I overslept today, and I’m just getting going a 1PM Eastern. Today, I’m going to look at fallout from the strange and embarrassing Republican response to Biden’s SOTU by Alabama Senator Katie Britt.
The photos are of cats who live with my brother John (I don’t have cats of my own anymore, sadly), Dakinikat and JJ–Skydancing cats!
“What the hell am I watching right now?” an unnamed Trump adviser told Rolling Stone.
“It’s one of our biggest disasters ever,” another unnamed Republican strategist told the Daily Beast.
Delivering the official State of the Union response can be a thankless task, as the former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and the Florida senator Marco Rubio, deliverers of previously panned speeches, would ruefully attest.
Nonetheless, the 42-year-old Alabama senator is a rising Republican star, widely respected on Capitol Hill and her selection to respond to Biden was a golden opportunity to introduce herself to the wider American electorate.
Another view of Pepper.
In his address Biden used his bully pulpit effectively, attacking Republicans in a fiery speech and inviting a strong response. But Britt’s speech, delivered with overt theatricality, oscillating in tone between the wholesome and the wholly horrific, did not land well even in her own party.
Charlie Kirk, founder of the far-right Turning Point USA youth group, said: “I’m sure Katie Britt is a sweet mom and person, but this speech is not what we need. Joe Biden just declared war on the American right and Katie Britt is talking like she’s hosting a cooking show, whispering about how Democrats ‘dont get it’.”
That pointed to widespread confusion over the setting for such a figure to give such an important speech: a kitchen.
As a Gallup poll showed 57% of American voters think the US would be better off if more women were in elected office, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a Trump aide turned never-Trumper, said: “Senator Katie Britt is a very impressive person … I do not understand the decision to put her in a KITCHEN for one of the most important speeches she’s ever given.”
Speaking to CNN, Griffin added: “The staging of this was bizarre to me. Women can be both wives and mothers and also stateswomen, so to put her in a kitchen, not at a podium or in the Senate chamber where she was elected after running a hard-fought race, I think fell very flat and was completely confusing to some women watching it.”
Don’t adjust your television. What we saw wasn’t an AI deepfake. That was Katie Britt. That speech happened.
But don’t call it real.
The junior Senator from Alabama gave up being genuine a while back, and on Thursday night, her phoniness rose to the surface in full view of millions of Americans.
One of Dakinikat’s three cats, Cristal.
There’s nothing I can quote from Britt’s speech that can convey the strangeness of it — the mismatched emotions, the smiles in the wrong places, the jaw clenched when it shouldn’t have been — just the indescribable weirdness. It was something that had to be seen, but even then, couldn’t be understood — like postmodernism, avant-garde performance art or an involuntary behavioral science experiment.
It was supposed to be a rebuttal to the State of the Union, but the best argument for Britt’s success was that, after it was over, no one was talking about Joe Biden’s speech.
Katie Britt glitched out on national television and left millions of Americans asking what the heck they just watched….
All she had to do was look into the camera and read, but she tried to do more. Too much more. Her handlers attempted to brand this political newcomer as “America’s mom,” but instead, she came off as the aunt who’s been spending too much time on Facebook, and if you don’t change the subject soon, she’s going to tell you about sex dungeons beneath the pizza parlor.
Britt implied also that the woman had confided the story to her and that the events had occurred during President Biden’s administration.
But reporter Jonathan Katz, in a lengthy video posted to social media, connects the dots on the story, and it appears Britt lied: The woman has told her story many times publicly, including to Congress; the events didn’t occur in the United States; and they happened during George W. Bush’s presidency.
“When I first took office, I did something different,” Britt said. “I traveled to the Del Rio sector of Texas, where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me.
“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.”
She added: “The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoebox of a room, and they sent men through that door, over and over again, for hours and hours on-end.”
WordPress won’t let me post Tweets but you can watch the video at the link above. It’s long but important.
Fellow MOMS, if you are like me, you lie awake at 2 a.m., wondering how you can BE in three places at once: this KITCHEN, the Senate and the opening monologue of a Purge movie. But you see, we CAN do it, by WHISPERING slowly with an intensity usually reserved for WASP moms trying to prevent their daughters from making a SCENE in the J. Crew fitting rooms. (We’re not LEAVING yet PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER.) I am delivering these remarks in a WAY that makes you think this isn’t ACTUALLY my kitchen and I’m not SUPPOSED to BE here, but no one has dared REMOVE me because I am SPEAKING in a TONE that makes the PROSPECT of interrupting me TOO FRIGHTENING!
Two of JJ’s cats. She will have to supply their names. Aren’t they cute?
JOE BIDEN is DITHERING and DIMINISHED! I am striking a CLEAR contrast by delivering my RESPONSE at a speed at which I cannot speak NORMALLY but must ENUNCIATE each WORD with the intensity of someone reading a PRAGER U text aloud at an OPEN CALL AUDITION. Usually WORDS delivered in this TONE are delivered at a VOLUME that makes them impossible to HEAR, and you have to GUESS them from the expression on the SLOWLY FALLING face of the customer service EMPLOYEE at whom they are DIRECTED!
NO you CANNOT access the fridge right now SWEETIE! I am GRAPHICALLY RECOUNTING A HORRIFIC ACCOUNT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT in a HUSHED WHISPER to spread FEAR about IMMIGRATION, which will hopefully prove that I am more REAGANESQUE yet also more MATERNAL than JOE BIDEN, a set of COMBINED characteristics I GUESS some FOCUS GROUP was looking FOR. Y’ALL!
I REPRESENT the state of ALABAMA in the SENATE, and you might have heard some SCARY things about in vitro fertilization, but I’m PROUD to tell you with a TWINKLE in my EYE that it is STILL LEGAL despite the BEST EFFORTS of my colleagues to TAKE IT FROM YOU. SOON, it will be the ONLY thing we MOMS can do with our BODIES that IS definitely LEGAL! Here is a SMILE! I am in a KITCHEN. “WE want to help LOVING MOMS AND DADS bring PRECIOUS LIFE into this world.” I have not stopped SMILING. This isn’t CHILLING! It’s FOLKSY! I am bringing WARMTH and also VERGE OF TEARS energy.
Politicians love to talk about their families, but in her Thursday night response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala. went even further, portraying her powerful position as little more than the hobby of a housewife. While allowing that it’s an “honor” to be a senator, Britt argued, “that’s not the job that matters most.” Instead, she said her real job is to be “a proud wife and mom of two school-aged kids.”
Dinah lives with Dakinikat.
Britt seemed to want viewers to imagine her in an apron, gazing lovingly upon her family and realizing she must sacrifice some measure of domesticity for “the future of children.” It’s all nonsense, of course. She is exactly the “permanent politician” she accused Biden of being, as any perusal of her resume will show. Britt holds a political science degree and law degree from the University of Alabama. She went straight from graduation to work on the staff of her predecessor, Sen. Richard Shelby. She worked in private practice and government, but never as a full-time stay-at-home mother.
And yet, even as her colleagues were in D.C. for the speech, Britt framed herself as a hausfrau, talking about how “my husband, Wesley, and I just watched President Biden’s State of the Union Address from our living room.” Her address was filmed from her kitchen with an aesthetic that former White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri mocked as “‘tradwife,” which is internet slang for “traditional wife.” As feminist writer Jill Filipovic wrote, Britt’s was a message of who women should be: “Afraid, valued only for being mothers, and in the kitchen.” Republicans didn’t even bother to hide the sexist nostalgia they were angling for. As the New York Times reported, talking points circulated before the speech suggested Republicans call her “America’s mom.”
Just last week, the GOP nominated Donald Trump to be president, despite a New York judge recently finding that “Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped” journalist E. Jean Carroll. In his State of the Union speech, Biden blew off the long-standing lie that Republicans oppose abortion because of “life,” instead accusing Republicans of broadly opposing “reproductive freedom” and adding, “those bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade have no clue about the power of women in America.” The “pro-life” mask is fully off, proving feminists were right all along: Republicans just want to make women second-class citizens.
As social media stunts go, it’s hard to top this one: Give birth to your eighth child at age 33. Then, just two weeks later, compete in a beauty pageant, complete with a swimsuit competition. Hannah Neeleman, a “momfluencer” who has nearly 9 million followers for her Instagram account “Ballerina Farm,” did just that in January, strutting in the Mrs. World pageant after winning the Mrs. America pageant last year. “I don’t think there’s any shame in showing I just had a baby,” Neeleman told the New York Times. “Like, I’m not going to have a perfectly flat stomach.”
JJ’s cat Cletus looks a little bit like Pepper.
Her videos and photos of the event suggest that whatever tummy imperfections she was confessing to were not visible to the naked eye.
This combination of faux humility and orchestrated perfection is intoxicating to some, infuriating to others and confusing to many. But what’s indisputable is that it’s hard to look away. It’s how this Utah resident built an online following of millions for a social media account that purports to portray the humble life of a former ballerina turned farm wife. (It’s fair to note that her family’s financial security has other sources: Her father-in-law founded JetBlue.)
Neeleman, with her bucolic images of grazing cattle and her sourdough recipes, is an especially successful example of the growing industry of social media influencers often described as “trad” (for “traditional”), or as “momfluencers” and “beige moms,” for the minimalist aesthetic that dominates this online universe. Some of these influencers are married couples and some are just women, but they all sell variations of the same fantasy: a simple-but-luxurious life with a loving husband and charming children, all for the low, low price of abandoning one’s ambitions of a career outside the home.
Read the rest at the Salon link above. This sounds like a throwback to what happened when I was a kid back in the 1950s and early 1960s, when society urged women to return to being housewives after many women held jobs during WWII.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville tried to praise fellow Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt for her response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union on Thursday, but landed himself in hot water in the process.
Asked if he had concerns with the setting of Britt’s speech ― she delivered it in her home kitchen in Alabama, which some on the left and right found in poor taste ― Tuberville said he didn’t, because “she was picked as a housewife, not just a senator.”
He added: “Somebody who sees it from a different perspective, you know ― education, family, all those things. … I mean, she did what she was asked to do. I thought she did a good job. And it’s hard when you’ve never done anything like that.”
Tuberville said he disagreed with critics of Britt’s delivery, panned by pundits on both sides of the aisle as being overly dramatic, and told HuffPost she did a good job.
“I thought the delivery was good. People were going to make fun of anybody. Some people like it, some people don’t,” Tuberville said.
Donald Trump raised a lot of eyebrows on Friday when he finally posted bond for E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against him, amid reports that the former president is broke.
Keely also lives with Daknikat. She’s so little and dainty.
Trump posted a $91.6 million bond, which covers the $83.3 million he was ordered to pay in damages for defaming Carroll and interest for putting off payment for so long. He had repeatedly tried to get the deadline to pay delayed or get the total ruling amount reduced, but the presiding judge struck him down every time.
But the question on everyone’s mind is, how did Trump get that money together? He appears to be struggling to post bond in his multiple lawsuits and reportedly only has about $413 million in liquid assets. That’s not nearly enough to cover everything he owes in legal fines.
It turns out that Trump may have called in a major favor: Court records filed Friday show that the bond was guaranteed by the Chubb Corporation, an insurance group. In 2018, Trump appointed Chubb’s CEO Evan Greenberg to a White House advisory committee for trade policy and negotiations.
Trump only just managed to make his deadline to post bond. He had to post and then appeal by March 11, or Carroll’s lawyers could start collecting on damages. But his financial woes are far from over.
In 2023, a separate court concluded that Trump had sexually abused Carroll during the 1990s, then defamed her when she spoke out; the court instructed him to pay $5 million in damages.
The $91.6 million bond consisted of the $83.3 million judgment, along with 9 percent statutory interest added by the State of New York. It was guaranteed by the Federal Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Swiss-headquartered insurance company Chubb Group LLC.
This has sparked speculation on social media about why the Federal Insurance Company decided to guarantee Trump’s bond and who within the company made the decision. Chubb President and CEO Evan Greenberg has history with Trump, having served on his Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations from 2018 to 2022. The Washington Post reported it is “not clear from court records what collateral Trump presented to obtain the bond from Chubb.”
In a statement sent to Newsweek, Chubb Group said: “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on client-specific information. Our surety division provides appeal bonds in the normal course of business. These bonds are an ordinary and important part of the American justice system, protecting the rights of both defendants and plaintiffs. For defendants, appeal bonds ensure the opportunity to exercise the right to appeal an adverse judgment, which might otherwise be lost in the absence of a bond.
A secret, men-only right-wing society with members in influential positions around the country is on a crusade: to recruit a Christian government that will form after the right achieves regime change in the United States, potentially via a “national divorce.”
Like most cats, Pepper likes to squeeze into small spaces.
It sounds like the stuff of fantasy, but it’s real. The group is called the Society for American Civic Renewal (the acronym is pronounced “sacker” by its members). It is open to new recruits, provided you meet a few criteria: you are male, a “trinitarian” Christian, heterosexual, an “un-hyphenated American,” and can answer questions about Trump, the Republican Party, and Christian Nationalism in the right way. One chapter leader wrote to a prospective member that the group aimed to “secure a future for Christian families.”
It’s an uncanny mimicry of the clandestine engine that, in the right-wing’s furthest imaginings, has driven recent social changes and left them feeling isolated and under siege: a shadowy network occupying the commanding heights of business, politics, and culture, open only to a select, elite few, committed to reshaping the United States to align it with the group’s radical values.
The men TPM has identified as behind this group — and they are all men — have a few things in common. They’re all a certain kind of devout Christian traditionalist. They are white. They have means, financial and social, and are engaged in politics.
Until TPM began reporting this story several weeks ago, the membership of the group had remained largely secret. Its existence was known and has been previously reported on by The Guardian, but the details of the group’s mission, membership criteria, board, and internal communications remained outside of public view. Beginning late Thursday, some of the leading members of the group identified by TPM through our reporting came forward publicly to acknowledge their memberships in the organization and published an internal document that TPM had already obtained. They said they were doing so in anticipation of another story by The Guardian.
Read the rest at TPM.
The late great Miles, friend of Dakninkat.
That’s my offering for today. I hope you all are enjoying the weekend!!
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
“You could tell The State of the Union is great just by watching Little Modern Day Moses Mike Johnson last night.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
I’m getting started late today because I had a dentist appointment. Also, I’m evidently Low-energy Kat. I fell asleep during the 45 minutes of people shuffling into the House last night for the State of the Union. I’m watching the live-action now with no sportzpols calling the horse race. The only editorial commentary I see is the face of Ayatollah Mike Johnson. As you can tell from the featured funny today by John Buss (@repeat1968), Johnson’s discomfort was notable. It’s also a headline in the media like this one for The New Republic. “Forget Biden’s SOTU Performance, and Focus on Tiny, Weak Mike Johnson. The House speaker lived down to the moment at the State of the Union on Thursday night.” The analysis is provided by Michael Tomasky.
Joe Biden more than made it through Thursday night’s State of the Union address. That moment that his supporters always fear—the major brain fart, the confusing of Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi (oh wait, that was someone else)—never came. Not only did it not come, but most of the energy was dramatically positive. As is the morning-after conventional wisdom. Politico’s Playbook called it the “turn-the-tables SOTU,” reporting that the Biden campaign’s best two hours of fundraising in this cycle were from 9 to 11 p.m. last night. A CNN flash poll found that 62 percent thought the policies Biden laid out would move the country in the right direction.
He had his stumbles, and that Laken Riley moment was pretty cringey. But mostly he threw punches—and he landed almost all of them. As TNR’s Osita Nwanevu wrote: “That overall impression—of a vigorous president, strong enough to take the fight to his detractors—will linger more deeply in the minds of most who watched than the substance of anything he said.”
But let’s not talk about Biden. Let’s talk instead about that little guy in the chair over the president’s left shoulder. House Speaker Mike Johnson showed, in his histrionic facial expressions, everything that’s wrong and idiotic and dangerous and even treasonous about the Republican Party.Johnson was ridiculous. He was small. Granted it’s not always easy for an opposition party leader to figure out how to comport him or herself during a State of the Union. The camera is on you for an hour or more, yet you can’t speak. You’re not going to join in on the frequent applauses, except rarely. Johnson did applaud Biden’s call for aid to Ukraine early in the speech, which he does seem to support personally, even though he’s too afraid of his wingnut caucus to allow a straight-up vote and thus may go down in history as the one person more than any other who handed Vladimir Putin the keys to Kyiv. So you sit there awkwardly.
