock Timeline. I remember when the Supreme Court protected everyone’s rights. Now, rights are confined to those who brought the men there and paid for their holidays. It was like watching a Skeleton Dance. Not one TV Lawyer could find anything constitutional about the show they put on yesterday. We all laughed at him when he said,‘ I Could … Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn’t Lose Any Voters’ Evidently, he can do worse than that, and the Supreme Court would make up something to cover his farty, diapered ass.

This is a must-read from Slate: “The Last Thing This Supreme Court Could Do to Shock Us  There will be no more self-soothing after this.” This is written by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern. 

For three long years, Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises that when the rubber hit the road, even the ultraconservative Federalist Society justices of the Roberts court would put democracy before party whenever they were finally confronted with the legal effort to hold Donald Trump accountable for Jan. 6. There were promising signs: They had, after all, refused to wade into the Trumpian efforts to set aside the election results in 2020. They had, after all, hewed to a kind of sanity in batting away Trumpist claims about presidential records (with the lone exception of Clarence Thomas, too long marinated in the Ginni-scented Kool-Aid to be capable of surprising us, but he was just one vote). We promised ourselves that there would be cool heads and grand bargains and that even though the court might sometimes help Trump in small ways, it would privilege the country in the end. We kept thinking that at least for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, the voice of reasoned never-Trumpers might still penetrate the Fox News fog. We told ourselves that at least six justices, and maybe even seven, of the most MAGA-friendly court in history would still want to ensure that this November’s elections would not be the last in history. Political hacks they may be, but they were not lawless ones.

For three long years, Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises that when the rubber hit the road, even the ultraconservative Federalist Society justices of the Roberts court would put democracy before party whenever they were finally confronted with the legal effort to hold Donald Trump accountable for Jan. 6. There were promising signs: They had, after all, refused to wade into the Trumpian efforts to set aside the election results in 2020. They had, after all, hewed to a kind of sanity in batting away Trumpist claims about presidential records (with the lone exception of Clarence Thomas, too long marinated in the Ginni-scented Kool-Aid to be capable of surprising us, but he was just one vote). We promised ourselves that there would be cool heads and grand bargains and that even though the court might sometimes help Trump in small ways, it would privilege the country in the end. We kept thinking that at least for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, the voice of reasoned never-Trumpers might still penetrate the Fox News fog. We told ourselves that at least six justices, and maybe even seven, of the most MAGA-friendly court in history would still want to ensure that this November’s elections would not be the last in history. Political hacks they may be, but they were not lawless ones.

 On Thursday, during oral arguments in Trump v. United States, the Republican-appointed justices shattered those illusions. This was the case we had been waiting for, and all was made clear—brutally so. These justices donned the attitude of cynical partisans, repeatedly lending legitimacy to the former president’s outrageous claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. To at least five of the conservatives, the real threat to democracy wasn’t Trump’s attempt to overturn the election—but the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute him for the act. These justices fear that it is Trump’s prosecution for election subversion that will “destabilize” democracy, requiring them to read a brand-new principle of presidential immunity into a Constitution that guarantees nothing of the sort. They evinced virtually no concern for our ability to continue holding free and fair elections that culminate in a peaceful transfer of power. They instead offered endless solicitude for the former president who fought that transfer of power.

However the court disposes of Trump v. U.S., the result will almost certainly be precisely what the former president craves: more delays, more hearings, more appeals—more of everything but justice. This was not a legitimate claim from the start, but a wild attempt by Trump’s attorneys to use his former role as chief executive of the United States to shield himself from the consequences of trying to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. After so much speculation that these reasonable, rational jurists would surely dispose of this ridiculous case quickly and easily, Thursday delivered a morass of bad-faith hand-wringing on the right about the apparently unbearable possibility that a president might no longer be allowed to wield his powers of office in pursuit of illegal ends. Just as bad, we heard a constant minimization of Jan. 6, for the second week in a row, as if the insurrection were ancient history, and history that has since been dramatically overblown, presumably for Democrats’ partisan aims.

All this with the husband of an insurrectionist sitting on the bench.   I heard Nicole Wallace give the best explanation of anything I’ve heard on why these men act out their grievances in court decisions last night.  Two of the guys that sit on the bench are sex pests and were publicly shown to be so.  Alito is just perpetually mad at everything but mostly at being branded a bigot because he has issues with women and gay people.  His hateful take on religion basically focuses on controlling the objects of his hatred.  Protecting his religious practice means he should get away with whatever. Nicole Wallace argued that they love Trump because they are all angry and aggrieved.  They identify with Trump because they feel they’re in a similar situation.  Civil rights are all about not letting white boys be white boys.  They all want absolute immunity. We have to rely on Amy and John to be reasonable.  Amy’s line of questions actually gave me a bit of hope.

It’s a weird timeline for me to quote Bill Kristol and Andrew Egger. This is from the Bulwark. “ Trump Melts Institutions, SCOTUS Edition. The Supreme Court’s no-win situation and the healthy liberalism we need.”

… reading the tea leaves of oral arguments is always an exercise in guesswork. Hopefully SCOTUS won’t be long in unveiling their opinion on the matter.

But one other thing is worth saying: It’s completely understandable that so many people’s first instinct was to roll their eyes at the Court’s apparent interest in using this case to trace out the complex contours of any newly explicit presidential right to official-act immunity—given the remarkable hubris of Trump’s bringing those arguments in the first place.

After all, here’s a guy who, during his second impeachment, explicitly arguedthat prosecuting an ex-president was the role of the criminal courts: “a president who left office is not in any way above the law,” his lawyers argued, “as the Constitution states he or she is like any other citizen and can be tried in a court of law.”

Now Trump articulates just the opposite position: No act that is “official” in form—which, his lawyers have had to admit during arguments, would include such acts as ordering the military to carry out a coup—can be criminally prosecuted after he leaves office unless he was first convicted in an impeachment trial for that conduct. How any president enjoying such expansive power could ever be impeached by a Congress he could apparently order murdered without consequence remains unclear.

It’s a ridiculous exercise, a transparent stalling tactic. For Team Trump, just getting the argument in front of SCOTUS was a victory in and of itself, further diminishing the odds of a jury getting to rule on Trump’s stolen-election charges before the November election. “Literally popping champagne right now,” one lawyer close to Trump told Rolling Stonewhen the court announced it would consider the immunity claim in February. This week, RS quoted another Trump source that it hardly matters what the court does now: “We already pulled off the heist.”

At the same time, no matter how transparent Trump’s run-out-the-clock motivations in bringing the petition to the Court, it’s true that the claims of presidential immunity at hand have never been litigated. The justices are highly unlikely to endorse Trump’s theory that every presidential act that is official “in form” is exempt from prosecution—but are some presidential acts immune? What is the line between a president acting in his capacity as president and acting in his capacity as a candidate or private citizen? And could it be true—as Trump’s lawyers have argued—that opening up too broad a swath of presidential actions to post-presidency prosecution could hamper a president’s ability to run the country effectively?

Evidently, Kavanaugh’s love of beer causes him to be delusional and totally out of it.

One last SCOTUS send-up and I’m changing the topic.   This is from Adam Sewer, who is writing for The New Republic. ” The Trumpification of the Supreme Court. The conservative justices have shown they are ready to sacrifice any law or principle to save the former president.”

The notion that Donald Trump’s supporters believe that he should be able to overthrow the government and get away with it sounds like hyperbole, an absurd and uncharitable caricature of conservative thought. Except that is exactly what Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, taking the position that former presidents have “absolute immunity” for so-called official acts they take in office.

“How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer. “I think it would depend on the circumstances whether it was an official act,” Sauer said after a brief exchange. “If it were an official act … he would have to be impeached and convicted.”

“That sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan replied later.

The Democratic appointees on the bench sought to illustrate the inherent absurdity of this argument with other scenarios as well—Kagan got Sauer to admit that the president could share nuclear secrets, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor presented a scenario in which a president orders the military to assassinate a political rival. Sauer said that might qualify as an official act too. It was the only way to maintain the logic of his argument, which is that Trump is above the law

This Mike Luchovich cartoon is brutal and true.   I am shifting to the other SCOTUS shit show this week.  CNN has “Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over emergency abortions.” Again, thank goodness my youngest daughter is in Denver. Who knows what her outcome may have been? Dr. Daughter is getting more colleagues in Washington State because of Idaho.  Pregnant women are gestational containers there. This analysis was provided by Tierney Sneed and John Fritze.

In a Supreme Court hearing on the Biden administration’s challenge to aspects of Idaho’s strict abortion ban, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar sought to appeal to conservative justices who just two years ago ruled that states should have the ability to prohibit the procedure.

The dispute, stemming from the Justice Department’s marquee response to the high court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, turns on whether federal mandates for hospital emergency room care override abortion bans that do not exempt situations where a woman’s health is in danger but her life is not yet threatened.

To prevail, the Biden administration will need the votes of two members of the court’s conservative bloc, and with Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaling sympathies toward Idaho, the case will likely come down to the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. The two justices had tough questions for both sides of the case.

The court’s far-right wing, perhaps in an attempt to keep those two justices on their side, framed the case as a federal overreach into state power. The court’s liberals, meanwhile, focused on the grisly details of medical emergencies faced by pregnant woman that were not covered by the limited life-of-the-woman exemption in Idaho’s ban.

Follow the link to the list of take-aways.  While that craziness was going on in the District, we continued to be treated to the life and times of Tabloid targets and publishers.  Every time I tune into anything dealing with Trump, I feel like someone slipped me the brown acid.
How can one malevolent man be so universally dangerous and disruptive? Especially one so incredibly stupid!  Can we have a debate on who is more genuinely evil?  A to or Trump? Thomas is a stooge. Kavanaugh is a wingman. Gorsuch certainly is in the running for evil, but not the way Alito does it. Robarts is out of his league and likely to go down in shame as history judges him the least effective Chief Justice ever

So, back to Pecker and the man who has to pay for sex coming and going. There’s been a whole of objecting accompanied by “sustained.”

More will be coming once the print journalists get their stories in.  I wish I could be Pollyanna and play the glad game, but I can only come up with the bad news. We get to see this continually, which is also the thing I’m glad about.  I m  feel like a total masochist every time I turn the TV on or read a magazine article, but just think how awful it would be if we didn’t know about this. I’m not sure what will become of Donald, but I’m certain that we still have time to make certain he doesn’t get back into the White House.  We have time to stop the MAGAdons that want to clone that agenda into every state and the U.S. Congress. We’ll see and read nothing else but propaganda if we don’t stop them now.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Guess who John Prine wrote this about?

Mostly Monday Reads: Just Another Manic Monday

Posted: April 22, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Trump Trials and Tribulations, Ukraine | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

The Trump Legal Team is prepared to start the Manhattan Election Interference Trial and provide a robust defense against Donald’s continuing offenses. John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

Donald’s getting all the attention in the world right now, but is it the kind he really wants? My Saturday Night Last Walk with Temple, the Poland Avenue Greeter, usually means dog biscuits, scratchies, and attention from the locals sitting on the sidewalk outside the local bars. It’s fest season, so we’re filled with tourists. We met the most pleasant young women from Australia, England, and France! The conversation eventually turned to all the ado about Trump, as it ultimately does. We’re worried about you,” they said. “Nous sommes tellement inquiets pour toi.”  Happy Earth Day!

These folks come from countries where most of us have family members who fought beside their family members. My Father, John, fought in the skies of England and France; he was named after his Uncle John, who fought in the trenches of France and Belgium. I can say that I’m worried about us, too, as our electoral and judicial systems churn through all the detritus that Donald has put us through.

Timothy O’Brien knows Trump just about as well as anyone. He has written books about him and endured the ordeal of Donald dragging him through the court system. He won. This is his analysis for Bloomberg. Trump’s Trial Is the Reality Show He Never Wanted. he former president faces weeks of challenging witnesses and tawdry stories.” 

Prosecutors and defense attorneys will make opening statements today in a criminal fraud trial in New York that Donald Trump has tried mightily, and unsuccessfully, to delay.

He continuously savaged Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over the trial, and belittled the charges he faces. He mocked the jury selection process that consumed the case’s first week, and, when awake, appeared so determined to rattle prospective jurors that Merchan was forced to remind Trump that he wouldn’t “have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom.”

Trump’s allies at Fox News and on right-wing social media platforms put the court and jurors in their crosshairs as well. “This isn’t the pursuit of justice, it’s a political persecution that is tearing our country apart,” noted Vivek Ramaswamy, floating atop the flotsam of his failed presidential bid. Elon Musk, fashioning himself as a legal scholar, concurred. He told the 181.5 million people who follow him on X, the social media platform he owns, that “this case is obviously a corruption of the law.”

Jurors felt the heat. Some dropped out, saying they feared for their well-being. That’s a phenomenon usually confined in the US to mob or terrorism prosecutions, but in an era when a former president glowingly compares himself to “the great gangster” Al Capone, here we are. Still, scores of jurors were reviewed and by Friday 12 of them, along with six potential alternates, had been empaneled.

Even then, Trump’s lawyers took a final long shot. They asked a New York appellate court to delay the trial and change the venue because they felt that jury selection seemed rushed. The appellate court swatted down that effort in less than an hour. And now, with a jury seated, the fireworks start. Witnesses will testify, many of them well-known figures from Trumplandia. Trump himself may or may not take the stand.

Trump is veering from rage to petulance, and from slumber to intimidation, in the courtroom because he’s the star of a lurid Manhattan reality show he isn’t producing or directing. He doesn’t control the narrative and others are writing the scripts. And some of the scripts say nasty things about him, his sex life, his bookkeeping and his attempts to bury stories that might have derailed his 2016 presidential campaign.

A televised trial would show us much more about Trump than the sketch artists and people in the room where it happens can explain. Also, we know that televising that trial would put a lot of folks in danger, too. I’ve already seen potential jurors cower at the thought of Trump’s crazed cult and its obsession with guns and violence. I  hope their stories are having an impact. A  lot of our closest friends around the world are worried about us. We are concerned about us.

And he’s already asleep again.

Today, we will get transcripts of opening statements. We also saw Judge Marchan’s decisions on what the prosecution may present that could damage the defense case. Yesterday, we learned the first witness will be David Pecker of the National Inquirer. Doesn’t this feel like an ad for a reality show from Bizzaro World?

This is from the Washington Post’s live coverage. It is being continually updated. “Prosecution calls first witness in Trump hush money trial.”

Prosecutors on Monday called their first witness, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, in Donald Trump’s criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records to hide a hush money payment during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Pecker allegedly helped broker the payment as part of a “catch and kill” scheme to bury negative stories about Trump while he was running for president. Earlier in the day, the prosecution and defense lawyers delivered opening statements.

Dahlia Lithwick and Anat Shenker-OSorio have an interesting piece up at Slate. “The Trump Trial Is Already Influencing Public Opinion. Pundits are reading these shifts completely wrong—this is exactly the kind of movement that could determine the election.”

Four days in, and with the jury just selected, those in the commentariat class are already ready to offer their closing arguments in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Most of the naysayers are lawyers. Some of them doubt that Trump will be found guilty of even a misdemeanor, much less a felony, for his alleged crime of illegally offering hush money payments to hide an affair he had before the 2016 presidential election. They question the soundness of what they deem a rather novel legal theory—elevating the minor crime of falsifying records into the more serious charge of doing so in furtherance of another crime. Others are just exhausted. Our Slate colleague Richard Hasen, in the L.A. Times, declared, “I have a hard time even mustering a ‘meh.’ ” It’s understandable to feel jaded by what has been a yearslong process, with Trump seeming to evade accountability every time—but dismissing this case is precisely the category error that holds that what lawyers believe about legal verdicts is somehow predictive of political and electoral outcomes.

And it’s not just the lawyers. The pundits are also certain they know how the public will think about a trial that’s barely begun. They’re sure they understand how it will affect a vote that remains 200 days away, and they are bringing in survey data to back up their claims. ABC News thus declared, “The polls suggest that a guilty verdict would be unlikely to have a big influence come November,” citing as evidence the fact that “just 35 percent of independents and 14 percent of Republicans” believe that Trump is guilty in the New York criminal case. As further proof that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s efforts are going to be electorally inconsequential, they go on to reference a Quinnipiac poll showing that only 29 percent of voters would be less likely to support Trump upon a conviction in this criminal trial.

And, sure, all of these are in fact numbers, and they are indeed less than 50 percent, and, yes, we’ve been told many, many times that it takes that plus one to win an election. But this is where so many political analysts have either memory-holed how presidential elections actually work in the U.S. or are demonstrating that motivated cognition is one hell of a drug. Because for Trump to lose this election, it does not require over 50 percent of people to say that this trial would flip their vote. Many people are already absolutely determined not to vote for the criminal defendant. As in 2016 and 2020, the 2024 election will come down to margins of 1 or 2 percentage points in just six states. In this game of winner takes all, even by a hair, dropping “only” 9 percent of your base upon a Bragg conviction—as the most Trump-favorable poll testing the stakes of this case reports—means you would lose the election.

Thus, while it is absolutely the case that 36 percent of independents saying that a guilty verdict would move them away from Trump is less than the 44 percent saying it wouldn’t, when your vote total is presently neck and neck and electoral precedent says it will come down to the wire, you cannot afford to lose anyone, let alone over a third of the gettable voters. That 36 percent matters greatly.

And so, those who are dismissing the electoral consequences of this criminal trial by declaring that events in Manhattan over the next few weeks will merely animate Trump’s base—a base that will see this trial as yet more proof of the Deep State’s (™) persecution of their Lord—are also demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral math. You cannot mobilize the voters who are already absolutely voting for Trump to any greater heights. No matter how rabid their fury, and how bottomless their sense of shared grievance, they still get only one vote each—at least until they figure out how to commit the voter fraud they love to decry on a broader scale. The rank and file in the tank for MAGA cannot become more impactful.

Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon

Politico’s Erico Orden reports on the opening statements by the Defense. “Trump’s lawyer kicks off his opening statement to the jury with four words: ‘President Trump is innocent.’ And he said he’ll be referring to his client as “President Trump” because “he earned it.” Does this reek of white male entitlement, or is it just me?

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche began his opening statement with these words: “President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes,” he said, speaking slowly. “The Manhattan district attorney’s office should never have brought this case.”

Blanche told jurors that he and others would refer to Trump as “President Trump” because he “earned it.”

“We will call him President Trump out of respect for the office that he held,” Blanche said.

Blanche continued: “He’s not just our former president. He’s not just Donald Trump that you’ve seen on TV…he’s also a man, he’s a husband, he’s a father. He’s a person, just like you and just like me.”

As he spoke, Trump turned his body slightly in the direction of the jury box, the first time he has done so since the jurors entered the courtroom.

The People call Pecker. John Buss, @repeat1968

The New York Times reports this in its Live Updates. ” prosecutors Allege’ Criminal Conspiracy’ as Trump’s Trial Opens. David Pecker, the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer, will continue testifying Tuesday about what prosecutors say was a plot to cover up a sex scandal involving Donald J. Trump. The former president is charged with falsifying business records.”

I will try to keep an eye out to post the transcripts when they become available later today.

I would like to mention the vote in the House to provide continued support to Ukraine. This is from Reuters. “US  House advances $95 billion Ukraine-Israel package toward Saturday vote’.”

The U.S. House of Representatives advanced a $95 billion legislative package on Friday providing aid to Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific in a broad bipartisan vote, overcoming hardline Republican opposition that had held it up for months.

Friday’s procedural vote, which passed 316-94 with more support from Democrats than the Republicans who hold a narrow majority, advanced a package similar to a measure that passed the Democratic-majority Senate in February.

Democratic President Joe Biden, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell and top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries had been pushing for a House vote since then. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson had held off in the face of opposition from a small but vocal segment of his party.

In addition to the aid for allies, the package includes a provision to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, and sanctions targeting Hamas and Iran and to force China’s ByteDance to sell social media platform TikTok or face a ban in the U.S.

The legislation provides more than $95 billion in security assistance, including $9.1 billion for humanitarian aid, which Democrats had demanded.

If the House passes the measure, as expected, the Senate will need to follow suit to send it to Biden to sign into law.

Schumer on Friday told senators to be prepared to come back over the weekend if needed.

Wow. What a Newsday!   I promise to try to keep up with some updates!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Frantic Friday Reads: Tales of the Strange and Deranged

Posted: April 19, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

“Wake up call Sleepy Don”. John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

I thought I’d spend most of today’s post covering the antics and jury selection process in Trump’s Hush Money Case. However, there are also a lot of awful things coming out of the block of MAGA states down here on the Gulf Coast. Louisiana has joined the backwards-in-time parade, and it’s looking like we may soon be worthy of a Dickens novel.  Texas continues to prove that its women are chattel. But let’s start with The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. Today is the 4th day, and things are just weird.

First, we found out today that Donald has a babysitter who is paid $105k annually. She’s been sitting in court with a wireless printer, printing stories that will make him more optimistic and upbeat. She was sitting close to him, but the Judge made her move to the back. So, he wears diapers, takes naps, and has a nanny.  I wonder if she’s solved his ketchup tantrums yet.  I firmly believe a jury of his peers would likely be found in the toddler section of daycare.

Last night, the Judge’s fears of juror intimidation became real as Fox News broadcasted the workplace of the nurse that had been selected to serve earlier this week. The big complaint about her was that she had a master’s and lived on the east side with her boyfriend. That supposedly made her likely to be a liberal activist.  This is from The Daily Beast. “Jesse Watters Goes Juror by Juror to Sow Doubt in Trump Hush-Money Case. “I think at this point we can say: It’s not going to be an acquittal,” the Fox host reacted mere hours after seven jurors were selected.” This is reported by William Vaillancourt. The bottom line is that Fox News continues to be the flagship of the insurrection.

It didn’t take long after the general outlines of seven jurors in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial were made public Tuesday for Fox News host Jesse Watters to suggest that, based on that information alone, Trump wouldn’t be acquitted.

While on air Tuesday night, Watters went through each juror, whose identities will remain anonymous in light of the potential for threats directed at them.

The second juror, Watters described, is “a nurse from the Upper East Side with a Masters degree.”

“She’s not married, has no kids and lives with her fiancé who works in finance,” Watters said, chuckling for some reason. “She gets her news from The New York Times, Google and CNN.”

Two items in this juror’s questionnaire “really stuck out,” according to Watters: “‘I don’t really have an opinion of Trump,’ and ‘No one is above the law.’ I’m not so sure about juror No. 2,” Watters reacted, stopping short of explaining why. Watters later said vaguely that he found her to be “concerning.”

The Fox host then made a point to note that juror 3’s law firm “features DEI on its home page.” DEI, an acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion, has been a boogeyman for some on the right. Watters would make the same observation regarding the seventh juror, a lawyer whose firm, he claimed, “is big into DEI and ESG.” ESG, which relates to how companies score on environmental, social and governance metrics, has also been fodder for conservative criticisms.

“So that’s the jury of Trump’s peers so far,” Watters scoffed. “The fate of a billionaire real estate tycoon, TV celebrity-turned-45th president of the United States is in the hands of New York City lawyers, teachers and Disney workers who like to dance and get their news from the Times, but swear they can be impartial.”

When Watters introduced Fox News contributor Charlie Hurt, he began by blatantly sowing doubt over the jury pool.

The AP reported this last night after the Judge spoke to Ms Watters, who expressed concern when family and friends began to text her to ask if she was on the jury. “Judge in Trump case orders media not to report where potential jurors work.”

The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial ordered the media on Thursday not to report on where potential jurors have worked and to be careful about revealing information about those who will sit in judgment of the former president.

Judge Juan Merchan acted after one juror was dismissed when she expressed concerns about participating in the trial after details about her became publicly known.

The names of the jurors are supposed to be a secret, but the dismissed juror told Merchan she had friends, colleagues and family members contacting her to ask whether she was on the case. “I don’t believe at this point I can be fair and unbiased and let the outside influences not affect my decision-making in the courtroom,” she said.

Merchan then directed journalists present in the courthouse not to report it when potential jurors told the court their specific workplaces, past or present. That put journalists in the difficult position of not reporting something they heard in open court.

The jury has been seated with a replacement.  The last of the alternative jurors are being processed today. We could see opening arguments on Monday.

The most disturbing news of the week is coming from Republican Governors and legislatures who continue to push a White Nationalist Agenda.  We’ll get to the frightening examples in the news shortly.  I want to introduce the topic for those of you that we can mark safe from Republican Governors. Hence, you get an idea of the deranged laws becoming laws that are aimed at eliminating rights for the majority of people.  This is an Op-Ed by Jamelle Bouie in the New York Times today.

The U.A.W. is targeting 13 automakers — including Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, Volvo and Tesla — employing around 150,000 workers in 36 nonunion plants across the South. It faced the first major test of its strategy on Wednesday, when 4,300 workers at a Volkswagen factory in Chattanooga, Tenn., began voting on whether to unionize. The vote ends on Friday. If it’s successful, it will be a breakthrough for a labor movement that has struggled to build a footing in the South.

The mere potential for union success was so threatening that the day before the vote began, several of the Southern Republican governors announced their opposition to the U.A.W. campaign. “We the governors of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas are highly concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the U.A.W. has brought into our states,” their joint statement reads. “As governors, we have a responsibility to our constituents to speak up when we see special interests looking to come into our state and threaten our jobs and the values we live by.”

It is no shock to see conservative Republicans opposing organized labor. But it is difficult to observe this particular struggle, taking place as it is in the South, without being reminded of the region’s entrenched hostility to unions — or any other institution or effort that might weaken the political and economic dominance of capital over the whole of Southern society.

The history of Southern political economy is to a great extent a history of the unbreakable addiction of Southern political and economic elites to no-wage and low-wage labor. Before the Civil War, of course, this meant slavery. And where the peculiar institution was most lucrative, an ideology grew from the soil of the cotton fields and rice paddies and sugar plantations, one that elevated human bondage as the only solid foundation of a stable society.

“In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life,” Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina declared in an 1858 speech. “It constitutes the very mudsill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mudsill.”

A decade later and the slave system was dead, crushed underfoot by the armies of emancipation. The landowning Southern elites had lost their greatest asset — a seemingly inexhaustible supply of free labor. They would never regain it, but they would fight as hard as they could to approximate it.

With that, I give you the ClownFish of Lousiana’s latest workforce law.  “Louisiana lawmakers vote to remove lunch breaks for child workers, cut unemployment benefits. A House committee approved the bill along with others to reduce unemployment benefits and workers’ compensation wages.”  As BB said yesterday when I texted her this article,  this is positively Dickensian.

A Louisiana House committee voted Thursday to repeal a law requiring employers to give child workers lunch breaks and to cut unemployment benefits — part of a push by Republicans to remove constraints on employers and reduce aid for injured and unemployed workers.

The House Labor and Industrial Relations panel advanced the child labor legislation, House Bill 156, along with House Bill 119, which would slash the amount of time for which people can collect unemployment aid. A third bill the committee approved, House Bill 529, would change how workers’ compensation wages are calculated in ways that could reduce benefits received by some injured laborers.

The bills, which head to the full House, are part of a broad effort by Republicans to weaken labor unions and strengthen employers’ hands in Louisiana. They are aligned with steps other Republican-led legislatures have taken in recent years, and on Thursday, GOP lawmakers attributed the moves to Gov. Jeff Landry’s directive to “reform” the business environment and remove bureaucratic red tape.

First-term state Rep. Roger Wilder, R-Denham Springs, who sponsored the child labor measure and owns Smoothie King franchises across the Deep South, said he filed the bill in part because children want to work without having to take lunch breaks. He questioned why Louisiana has the requirement while other states where he owns Smoothie King locations, such as Mississippi, don’t have them, and criticized people who have questioned the bill’s purpose.

Evidently Louisiana Republicans do not want children to eat for some reason.  “The Breakdown: Summer meal options for kids, after Landry refuses EBT program.  In your Breakdown: what options are out there for summer meals for kids in need?”

Governor Jeff Landry just declined more than 70-million dollars in federal funding for the Summer EBT program. It’s a pandemic-era program that would have provided extra grocery money to the families of 600-thousand kids out of school for the summer.

Census data shows more than one in four Louisiana kids live in poverty.

And, Kentucky and Florida are now relaxing laws so that children work instead of going to school too.

The only thing these state Republicans accomplish is setting free Robber Barons to do the worst and making the lives of the rest of us intolerable. “Top employees at Louisiana environmental agency resign in clash with leader, an ex-Trump official. New top DEQ employees are resigning or transferring under Jeff Landry-appointed leader.”  They are also after a tenured professor who is an expert on Climate Change.

Four officials named to prominent positions at the state Department of Environmental Quality by Gov. Jeff Landry’s nascent administration have already left after clashing with Landry’s appointee to the agency’s top job, Aurelia Giacometto, according to interviews with senior aides and documents obtained by The Times-Picayune and The Advocate.

Senior officials who remain at the DEQ and who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal said the agency is also in turmoil over Giacometto’s insistence on pre-approving any contact made by employees with individuals in other state agencies, federal agencies, businesses and industries, and non-governmental organizations.

Giacometto’s actions may have caused delays in applying for and approval of federal grants worth millions of dollars, delayed routine inspections of numerous businesses for weeks, and may have violated employees’ rights to request leave under the federal Family Medical Leave Act, the aides said.

“During my two-week tenure, I witnessed numerous atrocities, with the most egregious being the harassment of longtime employees,” Chandra Pidgeon, who was undersecretary of the DEQ’s Office of Management and Finance, wrote in a March 1 resignation letter to Landry obtained by the news organization. Pidgeon did not respond to a request for comments on her letter.

Then, there’s Texas, again and Florida and North Carolina. “Emergency rooms refused to treat pregnant women, leaving one to miscarry in a lobby restroom.”  

One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.

Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.

The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.

The more you read about these states, the more frightening it gets.  Also, you should not think yourselves safe either because if they get back in control of the National agenda they will make these laws go national and there will be no reasonable Supreme Court to block them.   Think and vote local and encourage your friends and relatives to do the same.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

 

 

Mostly Monday Reads: Supreme Court Upends the Constitution, Again

Posted: April 15, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

“So it begins, a proud moment in our history. Another trump first. MAGA.” John Buss @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

I’m moving a little slow today. I woke up to Temple snuggled utterly beside me.  She usually sleeps down by my feet.  She stood up, looking like she was trying to assume the position, then darted off the bed. Fortunately, she got down there.  I spent the wee hours of the morning cleaning up the floor.  She seemed much better when we went for our morning walk, but dawn is always too early for me.  I’m used to lecturing and gigging at night.

I did check the phone.  BB had texted me this.  It totally changed my thoughts about what I share with you today.  Of course, I’d planned on covering one of the most historical trials in history, and we’ll get to that.  I’m not sure this excitement will start until after the jury is seated. However, it’s Trump, and who knows what the overgrown toddler will do. So, back to the matter at hand. This is from Vox’s Ian Millihiser. “The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states. It is no longer safe to organize a protest in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas.”

This is especially key down here.  #SCOTUS just decided that there is basically no right to protest in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. Welcome to the first massive step to undoing democracy. That follows up well with what the Louisiana D’ohvenor just did. If you see a peaceful protest, and it’s in your way, just slam the pedal to the floor and run right over them. That crime is allowed, but if someone sabotages your protest by throwing a rock. All bets are off, and the organizers pay for all damage.  Here are just some of those headlines.  “Louisiana could outlaw protests near residences, despite First Amendment concerns.”  This was written just 5 days ago when there were First Amendment Concerns.  Then there is this. “New legislation aims to offer protection to drivers who hit protesters that are performing road-blocking maneuvers. “GOP politicians across the US are proposing increased penalties for demonstrators who run onto highways and legal immunity for drivers who hit them.”

Baton Rouge, 2016. Jonathan Bachman/Reuters. This evidently isn’t protected speech now. 

So, forced birth advocates can do whatever shenanigans they want and be protected by some warped take on religious freedom and freedom of speech.  The rest of us may be liable for things others did that take away our freedom and strip us of all our assets.  This is from Ian’s analysis.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.

It is possible that this outcome will be temporary. The Court did not embrace the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision attacking the First Amendment right to protest, but it did not reverse it either. That means that, at least for now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is the law in much of the American South.

For the past several years, the Fifth Circuit has engaged in a crusade against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent figure within the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest near a Baton Rouge police station in 2016.

The facts of the Mckesson case are, unfortunately, quite tragic. Mckesson helped organize the Baton Rouge protest following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or similar object at a police officer, the plaintiff in the Mckesson case who is identified only as “Officer John Doe.” Sadly, the officer was struck in the face and, according to one court, suffered “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head.”

Everyone agrees that this rock was not thrown by Mckesson, however. And the Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that protest leaders cannot be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant, absent unusual circumstances that are not present in the Mckesson case — such as if Mckesson had “authorized, directed, or ratified” the decision to throw the rock.

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again.

Demonstrators marching in the street holding signs during the March on Washington, 1963 [Source: Library of Congress]

The fact that the outcome may be temporary does not preclude a chilling effect on the historical importance of demonstrations in U.S. History.  Think about the Boston Tea Party or the March on Washington Dr. Martin Luther King led.  Amy Howe, writing for SCOTUSblog has this analysis. “Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer.”

The case is one with which the justices were already familiar. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowed the officer’s lawsuit to go forward. Mckesson then appealed to the Supreme Court, where he argued that the lawsuit against him was barred by the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., which limited the NAACP’s liability for a nonviolent protest that it organized.

In November 2020, the court sent the case back to the 5th Circuit with instructions to seek guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court on whether state law would in fact allow Mckesson to be held liable.

After the Louisiana Supreme Court issued an opinion indicating that, under the facts alleged by the officer, a protest leader could be sued for negligence, a divided 5th Circuit issued a new opinion allowing the lawsuit to go forward. Doe had alleged, the majority wrote, that Mckesson had “organized and directed the protest in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk that one protester would assault or batter” the officer.

Judge Don Willett dissented from the panel’s ruling. He agreed that Doe “deserves justice” and should be able to sue the person who actually injured him. But he rejected the idea that Doe can sue Mckesson, arguing that the theory on which the majority relied was “foreclosed — squarely — by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.”

Mckesson returned to the Supreme Court last fall, asking the justices to weigh in. But after considering the case at seven consecutive conferences, the justices denied review.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a statement regarding the court’s decision to deny review. She noted that since the court of appeals issued its decision, the Supreme Court in Counterman v. Colorado “made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of an objective standard like negligence for punishing speech, and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as demanding a showing of intent.” Because the Supreme Court may turn down cases “for many reasons,” Sotomayor stressed, the denial of review in Mckesson’s case “expresses no review about the merits of” his claim. Moreover, she added, the court of appeals should “give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any future proceedings in this case.”

Demonstrator at the Vietnam Moratorium, 1969 [Source: Library of Congress]

Evidently, the right-wing judges in the case fear protestors at their steps more than they truly believe in the intent of the Bill of Rights.  It also makes me wonder about the protests on January 6.  Does this mean that everyone there can be sued for the resulting damage?  I guess I’m just going to have to wait to hear the legal minds talk about it on the News tonight. They’re already on overtime given the start of the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Case today.

As with all Trump Trials, the days before the trial began, we had more Trumpertantrums.  This is from Nick Robertson writing for The Hill. “Trump rages at judge hours before hush money case begins.” 

Former President Trump railed against the judge in his criminal hush money case early Monday, just hours before the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president is set to begin.

Repeating complaints he has made for months, Trump argued that Judge Juan Merchan is corrupt and the charges against him are political in nature and baseless, and he dubbed the entire effort a “witch hunt.”

“The Radical Left Democrats are already cheating on the 2024 Presidential Election by bringing, or helping to bring, all of these bogus lawsuits against me, thereby forcing me to sit in courthouses, and spend money that could be used for campaigning, instead of being out in the field knocking Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST President in the History of the United States,” he wrote in one early morning Truth Social post. “Election Interference!”

Trump’s criminal hush money trial will start jury selection Monday in Manhattan, where prosecutors claim the former president illegally covered up payments made to hide a previous affair during the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump also again denounced the gag order placed against him, which was expanded after he berated Merchan’s wife and daughter in prior social media posts.

“I want my VOICE back. This Crooked Judge has GAGGED me. Unconstitutional!” Trump wrote. “The other side can talk about me, but I am not allowed to talk about them! Rigged Trial!”

It is unclear if Trump will testify during the trial, though he is expected to attend it in person, including Monday’s session.

Sorry, dude, if you protest too much and damages result, you will have to pay for everything.  Ask your SCOTUS buddies.   The New York Times has live updates on its website today.

As the first criminal trial of an American president headed toward jury selection on Monday, the judge overseeing the case against Donald J. Trump once again declined to step aside, and prosecutors sought to punish the former president for possibly violating a gag order.

Before beginning the arduous process of choosing a jury for the landmark trial — on allegations that Mr. Trump falsified documents to cover up a sex scandal involving a porn star — the judge announced his decision to remain on the case, rejecting Mr. Trump’s latest effort to oust him.

Michael Tomasky has this delightful headline at The New Republic. “We May Finally Get to Write: “Convicted Felon Donald Trump.” The former president’s lawlessness has dodged many an obstacle over the years, but he’s facing a new challenge now: a jury of his peers.”  Tomasky asks my favorite question, and I am paraphrasing.  How the fuck does Trump get away with all of this continually?

We’re finally here. This week, Donald Trump will sit in a courtroom and face criminal charges. The courtroom has not been kind to Trump this year: A Manhattan jury found the Trump Organization guilty on 17 counts of tax fraud last December, and E. Jean Carroll won that hefty judgment against Trump for sexual abuse, but these were civil proceedings. So mark this down as the week the criminal justice system finally managed to haul Trump before the bar of justice.

The only real question here is why this took so long. It’s not as if it wasn’t obvious in 2015 that Trump had total contempt for the law. That was easy for all to see. How has he gotten away with it for this long?

It’s partly due to an utterly docile Republican Party, whose leaders know very well that Trump’s a brigand but are afraid to say so. It’s partly Trump’s reliance on an old Roy Cohn legal strategy—delay, deny, accuse the other side of what you yourself have done, conjure up totally fictional defenses that should be laughed out of court but at least slow down the proceedings. And conservative judges have played their role, such as Aileen Cannon and the U.S. Supreme Court.

But crucially, this is also a media story—more precisely, it’s the story of our two medias, the mainstream and the right-wing. The mainstream media have consistently held Trump to a lower standard of behavior than other politicians, and the right-wing media have held him to no standard of behavior, making excuses for everything.

It’s so important to understand this phenomenon. We have two medias in this country. One wakes up every morning looking for a fight, and the other, with some exceptions, wakes up every morning looking for nuance and rationalizations. It’s a huge part of the story of how we got here.

Take this now completely forgotten tale from the very early days of the Trump administration. On January 24—Trump’s fourth day in office—then–national security adviser Mike Flynn was interviewed by the FBI about his Russia connections. On January 26 and 27, Sally Yates of the Justice Department told the White House about her department’s suspicions about Flynn.

That same night of January 27—the first week of his presidency—Trump had dinner with then–FBI director James Comey. The FBI was investigating Flynn. It was also, we learned shortly thereafter, investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign.

What was said at that dinner? We don’t know everything, but that May, Trump admitted that he asked Comey if he, Trump, was under investigation. The mere asking of the question, as Lawrence Tribe said at the time, was a high crime and misdemeanor—an attempt to intimidate and to obstruct justice.

That should have launched a congressional investigation at the very least. But the Republicans controlled the House at the time, so that wasn’t going to happen. In fact, then-Speaker Paul Ryan came out and called Comey compromised, backing Trump all the way.

And the media? Oh, it was a story all right, I wouldn’t deny that it was. But while I haven’t done a content analysis, I’d bet you that Bill Clinton’s tarmac visit with Loretta Lynch inspired more outrage in both medias than this episode did. Naturally, I’m not defending what Clinton did. But he was an ex-president with no power over Lynch. Trump was the sitting president will all power over Comey—which he exercised that May by firing him.

This is one of dozens of examples in which Trump flagrantly violated norms and standards. It made a little stink for a moment or two, but it eventually faded away, quietly departing the front pages, blending into the blurry background of half-remembered Trumpian lies and outrages that have proven to be too numerous for the media watchdogs to actually keep track of, leaving one feeling overwhelmed.

That’s why this week is different. This, finally, is a court of criminal law. There will be facts submitted for the record. There will be testimony, under oath. And eventually, in an estimated six weeks or so, there will be a verdict from a jury of Trump’s peers.

Let’s hope just does, in fact, prevail.  I’m not a lawyer, so I must listen to them. However, I should know about equities, as I’ve never seen anything like this before.

I have no words about this last move on DJT stock other than, what is wrong with NASDAQ and the people holding this stock?  It already has a negative P/E ratio, and you want to further decimate shareholder value?  At the very least, it’s unethical, but is this legal? This is from CNBC.  Kevin Breuninger has the analysis. “Trump Media shares plunge more than 15% after company files to issue additional DJT stock.”   This plan sounds fishy and appears based on allowing Trump to cash out when allowed.  The use of warrants here is legal but off.  People need to dump this stock quickly and learn a lesson or fifty.

Shares of Trump Media plunged more than 15% on Monday after the company filed to issue millions of additional shares of stock.

Trump Media’s dramatic slide came as Donald Trump sat in a Manhattan courtroom for the start of his criminal trial on hush money-related charges. Trump is the majority stakeholder in the company.

Trump Media, which created the Truth Social app and trades under the stock ticker DJT on the Nasdaq, fell nearly 20% last week.

Since the company began public trading on March 26, its share price has fallen more than 62%, from an opening price of $70.90 that day down to around $27 on Monday.

As a result, its market capitalization has been slashed by nearly $6 billion, leaving it at around $3.7 billion as of Monday.

The company’s intent to issue more common stock was disclosed in a preliminary prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The shares cannot be issued until a registration statement with the SEC takes effect.

The filing describes a plan to offer more than 21.4 million shares of common stock, issuable “upon the exercise of warrants,” the filing shows. Stock warrants give their holder the ability to buy shares at a predetermined price within a certain time frame.

Trump Media predicted in the filing that it will receive “up to an aggregate of approximately $247.1 million from the exercise of the Warrants.”

The closing price of Trump Media’s warrants was $13.69 as of Friday, according to the filing. The warrants are being traded on the Nasdaq under the ticker “DJTWW.” That ticker was down more than 8% as of 11 a.m. ET.

The company also seeks to offer the resale of up to 146.1 million shares of stock from “selling securityholders,” 114.8 million of which are held by Trump himself. Trump owns 78.8 million shares of the company, and stands to obtain 36 million “earnout shares” if the stock stays above $17.50 for enough trading days.

Trump’s current stake in the company — nearly 60% of its shares — was worth more than $2.2 billion at Monday morning’s share price. Trump is not allowed to sell his shares until a six-month lockup period expires.

So, another week under the glare of the Orange Crashing Meteor.  Please let all of this end so we can return to being the country we should be.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Finally Friday Reads: What’s a democracy to do?

Posted: April 12, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

“You know, when the jury is seated, Trump won’t be able to contain himself.” John Buss, @Repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

We’ve had incredibly stormy weather down here this week. Almost all the streets a few blocks downhill from me flooded, and Uptown became a surfing safari. Even City Hall was closed for the day. The winds were wild. A tornado severely damaged a small city on the North Shore close to the Mississippi Border. Fortunately, I had just bought groceries, and the electricity stayed on. It was a good week to just read a book in many ways. This weekend is the quiet before the next storm. It’s a named storm like many that go into the history books. It’s officially entitled “The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump.” We all know it as the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Case.

The first place to check to get the facts of the case as we know it is Forbes Magazine. Staff writer Alison Durkee has a bulleted timeline to highlight everything known to date. “Trump And Stormy Daniels: What To Know About Hush Money Saga That Led To Ex-President’s First Criminal Trial.”

Former President Donald Trump will go on trial in Manhattan next week as he faces felony charges for falsifying bank records—the first of his criminal cases to go to trial—which will mark the culmination of a yearslong saga stemming from his alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels and a “hush money” payment made during his 2016 campaign to keep her quiet.

Kristal did not want to hear any news yesterday afternoon. I imagine a lot of us are Kristal.

This is a historical trial. He’s the first Former President to be criminally indicted. Trump faces 34 felony charges of falsifying business records in the first degree. These charges carry a maximum sentence of 136 years if convicted on all counts. Since Trump is a criminal defendant on parole, he must attend court daily. Unless they can sedate him with tranquilizers that would stun an elephant, I doubt he can hold it together. You see, my friend John agrees with that assessment. The list of witnesses is trickling out through the media. This is from MSNBC.

NBC News obtained a list of potential witnesses for the prosecution in Trump’s hush money trial. The list includes Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Michael Cohen, and Hope Hicks among other Trump associates.

Politico has a long story today about Michael Cohen and his testimony next week. “Michael Cohen on the Trump Trial: Prepare To Be Surprised. Trump’s former attorney on the hush money trial, how he’s preparing for life as the key witness and who he expects Trump will choose as a 2024 running mate.” Ryan Lizza interviewed Cohen, which is the central part of the article.

Trump’s defense is going to be to paint you as an untrustworthy witness. He’s going to cite your guilty plea for lying to Congress, and the fact that the Justice Department declined to offer you a cooperation deal because prosecutors thought you lied to them. And he’ll say you’re out for revenge and that you have a financial incentive to see him convicted. So how do you defend yourself from those accusations?

I wish that when people state that “you lied to Congress,” that you’d do me the courtesy — do yourself the courtesy — of finishing the sentence. What is the sentence? That I had done that, really, for the benefit of Donald J. Trump. And that lie centered around the number of times that I had stated that I spoke to Donald about the failed Trump Tower Moscow real estate project — in conjunction with other lawyers Jay Sekulow, Abbe Lowell, Ty Cobb, with other individuals like Alan Garten or Ivanka [Trump] and Jared [Kushner]. Everybody worked on that statement. I was just the fool who went ahead and read it into the record and submitted it. But what benefit did I have in terms of saying three times versus 10? That’s the lie: That I claimed to have spoken to Donald three times about the failed Trump Tower Moscow real estate project, when the true answer was 10.

I appreciate you putting it in context. With these other accusations, is that the way you approach it: You put those things in context for the jury so that they understand them, and what sounds like a dramatic allegation can be defanged?

Absolutely. There is a ton of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation that has been put out there by Trump and acolytes literally since the Steele dossier. We all know that the Steele dossier was completely inaccurate, as it related to me. I don’t even talk about any of the other allegations raised in that garbage document.

Hey, look what I found on the side of the street while walking Temple. You’d think gold spray paint and a Sharpie signature would last longer!

Can you imagine the energy in that courtroom when he takes the stand, and Trump has to just sit there? So, most of us know the basis of this story and have been pummeled by it for such a long time. I might as well go to that level since so many of these concerns are about killing tabloid stories. This is the first time I’ve seen someone get the dirt on Melania’s reaction to the allegations. This is from HuffPo. It’s reported by Ed Mazza. “Ex-Aide Reveals What ‘Humiliated’ Melania Trump Did After Stormy Daniels News. Stephanie Grisham also explained why the ex-president is probably “quite worried” about his wife right now.”

A former aide to Melania Trump said former President Donald Trump’s looming trial in the Stormy Daniels hush money case could be causing some stress in their marriage.

“I spent a ton of time with her when the news was breaking about Stormy Daniels,” Stephanie Grisham said on CNN on Wednesday. “And she didn’t take it lightly at all.”

Daniels claimed to have had an affair with Trump from 2006-2007, while Melania Trump was caring for the couple’s then-infant child. Grisham said separate allegations of an affair with Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal also led to tensions in the White House.

“We went to the State of the Union separately. She refused to walk out to Marine One with him because she didn’t want to be like Hillary Clinton and standing by her man,” said Grisham, who was chief of staff to the then-first lady before becoming White House press secretary under Donald Trump. “She’s a very independent and strong woman.”

She said she believed Melania Trump would “push” her husband to go on the witness stand during the hush money trial, which is set to begin next week, to defend himself in public.

“This is very, very embarrassing for her. It’s humiliating for her,” she said. “And I can guarantee you that she’s not happy right now and that he’s quite worried about that.”

You may watch the video here on CNN. Frankly, I just couldn’t get past the Botox lips. While this is all historical, sensational, and tacky, I still have this question. The analysis is also from Politico. It’s provided by James Romoser. “How Donald Trump Gets Special Treatment in the Legal System. The former president rails against a “two-tiered system of justice.” But he’s the one benefiting from it.” This is what my Inquiring Mind wants to know.

A firebrand politician named Donald is about to stand trial. Just a few days before jury selection, he goes on TV to slam the charges as baseless and biased.

“The FBI and the Justice Department,” he insists, have “targeted” their political opponents in a burst of partisan persecution.

The rhetoric sounds familiar, but this is not a story about Donald Trump. It’s about a man named Don Hill, a former Dallas City Council member who was facing bribery charges 15 years ago.

The telltale clue that this isn’t about Trump is what happened next: The judge, upset by the attempt to taint the jury pool, slapped the politician-turned-defendant with criminal contempt and ultimately sentenced him to 30 days in jail for violating a gag order.

Today, Trump routinely spouts invective far more inflammatory than anything Hill said. He denigrates prosecutors. He lies about his cases. He vilifies the judges overseeing them — and then vilifies their wives and daughters, too. Yet Trump has never faced the swift repercussions that were imposed on Hill — and are routinely imposed on other defendants in America.

Instead, Trump gets special treatment.

“I can’t imagine any other defendant posting on social media about a judge’s family and not being very quickly incarcerated,” said Russell Gold, a law professor at the University of Alabama.

As Trump prepares to begin his first criminal trial on Monday in New York, the tolerance of his tirades is perhaps the most glaring sign of the judicial system’s Trump exceptionalism. But it’s far from the only example. Over the past year, in ways large and small, in criminal cases and civil ones, Trump has consistently been given more freedom and more privileges than virtually any other defendant in his shoes.

Some judges in Trump’s cases may have afforded him unique leeway in hopes of avoiding any appearance that they are meddling in the 2024 campaign. Indeed, Trump’s role as a presidential candidate — one who is always eager to play the martyr — complicates the task of prosecutors and judges eager to lower the temperature of the proceedings. Penalizing Trump before he’s ever convicted of anything could stir a backlash and trigger more heat, not less.

Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon

The central question to every discussion I have with anybody concerning Trump and his trial antics is, How The FUCK does this guy get away with it? The interesting analysis this week that Kristal avoided was the comparison between OJ Simpson’s epic trial and Trump’s endless trials. The answer is, “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” It took me a while to determine the resounding difference between my black and white colleagues’ reactions to the trial verdict as we watched its announcement in our corporate lawyer’s office. It was, for once, the system did to a rich black guy (football star, football announcer, and movie star) what they always do for rich and famous white men. OJ had an excellent lawyer and the prosecutors weren’t up to the challenge.

The jury saw the opportunity to make a point. Johnny Cochrane was a well-paid and extremely brilliant lawyer who knew how to do his job. I can’t say Donald will have that exact representation. Kaitlin Collins at CNN has this story. “Trump attorney who became a crucial witness against him has departed legal team.” OJ eventually got caught doing more crimes and did time. Will one of these criminal suits put this asshole in jail please?

More from Romoser.

But even in the civil fraud case — which by all accounts was a devastating loss for Trump and his businesses — there were nonetheless signs of special deference. Justice Arthur Engoron, who oversaw the trial, was extraordinarily tolerant of Trump’s courtroom antics and outbursts. During a day of testimony in November, Trump essentially converted the witness box into a campaign stump — a privilege few other witnesses would receive.

Engoron ultimately issued the nearly half-billion-dollar penalty, and Trump seemed headed toward a financial crisis when he was unable to secure a bond to stave off the immediate enforcement of the verdict.

But after Trump complained to a New York appeals court, a panel of judges intervened with an unexpected 11th-hour reprieve, issuing a terse, unexplained order that sharply reduced the bond amount that Trump had to post while he appeals the verdict. The decision ensured that Trump wouldn’t have to start selling off assets and that James couldn’t start seizing them.

The American legal system is currently undergoing a Trump-induced stress test, one that will only intensify when Trump’s Manhattan trial begins on Monday.

Each day, during breaks in trial, he’ll stand in the hallway outside the courtroom and denounce the charges. He’ll continue to test the bounds of the gag order that the judge in the case, Justice Juan Merchan, recently imposed. He may even mutter “witch hunt” within earshot of jurors, as he’s done before.

Voters will be watching. So will the prosecutors in his other criminal cases — all of whom are trying, but so far failing, to bring him to trial before Election Day. Those prosecutors have left unsaid the reason why the timing matters so much, but everyone involved knows it: If Trump is elected president again, all pending criminal cases will stop in their tracks.

This is an extremely long article, but it is definitely worth reading. It capsulizes everything most of us have been wondering about these long Trump-filled years. One more Trump Trial note, and I’m off for the weekend. This is from The Daily Beast and reported by Jose Pagliery. “Trump Bond’s Cayman Connection ‘Stinks to High Heaven.’ The company that saved Donald Trump with a $175 million bank fraud bond is playing an insurance game that has experts questioning whether New York will ever see the money.”

When the questionably leveraged company that rescued Donald Trump with a last-minute $175 million court bond insured itself with its own parent company, it raised concerns about how the company was playing with its finances.

But now, as even more details come out about that parent company—particularly that it’s based in the Cayman Islands, a notorious tax haven—the concerns are just piling up.

Former industry regulators and investigators told The Daily Beast that Knight Specialty Insurance Company being financially backed by a firm based in the Cayman Islands should raise eyebrows at the New York AG’s office—particularly because companies frequently organize in the Cayman Islands not just to avoid taxes, but also to minimize visibility into its business practices, avoid more stringent U.S. regulations, and make liability harder should things go wrong.

All of those concerns could come into play if the New York Attorney General has to chase the company down for the money Trump currently owes for committing bank fraud.

“This just stinks to high heaven,” said Dave Jones, who oversaw the nation’s largest insurance market as California’s insurance commissioner for seven years until 2018.

“Taken in its totality, this dog does not hunt. Along every step of the way, this purported bond is problematic. It’s just one issue after another that calls into question whether this bond could ever possibly satisfy the judgment,” said Jones, who’s now the director of the Climate Risk Initiative at University of California Berkeley.

Former regulators described a potential worst-case scenario: Trump loses his bank fraud case on appeal and refuses to pay, the insurance company can’t actually come up with the money, and the New York Attorney General runs into problems chasing after a second company that never explicitly promised to pay this particular court judgment—and is based in a little-regulated foreign jurisdiction in the Caribbean Sea.

“The risk here is the company will not have the liquidity to pay on the bond when demanded, and the beneficiary of this bond, the New York AG, may not have a direct claim against the reinsurer,” said former New York Department of Financial Services superintendent Maria Vullo. “That the reinsurer is in the Cayman Islands compounds this issue as it is a non-U.S. jurisdiction, which makes collection very difficult.”

These rich assholes usually do not come by their money with ethical businesses. So, why do we expect them to play by the book? Here’s another one that should be thrown in jail. “Leo rejects Senate subpoena from panel probing gifts to Supreme Court justices. The conservative judicial activist called the move ‘politically motivated,’ and the committee chair said Leo had left them ‘no other choice’ but to move forward with the compulsory process.” This is from Washington Post writer Tobi Raji.

The Senate Judiciary Committee sent a subpoena Thursday to conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo as part of a months-long inquiry into undisclosed gifts to Supreme Court justices and he promptly rejected it, calling the move “politically motivated.”

“I am not capitulating to his lawless support of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and the left’s dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition,” Leo said of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the committee’s chairman, in a statement to The Washington Post.

The committee voted along party lines on Nov. 30 to authorize subpoenas for Leo and Texas billionaire Harlan Crow following reports that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomasand Samuel A. Alito Jr. accepted — and did not disclose — free luxury travel and gifts from Crow, Leo and conservative donor Robin Arkley II.

Crow did not receive a subpoena Thursday, his spokesman Michael Zona told The Post.

In a statement to The Post, Durbin said sending a subpoena to Leo was a necessary step.

“Since July 2023, Leonard Leo has responded to the legitimate oversight requests of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a blanket refusal to cooperate,” Durbin said. “His outright defiance left the Committee with no other choice but to move forward with compulsory process. For that reason, I have issued a subpoena to Mr. Leo.”

“Mr. Leo has played a central role in the ethics crisis plaguing the Supreme Court and, unlike the other recipients of information requests in this matter, he has done nothing but stonewall the Committee. This subpoena is a direct result of Mr. Leo’s own actions and choices,” Durbin continued.

First, they eliminate campaign finance law, and then the dark money warps the system. Welcome to the hell wrought by Leonard Leo and his Federalist Society buddies.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

And in Uptown New Orleans

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →