Finally Friday Reads: Bye Bye Wade!

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

It’s another busy news week and Friday. The most consequential headline this morning is on the decision of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on the “appearance of impropriety” brought about by Willis’ romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. This analysis is from NBC News.

A Georgia judge ruled Fridaythat Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should not be disqualified from prosecuting the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and several co-defendants — with one major condition.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee found the “appearance of impropriety” brought about by Willis’ romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade should result in either Willis and her office leaving the case — or just Wade, whom she’d appointed to head the case.

The choice is likely to be an easy one: If Willis were to remove herself, the case would come to a halt, but having Wade leave will ensure the case continues without further delay.

The judge said the prosecution “cannot proceed” until Willis makes a decision.

Trump attorney Steve Sadow said in a statement that, “While respecting the Court’s decision, we believe that the Court did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade.”

“We will use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place,” he added.

Willis’s office did not immediately comment on the ruling.The judge found there was no “actual conflict” brought about by the relationship, a finding that would have required Willis to be disqualified. “Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied,” the judge wrote.

“This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices — even repeatedly — and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it,” he added.

The judge did, however, also find “the prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.”

“As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed,” he wrote. “As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist.”

The Manhattan D.A. has joined the list of Judiciary officials letting Trump delay trials on frivolous and specious arguments. This is from the New York Times. “As Trump Seeks Trial Delay, N.Y. Prosecutors Offer 30-Day Postponement. The Manhattan district attorney’s proposal came in response to Donald J. Trump’s request for a 90-day delay to allow his lawyers time to review a new batch of records.”

Less than two weeks before Donald J. Trump is set to go on trial on criminal charges in Manhattan, the prosecutors who brought the case proposed a delay of up to 30 days, a startling development in the first prosecution of a former American president.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which accused Mr. Trump of covering up a sex scandal during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, said the delay would give Mr. Trump’s lawyers time to review a new batch of records. The office sought the records more than a year ago, but only recently received them from federal prosecutors, who years ago investigated the hush-money payments at the center of the case.

In response to the records — tens of thousands of pages of them — Mr. Trump’s lawyers requested that the trial be delayed 90 days. Although the former president frequently requests such delays, prosecutors consenting to any postponement makes one far more likely.

Mr. Trump, who clinched the Republican presidential nomination for the third time this week, faces four criminal trials and several civil lawsuits. The Manhattan case had been the only one of the four criminal cases not mired in delays.

“Mired in delays” is the understatement of the year-to-date. Meanwhile, Trump gets more incoherent by the day. His appearance is more startling than usual. Susan B. Glasser of The New Yorker has this analysis. “I Listened to Trump’s Rambling, Unhinged, Vituperative Georgia Rally—and So Should You. The ex-President is building a whole new edifice of lies for 2024.”

And yet, like so much about Trump’s 2024 campaign, this insane oration was largely overlooked and under-covered, the flood of lies and B.S. seen as old news from a candidate whose greatest political success has been to acclimate a large swath of the population to his ever more dangerous alternate reality. No wonder Biden, trapped in a real world of real problems that defy easy solutions, is struggling to defeat him.

This is partly a category error. Though we persist in treating the 2024 election as a race between an incumbent and a challenger, it is not that so much as a contest between two incumbents: Biden, the actual President, and Trump, the forever-President of Red America’s fever dreams. But Trump, while he presents himself as the country’s rightful leader, gets nothing like the intense scrutiny for his speeches that is now focussed on the current occupant of the Oval Office. The norms and traditions that Trump is intent on smashing are, once again, benefitting him.

Consider the enormous buildup before, and wall-to-wall coverage of, Biden’s annual address to Congress. It was big news when the President called out his opponent in unusually scathing terms, referring thirteen times in his prepared text to “my predecessor” in what was, understandably, seen as a break with tradition. Republican commentators grumbled about the sharply partisan tone of the President’s remarks and the loud decibel in which he delivered them; Democrats essentially celebrated those same qualities.

Imagine if, instead, the two speeches had been covered side by side. Biden’s barbed references to Trump were all about the former President’s offenses to American democracy. He called out Trump’s 2024 campaign of “resentment, revenge, and retribution” and the “chaos” unleashed by the Trump-majority Supreme Court when it threw out the decades-old precedent of Roe v. Wade. In reference to a recent quote from the former President, in which Trump suggested that Americans should just “get over it” when it comes to gun violence, Biden retorted, “I say: Stop it, stop it, stop it!” His sharpest words for Trump came in response to the ex-President’s public invitation to Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to nato countries that don’t spend what Trump wants them to on defense—a line that Biden condemned as “outrageous,” “dangerous,” and “unacceptable.”

Trump’s speech made little effort to draw substantive contrasts with Biden. Instead, the Washington Post counted nearly five dozen references to Biden in the course of the Georgia rally, almost all of them epithets drawn from the Trump marketing playbook for how to rip down an opponent—words like “angry,” “corrupt,” “crooked,” “flailing,” “incompetent,” “stupid,” and “weak.” Trump is, always and forever, a puerile bully, stuck perpetually on the fifth-grade playground. But the politics of personal insult has worked so well for Trump that he is, naturally, doubling down on it in 2024. In fact, one of the clips from Trump’s speech on Saturday which got the most coverage was his mockery of Biden’s stutter: a churlish—and, no doubt, premeditated—slur.

Trump still is unhinged when it comes to Hillary Clinton. This analysis was written by Phillip Bump for the Washington Post. “Trump goes on a weird riff about acid — again. The former president claimed that Hillary Clinton destroyed some emails with acid, an assertion that is not only untrue but has been debunked countless times.”

For his interview with Newsmax’s Greg Kelly, Donald Trump didn’t stray far from home. The two sat down in uncomfortable-looking, formal chairs in one of Mar-a-Lago’s self-consciously ornate rooms for a discussion about how inept President Biden is.

“We have a man that can’t talk,” Trump said of Biden. “He can’t negotiate. He doesn’t know he’s alive.” As a result, the former president concluded, “this is a very dangerous time for our country.”

All of this came shortly after Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton had destroyed some emails with acid — an assertion that is not only untrue but has also been debunked countless times over the past eight years. But it’s still lodged in his brain, somehow, and he is unable or unwilling to dislodge it.

Because this claim is so old and because it has been debunked so many times (for example), we’ll just run through this quickly. In August 2016, after House Republicans investigating Clinton had stumbled onto her use of a private email server, former South Carolina congressman (and current Fox News host) Trey Gowdy announced that Clinton’s team had used free software called BleachBit to erase a hard drive that once contained her emails. (Messages determined by her attorneys to pertain to her government work had already been turned over.)

…

In his most recent telling, the claim is very specific. Clinton used “acid testing,” or, I guess, “essentially acid that will destroy everything within 10 miles.” This is very Trumpian, the effort to take a minor detail and inflate it to apocalyptic proportions. Not only has debunking this claim not had an apparent effect, he is now so used to making this nonsensical assertion that he feels like the baseline misinformation isn’t enough for his audience.

This is common behavior from Trump, certainly, in the abstract and the specific example. But it is more fraught now than it used to be, given the extent to which Trump and his allies have focused on mental sharpness as a necessary qualification for the presidency. Americans are asked — as Trump endeavors in his conversation with Kelly — to view Biden as muddled and addled.

That has triggered some blowback, including from Biden’s campaign team, focused on elevating moments in which Trump himself seems to be confused. Just this week, Democratic lawmakers responded to criticism of Biden’s memory by compiling clips showing Trump misspeaking or misidentifying people.

Meanwhile, the TikTok and social media battle continues. We have a Supreme Court Decision plus an interest by MAGA cultists to buy TikTok to use as a propaganda tool. NBC News reports on the latest SCOTUS foray into social media control. “In shadow of Trump tweets, Supreme Court outlines when officials can be sued for social media use. Former President Donald Trump’s frequent use of Twitter lurked in the background as the justices weighed whether an official’s online activities can constitute government action.” This analysis is written by Lawrence Hurley.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that members of the public in some circumstances can sue public officials for blocking them on social media platforms, deciding a pair of cases against the backdrop of former President Donald Trump’s contentious and colorful use of Twitter.

The court ruled unanimously that officials can be deemed “state actors” when making use of social media and can therefore face litigation if they block or mute a member of the public.

In the two cases before the justices, they ruled that disputes involving a school board member in Southern California and a city manager in Michigan should be sent back to lower courts for the new legal test to be applied.

In a ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court acknowledged that it “can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private” because of how social media accounts are used.

The court held that conduct on social media can be viewed as a state action when the official in question “possessed actual authority to speak on the state’s behalf” and “purported to exercise that authority.”

While the officials in both cases have low profiles, the ruling will apply to all public officials who use social media to engage with the public.

During October’s oral argument, Trump’s use of Twitter — before it was renamed X — was frequently mentioned as the justices considered the practical implications.

The cases raised the question of whether public officials’ posts and other social media activity constitute part of their governmental functions. In ruling that it can, the court found that blocking someone from following an official constitutes a government action that could give rise to a constitutional claim.

But the court made it clear that conditions have to be met for a claim to move forward, with Barrett noting that government officials are also “private citizens with their own constitutional rights.”

Determining whether a claim can move forward is not based simply on whether the person is a government official, but on the substance of the conduct in question, she added.

Factors such as whether the account is marked as official and the official is invoking his or her legal authority in making a formal announcement can be taken into account, Barrett said.

“In some circumstances, the post’s content and function might make the plaintiff’s argument a slam dunk,” she added

The TikTok story just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

The Washington Examiner had this screaming Op-Ed today by someone named Jeremiah Poff. “TikTok needs a conservative US buyer.” Yup, just what we need; more Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk to create a more violent and unhinged right wing.

The prospect of TikTok needing a U.S. buyer increased this week after the House of Representatives passed a bill that would require the social media app’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the app or face a ban.

On a 352-65 vote on Wednesday, the House showed unusual bipartisanship and passed a bill that would force the app to decouple from China or be banned in the United States. The app’s connection to the Chinese Communist Party has raised serious national security concerns that have motivated the legislative action.

While the bill’s fate is uncertain in the Senate despite President Joe Biden pledging to sign it, there needs to be some consideration about what will happen to the app if the bill becomes law and TikTok is sold to a U.S. investor.

Social media companies such as Meta and Google are dominated by the Left. As was evidenced by the 2020 election, they have a sizable influence on what content people see and their political perceptions. A similar concern was obvious with Twitter until it was bought by Elon Musk and rebranded as X.

TikTok has an enormous user base of 170 million in the U.S. Its potential for influencing the population at large is vast, which means Silicon Valley tech companies with an overrepresentation of left-wing views must not be allowed to buy it, lest censorship and liberal propaganda replace Chinese government propaganda.

So, that last sentence is why we don’t need right-wing hysterical and culturally nasty propaganda replacing Chinese government propaganda. You heard it from me first.

My last word is, please remember where and who we were four years ago with President (sic) Trump and his bumbling management of Covid-19. I think it’s an excellent answer to Stefank’s question with a loud YES. The media should remind us how awful it was. Refrigerator trucks with dead bodies and no toilet paper are just two reminders. This is from Mediaite. “Hannity Claims Democrats’ Cannot Run on, Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?” Michael Luciano has the lede. Hannity is still carrying Trump’s diseased water.

Sean Hannity said President Joe Biden and Democrats will be unable to make the case that Americans are better off in 2024 than they were four years ago.

Biden is seeking a second term and will face former President Donald Trump as congressional Democrats try to retake the House of Representatives and undertake the tall order of holding the Senate.

“They spread fear, hysteria, all things hate Trump, hate Trump 24/7,” Hannity said of Democrats during his opening monologue Thursday on Fox News. “And of course, Democrats will call Republicans racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic that want dirty air and water. In other words, Democrats are using fear and division to mask what has been a terrible four years under Biden.”

Hannity then invoked an election refrain made famous by Ronald Reagan during a 1980 debate with then-President Jimmy Carter: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

“I repeat, they cannot run on, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’” Hannity said. “This is all they have left.”

Some quick, back-of-the-napkin math indicates that four years ago, the year was 2020. History buffs may recall that this period in time was marred by a once-in-a-century global pandemic that wound up killing more than one million Americans and torpedoed the economy. Trump’s handling of the country’s pandemic response arguably cost him reelection.

In the early days of the pandemic, Trump sought to downplay the threat posed by Covid-19. In February 2020, he reacted to the news that a handful of Americans had been diagnosed with the virus by saying, “And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

This headline made me giggle. It’s from Raw Story. It’s written by Kathleen Culliton. “‘Freudian slip?’ RNC chair says America is better off under Biden than Trump:” It takes a lot of energy to keep lies going in the face of obvious truth.

The Republican National Committee’s new chair Friday gave a resounding “No” to a question he asked himself on nationally broadcast television: Was the nation better off under former President Donald Trump?

Whoops.

Michael Whatley appeared on Fox News to promote the presumptive Republican nominee and the RNC’s co-chair Lara Trump’s father-in-law in his bid to reclaim the White House in 2024.

Have a great weekend! We’re about to get a rainstorm, and I’m getting ready to make a good-sized meatloaf and potatoes, which was basically my mother’s weekly recipe.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?