Johnson decided that the State of the Union was the right time to mug for the camera. And he laid it on like a silent-movie actor, so thick that you could practically see the girl tied on the railroad tracks and hear the piano music. He nodded and nodded—you know, that solemn, “more in anger than in sorrow” nod. And those eye rolls! He rolled his eyes more than a teenage girl listening to her father’s jokes (that’s an eye roll I know rather well).
Joe became more animated and articulated as he moved into the ‘vision thing.’ His speech was powerful and inspirational, clearly describing what he considered ‘American Values’. He called them his “North Star.” He sliced and diced ‘his predecessor.’ He ends with a plan and optimism. This one may be one for the history books, which is a ‘big fucking deal’ considering his primary reference to the State of the Union speech given by FDR in 1941. He took the opportunity to blast Putin as the enemy abroad and his predecessor and his cult in Congress as the enemy within. His speech is getting great reviews.
The speech that is not getting rave reviews is the Republican Response. This one is getting grilled more than the Jindal rebuttal. This is the headline from Newsweek. “Republican Katie Britt Ruthlessly Mocked for SOTU Response.” Ouch. Social media has dubbed her the poster child for The Handmaid’s Tale.
Many users on X, formerly Twitter, described Britt’s recorded response as “creepy” and “overly dramatic.”
The speech even received criticism from prominent conservatives like Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican National Convention, who posted on X: “Well, that Katie Britt experience was … experiential.”
Others felt her delivery was reminiscent of The Handmaid’s Tale, a television show based on a famous novel that centers on a dystopian society where women are treated cruelly. Multiple people said Britt was overacting in a way that was almost humorous and compared her rebuttal to a Saturday Night Live sketch.
Newsweek reached out to a representative for Britt on early Friday morning via email for comment.
This is from Monica Hesse, who is writing for the Washington Post. “A lot of moms can’t see themselves in Katie Britt’s kitchen. The Alabama senator’s performance seemed aimed at suburban women whom Republicans have done little to win back.” I once was a Republican suburban mom. It definitely insulted the intelligence of every woman I know. I’m pretty sure only the creepy white christian evangelical women remotely identified with this. They’ve already got that niche, so I don’t expect this will get them more votes for the racist, rapist, twice-impeached fraudster.
Before Sen. Katie Boyd Britt (R-Ala.) had even begun her State of the Union rebuttal on Thursday night, an ally reportedly had already sent around a helpful list of talking points that conservative pundits could use to describe her — again, as-yet undelivered — speech. They should make comparisons to Ronald Reagan, according to the New York Times, which reported the memo. They should say that Britt came across as “America’s mom.”
When Britt did appear, it became clear she’d gone balls-to-the-wall with the mom theme, broadcasting solo from her Alabama kitchen in such a way that, if you were watching with the volume down, you would have assumed you had stumbled upon a commercial for either stain remover or Il Makiage. Turn the volume up and there was Britt opening by saying that her proudest role was being a “wife and mother,” before segueing into describing a violent gang rape, before calling Biden “dithering and diminished,” and explaining that we were all “steeped in the blood of patriots,” which, ladies — if that’s a menstruation euphemism, I hadn’t heard it before. Somehow she wrapped up by talking about how America put a man on the moon.
It’s not hard to imagine why Republicans chose Britt to deliver their rebuttal. At 81, Biden’s greatest liability is his age. Britt, at 42, is the youngest woman ever elected to the Senate, with school-aged kids at home.
Was she effective? Hard to say. Somehow, despite also being a White 42-year-old mom who watched the State of the Union from my own kitchen, I did not feel I was her target audience.
This is the third State of the Union for which Republicans have chosen a woman to deliver the response (last year was Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the year before was Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds). Clearly, someone in charge is trying to sell the GOP as the party for women, and specifically, for moms.
The trouble is that they are trying to sell it that way once a year, via a televised State of the Union rebuttal, rather than by selling it via policies and legislation. So much of the rest of the night revealed a contrast between what Britt’s party had done for women, and how women and mothers were actually living their lives.
Let’s just say I’d have quite the babysitter coop in my neighborhood had this woman been on the list. No way I’d let her near my girls. I’d also be worried about her husband, her pastor, and her church’s youth minister. The review news is much better for Biden. This is from Dan Pfiefrer. “The Smart Political Strategy Behind Biden’s Big Speech. The President gave a pugilistic speech and took direct aim at Trump.”
Last night was a very good night for Joe Biden. The President delivered a vigorous, pugilistic speech with the highest possible stakes for his presidency. He was strong and in command. Most importantly, he made his best case yet for reelection.
The President never mentioned Donald Trump’s name, but the speech was written — and delivered — with the disgraced former President in mind. He swung at Trump several times throughout the speech, hitting him for inviting Russia to invade a NATO country, for the Big Lie, demonizing immigrants, and more.
This certainly didn’t escape Trump’s notice since he began the day with a bizarre rebuttal and then uncorked a series of unhinged “Truths.”
The speech hit all the right notes. Biden touted his accomplishments, criticized Congressional Republicans for failing to pass bipartisan bills to secure our border and support Ukraine’s border security, and called for laws to protect our freedoms by codifying Roe v. Wade and access to IVF.
The press and partisans cheered his tone and delivery. Democrats were excited, and Republicans were mad, but Biden’s energy on the dais is only part of the story.
Unlike my Pod Save America co-hosts, I was never a speechwriter. I don’t watch these speeches regarding rhetoric, writing, and history. I take a much more pedantic — and hackier — approach. I watched to discover how Biden and his team saw the forthcoming campaign against Trump, their strategy, and whether they executed it.
This was a very political speech, and that’s a good thing. The President sought out conflict with his opponent and his opponent’s party. Also good. Biden recognizes how to wage information warfare in 2024.
Read the point-by-point analysis at the link. Axios has the walk-in moment where Biden spotted Marjorie Taylor Greene, proving that she is an insurrectionist. “Watch: Biden comes face to face with MTG at State of the Union.” The troll named Shriek was doing her performance art schtick again. This is by Zachary Basu.
The latest: After the brief confrontation, Greene heckled Biden during his speech — demanding that he recognize the alleged murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley by an undocumented immigrant last month.
In a remarkable moment, Biden responded to the outburst by holding up the “Say Her Name” pin Greene had handed him during his entrance — and appealing to Republicans to pass the bipartisan border security deal.
“Laken Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal,” Biden said, going off script. “To her parents, I say my heart goes out to you.”
Catch up quick: Greene, a fierce ally of former President Trump, broke convention by donning a MAGA hat to greet Biden as he walked into the chamber for his address.
“Say her name,” Greene urged Biden, who appeared to stop and listen.
Earlier Thursday, the House passed the Laken Riley Act requiring the detention of any migrant who commits burglary or theft. 37 House Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for the legislation.
The big picture: Biden has sought to turn the border crisis — his top political vulnerability — into a potent campaign weapon, after Trump pressured Republicans to derail one of the most significant border security bills in decades.
“If my predecessor is watching — instead of playing politics and pressuring members of Congress to block this bill, join me in telling Congress to pass it,” Biden said in his speech.
“We can do it together.”
President Biden’s reaction to Marjorie Taylor Greene looking like an idiot is the funniest that happened tonight pic.twitter.com/mQe5UKMdtM
So, Happy Women’s Day. Get out there and vote like a woman after her reproductive rights!!!!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Not the old school I am Woman. This is from 2022, and Meli writes some great lyrics.
I am woman, I am fearless I am sexy, I’m divine I’m unbeatable, I’m creative Honey, you can get in line I am feminine, I am masculine I am anything I want I can teach you, I can love you If you got it goin’ on If you got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it If you got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it If you got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on Got it on goin’ on, yeah (Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on) (Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on) I am classy, I am modern, I live by my own design I’m cherry, I’m lemon, I’m the sweetest key lime pie I’m electric, I’m bass, I’m the beat of my own drum I could make your goosebumps raise with the tracing of my thumb Only love can get inside me I move in my own timing Voice of the future, speak to me kindly I feel what I want and somehow it find me Somehow it find me Somehow it find me Yeah, hey, hey I am woman, I am fearless I am sexy, I’m divine I’m unbeatable, I’m creative Honey, you can get in line I am feminine, I am masculine I am anything I want I can teach you, I can love you If you got it goin’ on If you got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it If you got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it If you got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on Got it goin’ on, yeah (Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on) (Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it goin’ on, yeah, yeah) Hear no evil, speak no evil I am not the one to cross They can talk that shit about you Long as you know that it’s false I am earthly, I am heaven I am what I like to be When I ask for what I want Somehow it find me Somehow it find me (Hey, hey) I am woman, I am fearless I am sexy, I’m divine I’m unbeatable, I’m creative Honey, you can get in line I am feminine, I am masculine I am anything I want I can teach you, I can love you If you got it goin’ on If you got it, got it, got it, got it Got it, got it, got it goin’ on Got it goin’ on Got it goin’ on Got it goin’ on
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Yesterday was Super Tuesday, but there were few surprises. Oath-breaking insurrectionist Donald Trump will most likely face President Joe Biden in November unless something happens to either of these old guys. Trump continued his pattern of losing 30-40 percent of the Republican primary votes, and Niki Haley won a second primary–in Vermont. This morning, she withdrew from the race without endorsing Trump.
On the heels of Super Tuesday and Nikki Haley’s departure from the 2024 presidential race, Donald Trump is poised to officially be the GOP nominee for president—despite 91 felony counts, four separate indictments, and being found liable for sexual assault.
In poll after poll, most recently a New York Times/Siena College poll, Trump dominates Joe Biden head-to-head, as well as with key demographics. But those polls seem to be missing a flashing red warning sign for Trump in a general election: his disapproval with Republican voters.
Niki Haley suspends campaign
Haley’s quixotic race for the GOP nomination exposed Trump’s flawed and weakened standing within the Republican Party, but more broadly with the American electorate. A new Associated Press survey found that two in ten Iowa primary voters, a third of New Hampshire Primary voters, and a quarter of South Carolina Republican voters would refuse to vote for Trump in the fall.
voters, 78 percent would not commit to voting for the Republican nominee in November. In California, 69 percent of Haley voters said they wouldn’t vote for Trump in November, according to an NBC News exit poll. Even more striking were exit polls out of North Carolina that found 81 percent of Haley voters would not commit to voting for the eventual GOP nominee.
These numbers are remarkable if you consider that GOP primary voters are historically among the most intense of voters—meaning they will turn out and skew strongly more to the right than the average general election voter.
For hours his fans had partied in the gilded ballroom of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, accompanied by Abba’s Dancing Queen, Elton John’s Rocket Man, Queen’s We Are the Champions and other golden oldies. Waiters glided between them serving pastries, prawns and sausage rolls. Each time Fox News – displayed on four giant TV screens – declared another state for Trump, they whooped and cheered and chanted “Trump! Trump! Trump! USA! USA! USA!”
Then, after 10pm, into this gaudy pageant walked the Grim Reaper, raining on their parade with a 19-minute speech laden with doom and gloom about the state of the nation.
This was Trump as Eeyore.
No balloons, no confetti, no parade of family members on stage and no mention of opponent Nikki Haley. No fun.
“Some people call it an experiment – I don’t call it an experiment,” Trump said of the United States. “I just say this is a magnificent place, a magnificent country, and it’s sad to see how far it’s come and gone … When you look at the depths where it’s gone, we can’t let that happen. We’re going to straighten it out. We’re going to close our borders. We’re going to drill baby drill.”
As the unhappy warrior spoke, 10 guests headed for the exit, apparently worn down by the misery of it all….
If only he had still been running things, he lamented, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine, Israel would not have been attacked and Iran would be broke. Now inflation is “destroying the middle class, it’s destroying everything”. He added morosely that inflation was called the “country buster”.
But wait, there is one bright spot: the stock market! It’s going gangbusters. According to Trump, this has nothing to do with Biden, “the worst president in the history of our country”, but the Republican frontrunner’s own healthy poll numbers indicating his return.
Then it was back to the bad news of border security and immigration….
“It happens in third world countries,” he said. “And in some ways, we’re a third world country. We live in a third world country with no borders … We need a fair and free press. The press has not been fair nor has it been free … The press used to police our country. Now nobody has confidence in them.”
The grim list kept coming: the deadly coronavirus pandemic, the loss of American soldiers in Afghanistan. And Trump naturally could not resist circling back for another bite at the border – no matter that he was the one who ordered Republicans to torpedo bipartisan legislation that might have begun to fix the crisis.
“We have millions of people invading our country,” he asserted. “This is an invasion. This is the worst invasion probably.” For good measure, he tossed out an uncheckable fact. “The number today could be 15 million people. And they’re coming from rough places and dangerous places.”
Fueled by throat-soothing tea, guided by teleprompters and surrounded by six aides and one historian, President Biden spent hours at Camp David last weekend honing a State of the Union speech that will be watched by one of his biggest audiences before the November election.
So the pressure is on.
Mr. Biden, it should be noted, had with him at Camp David a copy of “Possible: How We Survive (and Thrive) in an Age of Conflict,” a book by William Ury, an international negotiation expert.
“You’ll hear me on Thursday,” Mr. Biden said when reporters asked on Tuesday about his preparations.
White House officials have not said what topics the president will address, or whether he will mention Donald J. Trump, his likely 2024 challenger, by name. But Mr. Biden is almost certain to talk about the war in Ukraine, the war between Israel and Hamas, China, abortion, immigration, trade and other topics in a speech he and his aides have been working on since December.
The final speech, which aides say will be edited up until Mr. Biden gives it, will be delivered by a president under pressure to reassure voters that he is not too old for the job and, more than at any point in his tenure, guard against political outbursts that have become commonplace during such speeches. Mr. Biden’s aides say he has prepared for Republicans to heckle him, as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene did last year.
Getting the speech into shape played out, in true Biden fashion, inside a circle of aides who have been around the president for years and treat such proceedings like a state secret.
The Camp David weekend group included Bruce Reed, the White House deputy chief of staff, who helped guide policy-related additions to the speech; Mike Donilon, the aide who has the best understanding of Mr. Biden’s voice; Anita Dunn, who oversees communications strategy for the White House; and Jeffrey D. Zients, Mr. Biden’s chief of staff. Rounding out the group was Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president and a longtime friend, and Vinay Reddy, Mr. Biden’s speechwriter.
The historian Jon Meacham, who is called upon to add historical heft, was also there.
In other Super Tuesday news, Adam Schiff beat out two other Democrats to win the California primary for the U.S. Senate, along with Republican and former pro-baseball player Steve Garvey.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), using ruthless tactics belied by his cherubic face and upstanding public persona, has won the California Senate primary, according to the Associated Press.
Steve Garvey, a former professional baseball player, is projected to come in second almost entirely thanks to Schiff’s maneuvering. The millions Schiff spent on ads boosting Garvey’s profile with Republican voters helped edge out Reps. Katie Porter (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), both of whom would have posed an actual threat to Schiff in the general election (California’s jungle primary lets two candidates of the same party go through to the general).
Porter — Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) protegé, who gained a national profile by taking CEOs to task at committee hearings, armed with her omnipresent whiteboard — and Lee — famous for being the only member of Congress to vote against authorizing military force after 9/11 — are both considered more progressive than Schiff. But a lack of left-wing consolidation around either woman, as well as the lack of involvement by key groups like EMILY’s List, left the progressive flank of the party split. Schiff got the moderate lane to himself.
Schiff has also been incredibly successful in riding his high-profile role in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial to national fame, becoming omnipresent on cable news. It didn’t hurt that he won the endorsement of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a famed fundraiser.
Schiff will virtually certainly win the seat of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in the fall, taking over for Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-CA) who was, ironically, appointed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) so a Black woman would again represent the state. The state will now be without a woman in either of its two Senate seats for the first time in over 30 years.
While Schiff lacks the progressive bona fides of Porter and Lee, he does meet what will be a key Democratic litmus test for candidates for the upper chamber from here on out: He supports ending the filibuster, along with more expansive proposals to nix the Electoral College and expand the Supreme Court.
In Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema announced, in a whiny, narcissistic speech, that she won’t be running for reelection to the U.S. Senate. That’s good news for Democrats and specifically for Ruben Gallego. Again from Kate Riga at Talking Points Memo: Kyrsten Sinema Drove Herself Out Of Politics.
In a video replete with her own accomplishments — “I believe in my approach. But, it’s not what America wants right now” — she on Tuesday delivered her constituents a final “it’s not me, it’s you” farewell.
The senselessness of her trajectory is thrown into even starker relief next to that of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), inextricably linked to her throughout Joe Biden’s first two years in the White House due to the pair’s devotion to the filibuster and eagerness to buck their party. Manchin comes from one of the Trumpiest states in the country. He’s the last generation of a dying breed, as red state Democrats and blue state Republicans drop or are forced out of their parties.
Sinema’s state, in contrast, has only trended bluer. While certainly still battleground territory, it’s a more comfortable get for Democrats than at any other time in recent history. Had she acted like a normal Democrat — look no further than fellow Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) — she’d be preparing for her reelection right now, relieved to have the kooky Kari Lake to run against, and swimming in a helpful current of money funneled by the national party organs.
But she habitually took loud, splashy stands on issues that not only set her apart from her party, but did so on issues central to its very ideology (she’s now an independent, though never stopped caucusing with the Democrats). This was not taking some swings to look tough on the border, or to distance herself from super lefty proposals. It was curtseying while voting down an increased federal minimum wage, threatening the Inflation Reduction Act over preserving a tax loophole for hedge fund managers and law firm partners, limiting the lift of the corporate tax rate….
Ruben Gallego
She did all of this with a rare disrespect for norms around the Hill, one of the very few senators who refused to do hallway interviews, even when she was a deciding player on major legislation, leaving the public to learn her views through other sources or rare sit-downs she’d grant to friendly press. It helped keep her a cypher to political observers: a lawmaker who’d come up through very liberal politics, who’d been open and admirably proud about her bisexuality, suddenly tacking to the corporate right and infuriating those who’d supported her rise and who she’d need to run again in the process. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), essentially running in her stead, was drafted by Democrats wholly alienated by her decisions.
This means that Ruben Gallego will face insane conspiracy theorist Kari Lake in November. Here’s hoping he wins.
Mark Robinson, who easily won North Carolina’s Republican gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, has the misfortune of having spent years on Facebook without thinking about his future political career. The current lieutenant governor of the state—and the first Black man to hold the position—was a furniture manufacturer who was launched into politics in 2018 when he gave a viral pro-gun speech at a city council meeting in the wake of the Parkland school shooting. Two years later he was elected to his current office. He will face Democrat Josh Stein, the state’s attorney general, in the general election in November. The race is expected to be extremely close.
Mark Robinson
He has not, in the time since his profile rose, worked to purge his social media of controversial content. Nor has he played things safe when speaking at churches and other public events in recorded sermons and speeches. So it doesn’t take a lot of probing to find how Robinson really feels about certain hot-button issues.
Robinson, who is also into conspiracy theories, has voiced enough offensive comments for a full accounting to be too unwieldy. But even a sampling of his views like the one below—not a comprehensive list—showcases just what kind of candidate North Carolina Republicans just selected to be their standard-bearer this November.
Abortion “I don’t care if you’re 24 hours pregnant. I don’t care if you’re 24 weeks pregnant. I don’t care. If you kill that young’un, it is murder.” (Robinson has said he paid for an abortion in 1989 and maintained that that decision was “wrong.”)
Climate Science “… pseudoscience, junk science that has not proven a single solitary thing.”
The Media “See through their lies and look at the big picture of their TRUE intent, which is to push US towards their new world order.”
Jewish People He voiced agreement with a pastor who claimed the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” are the CIA, China, Islam, and the Rothschild family of “international bankers that rule every single … central bank.”
Also, regarding Black Panther: “It is absolutely AMAZING to me that people… can get so excited about a fictional ‘hero’ created by an agnostic Jew and put to film by satanic marxist. How can this trash, that was only created to pull the shekels out of your Schvartze pockets, invoke any pride?”
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Read more examples at the Slate link.
I’m going to end there. What do you think? What stories are you following today?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
The big news is that after taking its sweet time, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that states cannot remove Trump from their ballots even though they may have their own version of the 14th Amendment. “Supreme Court keeps Trump on ballot, rejects Colorado voter challenge. While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed.” This is from the Washington Post and reported by Ann E. Marimow.
The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously sided with Donald Trump, allowing the former president to remain on the election ballot and reversing a Colorado ruling that disqualified him from returning to office because of his conduct around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office, declaring that such responsibility “rests with Congress and not the states.” The court warned of disruption and chaos if a candidate for nationwide office could be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct.
“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration,” the court said in an unsigned, 13-page opinion.
While the decision was unanimous, the court’s three liberal justices also wrote separately, saying the conservative majority went further than necessary in the ruling and decided an issue that was not before the court in an attempt to insulate itself and Trump from “future controversy.”
The court’s decision to keep Trump on the ballot leaves him as the leading candidate for the Republican nomination and for now removes the Supreme Court from directly determining the path of the 2024 presidential election. The justices fast-tracked the challenge from voters in Colorado and issued their decision one day before Super Tuesday, when that state and more than a dozen others hold nominating contests. The ruling applies to other states with similar challenges to Trump’s candidacy.
In a sign of the high court’s awareness of the election calendar, the justices took the unusual step of announcing the opinion on the Supreme Court’s website on a day when the court is not in session, instead of issuing it from the bench later this month.
I think the high court’s awareness was more based on the intense criticism they are getting right now for slowing down the process of getting Trump into the Federal Court to face charges. Maybe this is a sign of hope that we’ll hear their take on “Presidential Immunity.” Plus, Clarence Thomas is facing denunciation for his absolute refusal to recuse himself from participating in cases where he has apparent conflicts of interest. Liz Dye at Public Interest makes it even more pronounced. “The Supreme Court saves Trump’s bacon.”
The Supreme Court sparked general outrage last week when it agreed to hear Donald Trump’s claim of absolute presidential immunity in his election interference case, with commentators predicting the end of democracy as we know it if the Court rules that a president is immune for crimes committed while in office.
Histrionics serve no one, however, and so it bears speaking plainly: The Supreme Court is not going to find that Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. That’s ridiculous.
But the Court’s right-wing majority is going to run exactly the same playbook they did in 2020, when they gifted the then-president almost two years of delay in turning over his financial documents to prosecutors in New York and investigators in Congress. By the time Trump wound up having to comply, he was already out of office.
This time, the consequences of delay will be even more profound. Thanks to the Supreme Court, Trump will now be able to stand for election again without facing trial for his attempts to overturn the last one.
Kagan has been sounding the alarm for 2 years.
“The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it." — Justice Elena Kagan pic.twitter.com/XNzAWJs5Kx
— thee nasty rougarou in the machine (@theerougarou) March 4, 2024
The Supreme Court has joined the House of Representatives in becoming a dysfunctional, political, conflicted institution. The Washington Diplomat had this blunt headline last month. “US political dysfunction a threat to world stability: report.” We can no longer be trusted to behave like a developed, functioning democracy. This loss cannot be overstated in historical terms or ramifications. They refer to the US as the world’s most “dysfunctional advanced democracy.”
Many in the United States look beyond their borders and see a dangerous world with raging wars, surging violence and deepening instability.
But a new report by the Eurasia Group, a leading political risk firm, suggests that Americans would be well advised to look in the mirror and recognize that political dysfunction and threats of violence in the United States are frightening people around the world and constitute a serious threat to international stability.
“Fully one-third of the global population will go to the polls this year, but an unprecedentedly dysfunctional U.S. election will be by far the most consequential for the world’s security, stability, and economic outlook,” the Top Risks 2024 report argues.
“The outcome will affect the fate of 8 billion people, and only 160 million Americans will have a say in it, with the winner to be decided by just tens of thousands of voters in a handful of swing states… The world’s most powerful country faces critical challenges to its core political institutions: free and fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and the checks and balances provided by the separation of powers.”
The Eurasia Group, which was created in 1998 by political scientist and entrepreneur Ian Bremmer, analyzes global affairs through the prism of political developments and risks. Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, and Cliff Kupchan, its chairman, are the authors of this year’s report, which outlines the 10 top risks the world faces. The report also discusses several issues that are less serious than they appear.
“Three wars will dominate world affairs: Russia vs. Ukraine, now in its third year; Israel vs. Hamas, now in its third month; and the United States vs. itself, ready to kick off at any moment,” the report says.
Political polarization and social disarray in the United States are seen in the report as the most serious global risk. It predicts that this year’s presidential election “will worsen the country’s political division, testing American democracy to a degree the nation hasn’t experienced in 150 years and undermining U.S. credibility on the global stage.”
“Undecided” November 4, 1944. Man in voting booth w/newspaper. by Norman Rockwell
How has America slid into its current age of discord? Why has our trust in institutions collapsed, and why have our democratic norms unraveled?
All human societies experience recurrent waves of political crisis, such as the one we face today. My research team built a database of hundreds of societies across 10,000 yearsto try to find out what causes them. We examined dozens of variables, including population numbers, measures of well-being, forms of governance, and the frequency with which rulers are overthrown. We found that the precise mix of events that leads to crisis varies, but two drivers of instability loom large. The first is popular immiseration—when the economic fortunes of broad swaths of a population decline. The second, and more significant, is elite overproduction—when a society produces too many superrich and ultra-educated people, and not enough elite positions to satisfy their ambitions.
This is a long read but worth your time. Several events point to the shift in power due to our dysfunctional federal institutions. NATO is just one of the institutions that a return of Trump will endanger. This is from The Guardian. “Norway, Sweden, and Finland host NATO military exercises. Nordic Response aims to strengthen cooperation between countries and bolster alliance’s ability to defend region.”
Trump complains that NATO nations are slackers. The Europeans more than understand the current threat from Putin’s Russia. NATO must stand united with its most significant military defender of democracy in place for the continent to be safe. Miranda Bryant reports on the event.
A first-of-its-kind training exercise involving more than 20,000 soldiers from 13 countries has launched across northern Norway, Sweden and Finland as the region prepares to become a fully Nato territory within days.
The joint defence exercise, which runs until 14 March, was previously known as Cold Response and held in northern Norway, a founding Nato member, every other year. In recognition of Finland’s recent membership of the western military alliance, and with Sweden expected to join imminently, this year it is being designated Nordic Response for the first time.
The training exercise across air, land and sea – which will also include soldiers from the UK, US, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada – will incorporate a cross-border operations exercise in the Arctic Circle.
The Norwegian military said the exercise was intended to demonstrate “a unique level of cooperation and interoperability as they cross borders on land, sea and air”.
Nordic Response is part of an ongoing series of Nato exercises, Steadfast Defender, involving 90,000 soldiers. It is also closely aligned with the UK-led naval exercise Joint Warrior, which ran between Scotland, Norway and Iceland last week.
The latest exercise, which started on Sunday, will involve more than 50 submarines, frigates, corvettes, aircraft carriers and amphibious vessels at sea, over 100 combat, maritime surveillance and transport aircraft, and thousands of soldiers on the ground using artillery systems, tanks and tracked vehicles.
Most of the activity will be centred on northern Troms county and the west of Finnmark county in Norway, but there will also be maritime activity along the coast of the north of the country and exercises across borders in northern Finland and Sweden.
The newly elected Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, the Norwegian prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, and the Swedish crown princess Victoria are all scheduled to visit.
They’re both too damn old, frankly Plus, some wonderful people aren’t stale old white men out there. But please, Biden is sane and moral. Trump has the worst personality disorders possible and definitely has dementia. Plus, Trump cheats at everything and lies about it! Here’s the latest on the Trump Team’s campaign of deceit. And yes, it’s yet another headline from across the pond. They are old buddies, the Brits. The BBC reports that “Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images.” This is on top of Russia outwardly influencing Republican Congress members!
Donald Trump supporters have been creating and sharing AI-generated fake images of black voters to encourage African Americans to vote Republican.
BBC Panorama discovered dozens of deepfakes portraying black people as supporting the former president.
Mr Trump has openly courted black voters, who were key to Joe Biden’s election win in 2020.
But there’s no evidence directly linking these images to Mr Trump’s campaign.
The co-founder of Black Voters Matter, a group which encourages black people to vote, said the manipulated images were pushing a “strategic narrative” designed to show Mr Trump as popular in the black community.
A creator of one of the images told the BBC: “I’m not claiming it’s accurate.”
The fake images of black Trump supporters, generated by artificial intelligence (AI), are one of the emerging disinformation trends ahead of the US presidential election in November.
Unlike in 2016, when there was evidence of foreign influence campaigns, the AI-generated images found by the BBC appear to have been made and shared by US voters themselves.
One of them was Mark Kaye and his team at a conservative radio show in Florida.
They created an image of Mr Trump smiling with his arms around a group of black women at a party and shared it on Facebook, where Mr Kaye has more than one million followers.
This is Trump speaking on the SCOTUS decision and using the occasion to attack Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and all the Judges still holding him to account.
Trump: Jack Smith, Trump hater who represents all Trump haters. Wild man. Great failure. Mean. The judges are Trump haters.. except one or two pic.twitter.com/TNj6VEZQCZ
How do people not see this man’s severe Personality Disorders? I will end here with a political analysis from the Washington Post by Philip Bump. “The institutions of government aren’t going to protect democracy.” This is why it is up to ‘We the People’ to fucking VOTE! If I can hold my nose to vote for Biden twice, you certainly can, too!
The effort to reframe Trump’s actions as understandable, if not acceptable, has been broadly successful. It is not only the case that most Republicans think that Biden’s election was illegitimate, it is also the case that traditional media outlets have at times treated as controversial not the question of whether Trump met the unclear standard of “insurrection” but even whether he tried to subvert the election results. Other Republicans have internalized the idea that the way in which Trump responded to his loss was within the bounds of acceptability — not only by petulantly refusing to concede defeat but by treating the relentless, norm- and law-bending effort to wring victory from defeat as part of the process of winning power.
Because there has been no accountability for Trump.
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court offered its assessment of a state Supreme Court decision in Colorado barring Trump from the ballot. Unsurprisingly — given the ideological constitution of the court — it declined to endorse the idea that Trump was ineligible to hold the presidency. But the decision was unanimous.
“Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States,” the decision read. “The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that latter point again in a concurrence.
“All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” the Trump appointee wrote. “That is the message Americans should take home.”
But several liberal members of the court added some nuance, arguing that the conservative majority also decided “novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner” — that is, Trump — “from future controversy.”
“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson write. “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”
The superficial agreement on the decision erodes in the details, which isn’t uncommon. The result, though, is that the institution of the Supreme Court has decided that the institution of Congress is the only element of the American system that can apply the 14th Amendment to a candidate. And Congress, very obviously, won’t do so for Trump.
One would assume that a democratic system predicated on checks and balances would have some process in place to enforce punitive measures when democracy itself was threatened or undermined, but it does not. It has decisions from motivated actors, enough of whom agree politically or ideologically with Trump that his specific actions are waved away. Instead of a defense of democracy, we are repeatedly asked to believe that anything short of Trump retaining power doesn’t count as a substantive challenge to democracy and, therefore, that his participation in the democratic process should be defended.
Had he retained power after Jan. 20, 2021? Then, perhaps, his efforts to do so would have been considered a legitimate threat. And by then, the system that we would assume might hold him to account would already be destroyed.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Is the appearance of impropriety enough to change the trajectory of the Donald Trump trial in Georgia?
That’s one legal question Scott McAfee, the Fulton county superior court judge, will wrestle with as he contemplates whether to throw the Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade off the trial of the former president and co-defendants in the sprawling racketeering and election interference case.
The stakes are high. If Willis is disqualified, it will plunge the prosecution against Trump, and others, into chaos, likely triggering delays that could go beyond the November election. If Willis remains, the prosecution of the former US president for seeking to undermine Georgia’s 2020 election will continue – though it will be badly damaged in terms of political optics.
Defense attorneys argued early in the hearing Friday on the defense motion to remove Willis and her office from the case that the standard for disqualifying Willis requires only that the defense prove the appearance of conflict of interest.
“She is supposed to be disinterested under the sixth amendment, and she has been anything but that,” argued attorney John Merchant, who is representing Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official and co-defendant in the trial. “If this court allows this kind of behavior to go on … public confidence in the system will be shot.”
Willis’s team countered that the legal standard isn’t an appearance of a conflict, but an actual conflict, and that it’s a high burden that the defense hasn’t met. If Willis had concocted a scheme of self-enrichment with Wade, she would not have approached two other people to lead the prosecution first, nor would she have been pushing for the earliest-possible date to begin the trial, said Adam Abbate, an assistant district attorney for Fulton County.
McAfee expressed a sense of ambiguity in case law related to prosecutorial disqualification, noting that there was no clear-cut previous example resembling the issue before him.
“There are a number of cases that appear to exclusively rely on an appearance of impropriety,” McAfee said. “They acknowledge that there is some ambiguity here.”
Click the link for more discussion of the case. This whole “scandal” seems so silly to me. And why is a defendant in the case given so much credence by the justice system? I question whether this would be happening if Fani Willis were a white man.
Down in Fulton County in Georgia, Judge Scott McAfee began hearing closing arguments in the hearings that will determine whether or not Fulton County DA Fani Willis will continue as the prosecutor in her monumental RICO case against a whole mess of defendants, including the mess that is the former president*, accused of conspiring to ratfck the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Judge McAfee already has said he will need at least two weeks to render the decision. And the stall-ball strategy reaches another judicial arena. Christ, I’d hate to be waiting for some of these judges to make our lunch order. We’d starve.
By Vincenzo Calli
The case is a joke. It literally is a product of one of the people under indictment, a career Republican operative named Michael Roman. It tangled the case all up in Willis’s romance with prosecutor Nathan Wade, which, in turn, tangled the case up in Wade’s divorce proceedings. From the Guardian:
“This was a disqualification hearing that quickly denigrated into a daytime soap opera,” said J Tom Morgan, a former district attorney in DeKalb county, a Fulton county neighbor. “Have they proven a conflict of interest, where this all started, absolutely not.”…It’s not exactly clear what the standard Scott McAfee, the judge overseeing the case, will use to determine whether Willis should be disqualified. Georgia law allows for a prosecutor to be disqualified if there is an actual conflict of interest. Experts say state law has long established this high bar to clear and the defendants in the case have not done so. But McAfee has suggested that defense lawyers may not need to prove an actual conflict, but merely the appearance of one. “I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” he said at a recent hearing.
Oh, I love the sound of that. Judge McAfee needs two weeks to decide whether he feels like Willis has a conflict of interest? Between this, and the Supreme Court’s punting the can down the road and into the Potomac, and Judge Aileen Cannon down in Florida slow-talking everything in the purloined documents case, it is now my considered opinion that the American judicial system needs a damn shot clock.
Last week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas shocked the legal community when the news broke that one of his new law clerks will be Crystal Clanton—who became notorious in 2015 for apparently sending texts that said, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story.” For most young lawyers, sending such a text would indeed have been the “end of story.” Instead, Clanton is on the cusp of clinching one of the most coveted prizes in the American legal system. In the past several years, as Clanton has risen through the ranks of conservative legal circles, the story of her alleged racist outburst has been curiously transformed into a tale of victimhood. The new narrative is that Clanton was somehow framed by an unnamed enemy who—for motives that remain unclear—fabricated the racist texts to defame her.
This new account has been greeted with suspicion by many. If the revised story is a lie, then it threatens to implicate not just Justice Thomas, who has endorsed it, but several lower-court federal judges and the leader of a major political group aligned with former President Donald Trump. Indeed, the whole affair may prove one of the most shopworn axioms of political reporting—that the coverup is worse than the crime.
Loe Saalborn Woman with a Cat 1950
When the vile texts were sent, Clanton was the second-in-command and field director of the hard-right youth group Turning Point USA. The organization, a nonprofit advocacy group closely allied with Donald Trump’s Presidential aspirations in 2024, is well known for poisonous rhetoric: its leader, Charlie Kirk, has recently denigrated Martin Luther King, Jr., as “awful,” questioned whether Black pilots are capable of flying planes, and argued that televised public executions, perhaps by guillotine, should be held in America, with young people watching. Yet, even within Turning Point, colleagues were so shocked by the bluntness of Clanton’s alleged texts that they preserved screenshots of the messages, which were shared in 2017 with The New Yorker. At the time, multiple Turning Point employees told me that Clanton was the author of the messages.
In 2017, Clanton told me, via e-mail, that she didn’t recall sending the texts, and that they seemed out of character. But when she was asked directly if she denied sending them she declined to answer. The screenshots of the messages bore her cell-phone number. Another former Turning Point employee, John Ryan O’Rourke, who was the recipient of the texts, said at the time that he preferred not to discuss them. Several other Turning Point colleagues had also seen and circulated the screenshots. And there was more evidence. In addition to the racist comments, the screenshots show Clanton asking, “Can I come to Starbucks in 5?”; she showed up at one, on cue, a few minutes later. (In 2018, the online platform Mediaite revealed another offensive statement by Clanton, sent on Snapchat. The post featured a photograph of a man who appeared to be Arab, accompanied by a caption that she had added: “Just thinking about ways to do another 9/11.”)
Clanton was kicked out Turning Point because of the texts. The Gini Thomas came to the rescue.
The story would likely be long forgotten, were it not for an extremely strange plot twist. After the texting scandal, Ginni Thomas, the lobbyist and politically active wife of Clarence Thomas, who had worked closely with Clanton as an adviser to Turning Point, unofficially adopted Clanton as the couple’s protégée. The Thomases harbor deep anger at the mainstream media, stemming in part from the Justice’s embattled 1991 confirmation hearing, and evidently saw in Clanton a fellow-victim. Soon after leaving Turning Point, Clanton started working for Ginni Thomas. Remarkably, the Thomases then invited Clanton to live with them at their home in exurban Virginia, for the better part of the next year. The couple encouraged Clanton to go to law school, and Justice Thomas himself recommended her when she successfully applied to the Antonin Scalia Law School, at George Mason University. Justice Thomas also helped Clanton, who graduated in 2022, line up a prestigious judicial clerkship with Chief Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pryor is one of the most conservative members of the federal bench, and a well-known “feeder” of clerks to Justice Thomas’s chambers.
Supreme Court clerkships, which last for a year, are extremely valuable in both professional and financial terms. It’s common for former clerks to receive half-a-million-dollar bonuses when they sign on for their first law-firm jobs, and the credential eases the path to coveted academic and political positions. An extraordinary number of Thomas clerks—twenty-two, according to the Associated Press in 2018—populated the high ranks of the Trump Administration or were nominated by Trump for judgeships; others have fanned out across the nation to other prominent posts.
There’s much more at the New Yorker link.
And then there’s the Supreme Court, which appears to be trying to help Trump postpone his federal criminal cases.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case in which former President Donald Trump claims a virtually king-like right of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. The court’s two-paragraph statement grants the case and sets the argument date at the end of April, without explanation. The announcement came with little fanfare, appearing on the court’s website (if you knew where to look) under the yawn-inducing heading of “Miscellaneous Order.”
But while the justices may be attempting to disguise their decision as the normal workings of a court of law, we need to be clear: This was an extraordinarily political act. They had before them a menu of options on how to handle this unprecedented case, and from those options, they chose one of the most beneficial for Trump’s chances of reelection. This is a big deal, and the court should not be allowed to hide its deliberate decisionmaking behind a smokescreen of generic legal maneuvering.
Berény Róbert (Budapest, 1887 – Budapest, 1953)
In fact, at every point in this process, the court has acted exactly as Trump’s legal team wished they would. First, the justices denied a mid-December request to take the question on an expedited basis, forcing it instead to go through a burdensome and predictably meaningless hearing in a lower court. Once the case returned to them, they then stayed silent for a bewildering two weeks before eventually announcing they would take the case. And, finally, they once again refused to act quickly and instead scheduled the oral argument a full seven weeks away, in late April. While technically they could have stalled even longer and refused to hear the case until next fall (and for all we know the late-April date was some sort of compromise position), the result of their judicial foot-dragging is the same: It very likely delays Trump’s election obstruction trial until after the election.
By camouflaging their actions in the banality of court procedure, the justices are obscuring the extent of the power they are exercising. Scholars and journalists who cover the court are left struggling over how to explain to the public the momentousness of what is really happening. “The thing that I find most challenging about covering this Supreme Court is that I have a ‘this is an exceptionally alarming decision’ voice that I try to use very sparingly, so as not to diminish its effectiveness with overuse,” Vox Supreme Court correspondent Ian Millhiser wrote on Threads following the court’s decision on Wednesday. “But I don’t know how to accurately convey what happens in this Court without using it often….
…[S]pecial prosecutor Jack Smith suspected the justices would want the final say on the question, so in mid-December he asked them to please bypass federal appellate court review and instead take the case as quickly as possible. Resolving this issue speedily, Smith told the justices, was of “imperative public importance.” Indeed, public polling shows that whether Trump is charged criminally for these events is one of the things that voters have said would affect their decision in November.
Yet the court refused this request, sending the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where a panel of judges did expedite their review and unanimously upheld Chutkan’s ruling. Trump immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, and Smith once again asked the court to either uphold the lower court’s ruling or decide the case as soon as possible.
It is not just that the leader of one of our two political parties has declared that if reelected he will assume the powers of a dictator. It is not just that he and his followers actively support enemies of the United States. It is not just that he and members of his party in the U.S. Congress seek to strip away more fundamental rights from American women and men, or that they have already demonstrated they are willing to tolerate egregious abuses of presidential power, or that they will abet efforts to steal election results with which they disagree.
It is all these things. But as we saw again this week, while opponents of fundamental American values control the House of Representatives, have a significant voice in the U.S. Senate, and aspire to reclaim the White House, the branch of government that has been most corrupted by the American right remains the United States Supreme Court.
The Court—through its decision to hear the ludicrous, anti-constitutional arguments of Donald Trump’s lawyers that his actions to steal a presidential election were protected by so-called “presidential immunity”—reminded us that throughout this century the right wing on the court has done grave damage to our country and the judicial system whose oversight has been entrusted to them.
By Joan Barber
Cases like Citizens United (granting the rich more influence in elections), Shelby County (undermining voting rights), Heller (expanding gun rights), Bruen (striking down sensible gun controls), Dobbs (overturning Roe v. Wade), and Students for Fair Admissions (gutting affirmative action) are just a few of the notable examples of their service to their benefactors and their political agenda.
The Court’s decision to hear the Trump immunity case was outrageous, legally indefensible, and handled procedurally in a way that made it clear they were no longer acting as a court, but rather as the judicial arm of the Republican Party.
They took a case they should not have accepted, agreeing to hear arguments that were already rejected in an expertly argued appeals court decision. Just as damagingly, they did so in a way that—regardless of their final ruling—would mean American voters would likely not hear a verdict before November’s election.
It is a dark irony. They have chosen to hear the Department of Justice’s case against Donald Trump for election interference in a way that is itself election interference.
Read the rest at The Daily Beast.
The DC appeals court has upended a large number of January 6 cases that have already been decided.
More than 100 people convicted of participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol may have to be resentenced after a federal appeals court Friday overturned a sentencing enhancement used to help determine their punishments.
The court, a panel of three Democratic appointees, did not overturn the conviction. But it said that a lower court judge erred in deciding that Brock should face a stiffer sentence for “substantial interference with the administration of justice,” ruling that the penalty does not apply to crimes committed at the Capitol.
At least 100 people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 attack have had their punishments shaped by that enhancement, and they could now ask to be sentenced anew. That does not mean they would necessarily face lighter terms. Sentencing enhancements raise the suggested range of prison time that a judge must consider. But in D.C., judges have generally imposed penalties below those recommended ranges, and they have often said their punishments would be the same regardless of what enhancements they applied.
Resentencing can also be dangerous for defendants. One participant in the riot who succeeded in undoing his 60-day misdemeanor sentence on technical grounds was given another 60 days behind bars by a judge who cited the man’s lack of remorse. (That ruling is now on appeal.)
Still, many will surely ask for lower punishments. Edward Ungvarsky, a defense attorney involved in several Jan. 6 cases, said there is “great potential” for some defendants to win earlier release. “Even if a judge suggested their sentence would be the same regardless of application of any enhancements,” he said, that judge “still has to meaningfully reconsider that sentence.” The ruling could also have an impact in plea negotiations, eliminating a bargaining chip used by prosecutors to encourage defendants to plead guilty without a trial.
Nearly half a year has passed since the White House asked Congress for another round of American aid for Ukraine. Since that time, at least three different legislative efforts to provide weapons, ammunition, and support for the Ukrainian army have failed.
Kevin McCarthy, the former House speaker, was supposed to make sure that the money was made available. But in the course of trying, he lost his job.
BySuzanne Clements
The Senate negotiated a border compromise (including measures border guards said were urgently needed) that was supposed to pass alongside aid to Ukraine. But Senate Republicans who had supported that effort suddenly changed their minds and blocked the legislation.
Finally, the Senate passed another bill, including aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, and the civilians of Gaza, and sent it to the House. But in order to avoid having to vote on that legislation, the current House speaker, Mike Johnson, sent the House on vacation for two weeks. That bill still hangs in limbo. A majority is prepared to pass it, and would do so if a vote were held. Johnson is maneuvering to prevent that from happening.
Maybe the extraordinary nature of the current moment is hard to see from inside the United States, where so many other stories are competing for attention. But from the outside—from Warsaw, where I live part-time; from Munich, where I attended a major annual security conference earlier this month; from London, Berlin, and other allied capitals—nobody doubts that these circumstances are unprecedented. Donald Trump, who is not the president, is using a minority of Republicans to block aid to Ukraine, to undermine the actual president’s foreign policy, and to weaken American power and credibility.
For outsiders, this reality is mind-boggling, difficult to comprehend and impossible to understand. In the week that the border compromise failed, I happened to meet a senior European Union official visiting Washington. He asked me if congressional Republicans realized that a Russian victory in Ukraine would discredit the United States, weaken American alliances in Europe and Asia, embolden China, encourage Iran, and increase the likelihood of invasions of South Korea or Taiwan. Don’t they realize? Yes, I told him, they realize. Johnson himself said, in February 2022, that a failure to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine “empowers other dictators, other terrorists and tyrants around the world … If they perceive that America is weak or unable to act decisively, then it invites aggression in many different ways.” But now the speaker is so frightened by Trump that he no longer cares. Or perhaps he is so afraid of losing his seat that he can’t afford to care. My European colleague shook his head, not because he didn’t believe me, but because it was so hard for him to hear.
Since then, I’ve had a version of that conversation with many other Europeans, in Munich and elsewhere, and indeed many Americans. Intellectually, they understand that the Republican minority is blocking this money on behalf of Trump. They watched first McCarthy, then Johnson, fly to Mar-a-Lago to take instructions. They know that Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent figure at the Munich Security Conference for decades, backed out abruptly this year after talking with Trump. They see that Donald Trump Jr. routinely attacks legislators who vote for aid to Ukraine, suggesting that they be primaried. The ex-president’s son has also said the U.S. should “cut off the money” to Ukrainians, because “it’s the only way to get them to the table.” In other words, it’s the only way to make Ukraine lose.
Read the rest at The Atlantic. It’s not that long. There is a paywall, but you can usually get one free article.
That’s it for me today. What do think? What other stories have captured your interest?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
The Sky Dancing banner headline uses a snippet from a work by artist Tashi Mannox called 'Rainbow Study'. The work is described as a" study of typical Tibetan rainbow clouds, that feature in Thanka painting, temple decoration and silk brocades". dakinikat was immediately drawn to the image when trying to find stylized Tibetan Clouds to represent Sky Dancing. It is probably because Tashi's practice is similar to her own. His updated take on the clouds that fill the collection of traditional thankas is quite special.
You can find his work at his website by clicking on his logo below. He is also a calligraphy artist that uses important vajrayana syllables. We encourage you to visit his on line studio.
Yesterday was Super Tuesday, but there were few surprises. Oath-breaking insurrectionist Donald Trump will most likely face President Joe Biden in November unless something happens to either of these old guys. Trump continued his pattern of losing 30-40 percent of the Republican primary votes, and Niki 
No balloons, no confetti, no parade of family members on stage and no mention of opponent 
“You’ll hear me on Thursday,” Mr. Biden said when reporters asked on Tuesday about his preparations.
Schiff has also been incredibly successful in riding his high-profile role in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial to national fame, becoming omnipresent on cable news. It didn’t hurt that he won the endorsement of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a famed fundraiser. 
Sinema’s state, in contrast, has only trended bluer. While certainly still battleground territory, it’s a more comfortable get for Democrats than at any other time in recent history. Had she acted like a normal Democrat — look no further than fellow Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) — she’d be preparing for her reelection right now, relieved to have the kooky Kari Lake to run against, and swimming in a helpful current of money funneled by the national party organs. 
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
I think the high court’s awareness was more based on the intense criticism they are getting right now for slowing down the process of getting Trump into the Federal Court to face charges. Maybe this is a sign of hope that we’ll hear their take on “Presidential Immunity.” Plus, Clarence Thomas is facing denunciation for his absolute refusal to recuse himself from participating in cases where he has apparent conflicts of interest. Liz Dye at Public Interest makes it even more pronounced. “
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments