Finally Friday Reads: Crime and Punishment

The smell of fear begins to bubble up through all the other odors. John Buss @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

These are days when you have to hold on to every instance where Justice and the Rule of Law stand firm.  The small victories come when an insurrectionist gets jail time. Today, we learned that Steve Bannon is headed to Jail.  Peter Navarro started his sentence in March.”Ex-Trump aide Peter Navarro begins serving prison sentence after historic contempt prosecution.”  This event was reported by CNN.  (Note:  BB reminded me that one of the last things Donald did in office was to pardon Bannon for fundraising for a border wall that never happened.)

His conviction was a rare example of a member of Trump’s inner circle being held accountable by the criminal justice system for their resistance to scrutiny. Navarro’s stint in prison comes as Trump himself has yet to face criminal consequences for the various crimes he’s been accused of committing.

“It’s historic, and will be to future White House aides who get subpoenaed by Congress,” Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel who now represents Navarro as one of his defense lawyers, said on Monday.

Navarro’s punishment for evading a House probe will boost the leverage lawmakers will have – under administrations of both parties – to secure cooperation in their investigations.

CNBC reports on Bannon’s next stop.  “Trump White House aide Steve Bannon loses appeal of contempt of Congress conviction.”

A federal appeals court on Friday unanimously upheld the criminal contempt of Congress conviction of former Trump White House senior aide Steve Bannon for refusing to testify and provide documents to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.The appeals court rejected Bannon’s argument that he was not guilty because his attorney had advised him not to comply with a subpoena from the House committee.

The ruling by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit makes it more likely that Bannon will soon have to begin serving a sentence of four months in jail for his conviction of two counts of contempt.

Bannon could ask the full judicial line-up of the D.C. Circuit to hear his appeal again, which might postpone his jail term. He also could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take an appeal of Friday’s ruling.

But such requests typically face very long odds of success.

CNBC has requested comment from Bannon’s appellate lawyer on the ruling. The decision was written by Judge Bradley Garcia, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit appeals court last year by President Joe Biden. The other two judges on the panel were Justin Walker, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, and Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

In March, Peter Navarro, another ex-adviser to Trump, began serving a four-month federal jail sentence after the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of his conviction for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the Jan. 6 House committee. Pillard also was a member of the three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit that upheld Navarro’s conviction.

Bannon will also spend 4 months in jail. This is from the New York Times.  “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Bannon’s Contempt Conviction. Stephen Bannon, a longtime ally of Donald Trump, had been found guilty of defying a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 committee. He now faces a four-month prison sentence.

The decision by the court means that Mr. Bannon could soon become the second former Trump aide to be jailed for ignoring a subpoena from the committee. The House panel sought his testimony as part of its wide-ranging investigation into Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election, and its explosive hearings two years ago previewed much of the evidence used against Mr. Trump in a federal indictment filed last summer accusing him of plotting to overturn his defeat.

In March, Peter Navarro, who once worked as a trade adviser to Mr. Trump, reported to federal prison in Miami to begin serving his own four-month prison stint after a jury found him guilty of contempt of Congress for ignoring one of the committee’s subpoenas.

The judge who oversaw Mr. Bannon’s trial had allowed him to remain at home during the appeal of his conviction and is now in a position to force him to surrender.

You may also remember that there were major indictments in the Georgia case, even though the case itself was stalled.  John Eastman surrendered at a Georgia jail 8 months ago. He was released pending trial.  Three Trump lawyers–Sidney Powel, Kenneth Cheesebro, and Jenna Ellis–pleaded guilty.  Rudy Guilliani and Mark Meadows are also considered co-conspirators.

Paul Manaford got his pardon ticket punched. He’s looking to be a repeat offender.  This is from the Washington Post. “Paul Manafort, poised to rejoin Trump world, aided Chinese media deal.  The former Trump campaign chairman, likely to help manage this summer’s GOP convention, resumed consulting after being pardoned in 2020.”

After pleading guilty to money laundering and obstruction of justice, Paul Manafort, the globe-trotting political consultant and former campaign chairman for Donald Trump, asked for leniency in his sentencing, telling a federal judge five years ago that he was nearly 70 years old, struggling with health concerns and remorseful for his actions.

The judge rejected his entreaties in the spring of 2019, ordering Manafort to remain behind bars for more than seven years.Less than two years later, however, Manafort’s criminal record was wiped clean when Trump pardoned him. He was among the dozensof allies, extended family members and former campaign staffers allowed to walk free.

With his freedom, Manafort hardly retired to a quiet home life. Instead, the longtime power broker — briefly brought low by the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election — reengaged in international consulting, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and people familiar with his activities who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

Manafort has been assisting an effort to launch a Netflix-like mobile streaming and entertainment platform in China that, according to corporate documents, has the endorsement of the Chinese government. In an email to The Post, Manafort said he was “not involved with China” and has “had nothing to do with China, including Chinese businesses, government, individuals, or anything else,” but acknowledged that he “was asked to make introductions to U.S. studios and potential U.S. partners in the venture.”

Manafort, now 75, also sought to advise political figures in Japan and South Korea, according to a person who was approached by party officials in those countries checking on the consultant’s reputation. Manafort has roamed widely, traveling to Guatemala last year on the invitation of a migrant advocacy group called Proyecto Guatemala Migrante. The group’s leader, Verónica Pimentel, said she and a colleague discussed Latin American politics and the Latino vote with Manafort and introduced him to a Guatemalan presidential candidate, Ricardo Sagastume, who confirmed the meeting.

Emails, documents and interviews fill in details of Manafort’s life and work between 2020, when he swapped prison for home confinement owing to the coronavirus pandemic and then landed a pardon from Trump, and this election cycle, as he prepares to reenter Trump’s orbit. Advisers say Trump is determined to hire Manafort, likely handing him a substantial role at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, because he appreciates that his onetime campaign chairman has remained loyal to him even while serving in prison.

The fake elector arrests in Arizona might just interfere with all the Trump repeat offenders, including the Donald up there at the top of the offensive list.  Christina Bob and Rudy Guiliani are defendants also. With its dalliance on Presidential Immunity, it looks like the Supreme Court could stall any or all of these.  Hillary Clinton was on Morning Joe on Thursday.  She made stern mention of the Court and its actions. This is from The Hill.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knocked the Supreme Court on Thursday for delaying its ruling on former President Trump’s presidential immunity claim in his federal election interference case.

“The other point I would quickly make is that the Supreme Court is doing our country a grave disservice in not deciding the case about immunity,” Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Clinton said some Supreme Court justices were seemingly trying to find loopholes for the former president during arguments before the court late last month.

“I read the excellent decision by the court of appeals, and the judges there, I think, covered every possible argument,” Clinton said, “and what we heard when this case was tried before the Supreme Court — to my ear at least — were efforts to try to find loopholes, to try to create an opportunity for Trump to have attempted to overturn an election, to have carried out hundreds and hundreds of pages of very highly classified material for his own amusement, interest, trading — we don’t know what.”

“These are very serious charges against any American, but someone who’s both been a president and wants to be a president again — that should cause any voter to think not twice, but many, many times over, about whether we should entrust our country to him,” Clinton added.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump’s presidential immunity claim and seemed poised to grant him at least some protections from criminal prosecution after hearing two hours of arguments.

The court still has not made a decision on the question of immunity, but the justices’ lengthy discussion of how to create guardrails between official versus personal conduct suggested they may ask the lower court to revisit its decision. Doing so would almost certainly delay Trump’s numerous legal proceedings.

The court delayed Trump’s election interference case just by taking up the immunity claims rather than letting the appeal court decision stand. Any further decision at the lower court might be appealed, a process that could again send the case to the high court.

Clinton said Wednesday that the American people ought to have an answer about whether Trump is guilty in the federal election interference case and in the other cases before they head to the polls in November to decide whether to send him back to the White House.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” Clinton said. “And the people in our country, it looks as though will most likely go to vote without knowing the outcome of these other very serious trials.”

The Supreme Court is at the end of the term and still has some pretty significant cases to decide. This is reported by CBS News‘ Melissa Quinn.  “The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term. Here are the major cases it still has to decide.

 The Supreme Court has wrapped up arguments for its current term and until around the end of June, it will be handing down opinions for the remaining cases, among them, over a dozen involving hot-button issues including abortion, guns, homelessness, Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan and the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

This term, which began in October 2023, follows two in which the Supreme Court handed down consequential decisions unwinding the constitutional right to abortion and bringing to an end affirmative action in higher education. The justices kicked off this latest slate of cases with several involving administrative law and online speech. But it was a pair of disputes involving Trump that captured widespread attention and thrust the justices into the center of legal battles with high stakes for the former president as he mounts a bid to return to the White House.

The court has already decided one of the cases involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee: whether Colorado could keep him off the 2024 ballot using a Civil War-era provision of the 14th Amendment. The high court ruled in March that states cannot disqualify Trump from holding the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and allowed him to stay on the ballot.

“It’s the most consequential term of my lifetime,” said Victoria Nourse, law professor at Georgetown University, “because they’re covering a gambit of things from guns to abortion to presidential power.”

So, we’ve seen what happens when courts do their job and when they try to do something entirely different.  This is an Op-Ed from MSNBC’s Hayes Brown. “Judge Aileen Cannon set herself up for failure. Donald Trump’s classified documents case could prove difficult for even the most experienced judge. Judge Cannon is not exactly handling herself well.”

It’s entirely possible that a more experienced judge would be facing similar problems. But that Cannon is even in a position to make these decisions is due to an almost literary twist of fate. There are more than two dozen federal district judges in the southern district of Florida. Cases are assigned at random among them. It is only through the luck of the draw that Trump would see his classified documents case fall before Cannon. With the shadow of the special master case looming over her, she’s opted to take her time to get things right. Yet that has opened her up to an entirely different set of criticisms. That includes her frankly bizarre decision to have the prosecution and defense spend time on crafting potential jury instructions and arguments regarding the Presidential Records Act rather than deal with the more pressing issues on her plate.

Unfortunately for everyone who isn’t a co-defendant in this case, Cannon’s careful treading fits perfectly with Trump’s preferred strategy of delaying his court appearances for as long as possible. The trial had originally been scheduled to begin on May 20 — though given that Trump is in the middle of a separate criminal trial in New York, that was clearly not going to happen. Both Smith, who brought the charges against Trump last year, and the former president’s lawyers agreed that a delay would be necessary. Smith’s team argued that a summer trial was still possible, while Trump naturally pushed for a trial date after Election Day. Since a hearing on the matter in March, Cannon had only given hints at when a rescheduled trial would take place, the last of which was Monday when she bumped back a key CIPA-related filing deadline.

Again, the evidentiary role of classified material would likely slow down any criminal trial, let alone one involving a former president. But given the clear evidence that Trump was in possession of the documents seized despite a subpoena to return them and attempted to foil the government’s efforts to recover them, this should be an open and shut case once it gets before a jury. Instead, Cannon has only painted herself into a corner, overcorrecting from her past mistakes in a way that has only exacerbated her subsequent follies.

Well, enough of that!  At least I have an excuse to use one of my favorite Warren Zevon songs today!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Mostly Monday Reads: The Blinding White

Trump’s theatrics intensified over the weekend. He was photographed at a car race with his entourage in tow. His co-conspirator and personal Valet is now carrying a large briefcase. Got me thinking what was inside… John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

Just when I think that Donald’s supporters can’t be any more idiotic, the groupthink leads them to some next-level crazy.  Their latest efforts are wearing adult diapers outside their jeans and touting the masculinity of diaper-wearing by adult men.  Seriously, who thought this up?  Well, here’s one explanation by FirstPost explainers. “Oh, S**t! Why are Trump’s supporters wearing nappies to rallies?”

After Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen nicknamed him ‘Von ShitzInPantz’, the Republican candidate’s supporters are making diapers great again…or at least trying to. They are thronging rallies wearing nappies; some are donning T-shirts and holding placards with slogans like ‘Real Men Wear Diapers’ and ‘Diapers over Dems’

Just when you think US presidential elections can’t get more bizarre, they throw up a surprise. Donald Trump’s supporters do not disappoint. They are showing up at his rallies wearing nappies and shirts that read “Real Man Wear Diapers”.

But why?

Trump supporters, aka MAGAs, are responding to recent developments in the former president’s hush money trial case, where his lawyer Todd Blanche read out a string of offensive posts by his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen in the courtroom.

It’s not exactly on the same level as turning “Let’s Go Brandon” into Dark Brandon, is it? SkyNews reports that “Donald Trump supporters have started wearing nappies. They also have a new slogan: Real Men Wear Diapers.” Something tells me that not one of these folks was ever the cool kid or the nerdy kid in school.

The peculiar new craze began after Mr Trump was described as “Von ShitzInPantz”.

Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, said in a post on X last month: “Hey Von ShitzInPantz…your attacks of me stink of desperation. We are all hoping that you take the stand in your defence.”

He added, a couple of days later: “Oh… Von ShitzInPantz. Keep whining, crying and violating the gag order you petulant defendant!”

On Thursday, during Mr Trump’s hush money trial, the prosecution alleged he had further violated a gag order connected to the case.

On Tuesday, he was fined $9,000 (£7,100) and held in contempt by the judge for breaches of the same order.

But Mr Trump’s defence lawyer, Todd Blanche, said his client was the victim of attacks by both Mr Cohen and the media.

Mr Blanche also referred to comments from President Joe Biden, referring to Donald Trump experiencing “stormy weather”.

Since then, Trump supporters have apparently been trying to get back at Mr Cohen by wearing nappies and declaring that “real men” do the same.

If this is the best they can do to “own the libs,” then count me ROFLMAO.  Can you imagine what that kid in the red shirt would do if his mom made him do it for any other reason?   There are so many conspiracy theories out there that you just wonder if there’s a movement to drop Republican babies repeatedly on their heads.  This article from Salon is just eye-opening. “Who believes the most “taboo” conspiracy theories? It might not be who you think. White men with graduate degrees, a new study finds, are highly likely to hold especially noxious beliefs.”  Paul Rosenburg is the writer and provides some insight into the study.

Like Henry Ford before him, Elon Musk has emerged as America’s top conspiracy spreader. But he’s hardly alone. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the conspiracy-theory candidate for president, and as Paul Krugman observed last summer, was attracting “support from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley”:

Jack Dorsey, who founded Twitter, has endorsed him, while some other prominent tech figures have been holding fund-raisers on his behalf. Elon Musk, who is in the process of destroying what Dorsey built, hosted him for a Twitter Spaces event.

Krugman didn’t focus on conspiracy theory as such but on something closely related: distrust of experts and skepticism about widely accepted facts. He described this tendency as the “brain rotting drug” of reflexive contrarianism, quoting economist Adam Ozimek.

That wasn’t exactly scientific, but a new paper entitled “The Status Foundations of Conspiracy Beliefs” by Saverio Roscigno, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, is. Its most eye-catching finding is the discovery of “a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who display a penchant for conspiracy beliefs” that are “distinctively taboo.”

Specifically, Roscigno writes, “approximately a quarter of those who hold a graduate degree agree or strongly agree” that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland “are false flag attacks perpetrated by the government,” which is “around twice the rate of those without graduate degrees.” Results are similar for the proposition that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust “has been exaggerated on purpose.”

These findings are striking for many reasons. Most obviously, they go against the common belief — long supported by research — that conspiracist beliefs are more common among lower-income and less-educated individuals. They also challenge the  formulation popularized by Joseph Uscinski that “conspiracy theories are for losers,” and should be understood as “alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers” that “tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness, or disunity.”

Von ShitzinPants, by @deAdder

What follows the introduction is an interview with Roscigno that is quite enlightening.  Follow the link to read more.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has laid out some important election messaging. “‘If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall,’ says Jeffries in stressing importance of elections.”  This is reported by Nick Robertson at The Hill.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) emphasized the stakes of the 2024 election in a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday, warning that much more than abortion rights are at risk if former President Trump gets a second term.

He told CBS’ Norah O’Donnell that reproductive freedom will be an “incredibly significant” issue in the race.

“And the extreme MAGA Republicans have set in motion the erosion of reproductive freedom,” he said. “We’re gonna fight for it with everything that we’ve got at our disposal.”

“If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall,” he continued. “Social Security can fall. Medicare can fall. Voting rights can fall. And God help us all, but democracy itself can fall. If Roe v. Wade can fall, then anything can fall.”

Jeffries’ comments come as Democrats turn their sights on battleground states focusing on abortion rights arguments, as Arizona, Florida, Montana and others prepare for abortion rights ballot issues.

GOP state lawmakers in Arizona overturned a Civil War-era abortion restriction last week after multiple attempts and mass criticism from Democrats, while another strict abortion law went into effect in Florida on Wednesday.

But Jeffries also said that Democrats need to run on a positive message, in addition to warning about what Republicans could take away. He pointed to the gun safety regulation and investments in manufacturing as the “real results.”

However, most Americans still perceive the Biden economy as weaker than the economy under President Trump, according to polls, as the Biden campaign struggles to change the narrative.

The biggest problem is that many Americans believe completely untrue things. That last sentence shows just one.  Here’s another lie that Donald spins constantly.

Given that crime is a staple element of tabloid news, coverage of local tragedies, rather than seeming to occur at a distance, brings the specter of mayhem into communities that experience little or no crime. As Gideon Taffe of Media Matters reported in January 2023, Fox produced “a misleading narrative” about the United States being in the grip of a crime wave in 2022, devoted 11 percent of its reporting to the topic in advance of the midterm election. But that crime wave was “largely created by its own relentless coverage,” Taffe writes. “By focusing on racist stereotypes, smearing progressive prosecutors and pushing conspiracy theories, Fox made crime one of the biggest perceived ailments in the country and pushed far-right policy prescriptions ahead of the election.

The only sane policy responses, Fox hosts proclaimed, were those embraced by the Party of Trump. And these “draconian solutions” meant a return to policies forcibly ended in the courts as civil rights violations:

”Fox personalities began arguing for a return to “Broken Windows” policing, which involves aggressive enforcement and harsher sentences for lower level crimes. In reality, there is no evidence that this strategy works as a deterrent to reduce crime, and other heavy-handed policing tactics based on the broken windows theory have been found to significantly discriminate against Black Americans and other minority groups.

But as Taffe also pointed out, crime in the United States has dramatically decreased — 73 percent, to be precise — over the last thirty years. 2023 saw the biggest national drop in murder rates ever recorded (6 percent) and murders in cities dropped 12 percent. Yes, there are periodic crime spikes. (There was one during the pandemic). But overall, the trend is towards less crime.

The Atlantic’s crime reporter, Jeff Asher, pointed out that less crime doesn’t mean no crime. Yet “declining murder does not mean there were not thousands upon thousands of these tragedies this year,” he wrote on his Substack:

Nor does it mean that there was an acceptable level of gun violence, even in places seeing rapid declines. It simply means that the overall trend was extraordinarily positive and should be recognized as such.Detroit is on pace to have the fewest murders since 1966 and Baltimore and St Louis are on pace for the fewest murders in each city in nearly a decade. Other cities that saw huge increases in murder between 2020 and 2022, like MilwaukeeNew Orleans and Houston, are seeing sizable declines in 2023. There are still cities like Memphis and Washington, DC, that are seeing increasing murders in 2023, but those cities are especially notable because they are the outliers this year, not the norm.

How can Jeffries and others get through the roar of Donald and Fox News(sic)  lies? Trump spent the weekend in Florida fundraising and propping up his propaganda machine while moaning about the unbearable whiteness of being. He just can’t get any breaks, can he? This is from the Washington Post. “After big weekend in Palm Beach, Trump returns to N.Y. courtroom.”

A donor luncheon at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate over the weekend provided the former president a chance to size up his potential 2024 running mates, several of whom were in attendance, and to escalate attacks on prosecutors in his four criminal cases. On Monday, he is back in a New York courtroom as a trial continues in one of those cases. Trump has been charged with falsifying records to cover up paying hush money to an adult-film actress during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Two potential VEEP candidates are not doing well in the media spotlight.  We all know now about poor Cricket’s demise at the hands of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem.  Now, Tim Scott is looking worse all the time. This is from CNN. “‘A very chilling signal’: Ex-Trump DHS official reacts to Tim Scott’s answer about accepting election results

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a potential vice presidential pick for Donald Trump, refused to commit to saying he would accept the results of the 2024 presidential election. Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the US Department of Homeland Security, says it is part of Scott’s audition to be Trump’s running mate.

Both display a worrying lack of character, much like Trump supporters show few signs of higher brain function.  It really gets to me after a while.  Last night, some crazy drunk guy emptied two clips near a Bed and Breakfast catering to the gay community where there was a courtyard full of partiers.  One of my neighbors found out that he was mad that his car broke down.  It was less than a block from me.  Thankfully, the police got him immediately, and no one was hurt. Two other shootings in the city were reported, but not this one.  I’m waiting for the rationale behind this, even though none exists.  Our governor and his legislature just removed all the civil rights gains we made in criminal law and policing here.   We also are now a state that no longer requires permits for any kind of gun ownership.

I heard the first round while sitting here at my desk.  I heard the second round of shots, and then there was the loud, short sound of a police siren.  Temple, eager for her last walk, and I stuck our heads out the door and saw that there were at least 10 police cars but no SWAT van, EMS, or Coroner.  The amazing number of blue lights made me tip-toe out of my gate and up to the bar on the corner.  I had a nice conversation with the two guards at the abandoned navy base and found out as much as I could.  I didn’t sleep well last night and am still slightly shaky as I write this.  The number of shots that came from each clip was beyond imagination.

Among all the other things we need, like access to proper healthcare, criminal justice reform, respect for differences, and such, we really need sensible gun laws.

And, ah, the burden of whiteness!!

In the current phase of the dispute, a three-judge trial judge panel sided with a group of 12 self-described “non-African American” voters who alleged that their “personal dignity” had been injured because the new map with two Black-majority districts “racially stigmatizes,” “racially stereotypes” and “racially maligns” them.

Their lawsuit said that the congressional plan amounted “to the application of affirmative action in redistricting, unseen in previous racial gerrymandering” cases and violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Last week, the two Trump-appointed judges in the majority rejected arguments from the state that the lawmakers had other reasons besides race for drawing the plan the way they did. The state had pointed to the desires by state lawmakers to protect certain congressional incumbents.

I hope your week goes well. Mine is starting off a bit weird. All hugs are appreciated!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

It’s times like these you learn to live again
It’s times like these you give and give again
It’s times like these you learn to love again
It’s times like these time and time again


Finally Friday Reads: Today’s Hope Day

It’s pretty obvious. John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

Former Trump assistant Hope Hicks was called today by the prosecution as its ninth witness.  Her testimony will likely be important.  She also did not want to testify and is credible.  News from the folks inside the courtroom state that Donald is glaring at her.  Her first words into the mic were “I’m really nervous.”

Yesterday’s trial was pretty hilarious as Michael Cohen’s documents and tapes were presented. Many included statements from Donald that incriminated him.  This is from the Business Insider.  “Donald ‘Von ShitzInPantz’ has now formally been entered into the public record at Trump’s hush-money trial.” Everyone but Laura Ingraham has the shitz and giggles over it.

Another week, another contempt-of-court hearing for former President Donald Trump — and this one was a doozy.

On Thursday morning, prosecutors at Trump’s Manhattan hush-money trial argued that he violated his gag order last week when he made four on-camera statements attacking witnesses and the jury.

Things got weird when his defense attorney Todd Blanche complained that Trump must remain silent about witnesses and jurors while his opponents get to say “anything they want.”

That’s when President Joe Biden and Donald “Von ShitzInPants” made their bizarre cameo appearances on the official trial record.

Biden “mocked President Trump,” Blanche told the judge, quoting into the record a joke the president had made Saturday at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

“Donald has had a few tough days lately. You might call it stormy weather,” Biden quipped in a very apparent reference to Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the center of the hush-money trial.

“President Trump can’t respond to that” by criticizing Daniels, Blanche said Thursday to the judge, state Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan.

Likewise, Trump’s personal attorney turned nemesis, Michael Cohen, can take whatever potshot he chooses, Blanche told the judge.

But Trump must remain silent, Blanche added, even when Cohen mocks him as Donald “Von ShitzInPantz,” a favorite insult on Cohen’s podcast and his account on the social-media site X.

Blanche proceeded to read that colorfully worded, offending post into the record as Trump sat listening at the defense table.

“This one says, oh my, ShitzInPantz,” Blanche recited as he entered a screenshot of the post into the court record as Exhibit 64 — without any objection from prosecutors.

The official court stenographer duly followed along, typing the phrase into the court record as “shits in pants.”

I’m going to skip to the next part but you really should read the entire article. It’s just more surreality that surrounds Donald.  Donald can dish it out but cannot take it.

The judge showed skepticism toward Blanche’s argument that Trump “can’t say anything.”

“You’re saying he can’t respond to what President Biden said?” the judge asked Blanche at one point, his voice sounding incredulous.

“There’s nothing in the gag order that says he can’t,” the judge told Trump’s lawyer.

But the judge also appeared sympathetic to Blanche’s complaints that Cohen and Daniels enjoyed the protection of a gag order while having carte blanche to attack Trump — and continue to do so.

“They’re not defendants in this case,” Merchan said. “I can’t extend a gag order to them. I just don’t have the authority.”

Merchan can, however, remove Cohen from the gag order’s protection, something the judge suggested last week he would consider.

“They’re all similar,” Blanche said of Cohen’s relentless jabs at Trump. “They’re over the top about his character, about his candidacy.”

The lawyer added of Cohen: “This is not a man that needs protection from the gag order.”

The Judge has not announced his decision on the gag violation orders in front of him today. Norman Eisen’s take on the substance of yesterday’s hearing is an important read at CNN today.  “Opinion: How one text exchange gave Trump an ominous day in court.”

When a lawyer who is presenting a case at trial bumps into a colleague outside of court, a common question is, “How’s the case coming in?” This query reflects that planning a trial is one thing — but how well the evidence, especially testimony given by the witnesses, actually “comes in” before the judge and jury is another.

In Donald Trump’s Manhattan election interference trial, the case is coming in better than expected, and that is ominous for the former president.

A key moment in Thursday’s examination of Keith Davidson illustrated that. Davidsonis an attorney who represented both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels as their hush money payments were negotiated with former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen — payoffs alleged to have been part of the election influence scheme.

Although Davidson is just a supporting actor in this drama, his role innegotiating the alleged payment to Daniels makes him an important witness to lay down the basic facts of the alleged “catch and kill” plot — and to corroborate the details that former American Media, Inc. CEO and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker established and Cohen will ultimately testify about.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment of Davidson’s morning testimony came when he was asked about an election night 2016 text message exchange with Dylan Howard —aformer editor of the National Enquirer who helped broker the negotiations for the story. The prosecution asked Davidson to explain the meaning of a text he had sent to Howard that evening. As the election was about to be called for Trump, Davidson sent a text to Howard asking, “What have we done?”

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Davidson what the meaning of those words were. He answered that it meant “our efforts may have in some way — strike that — our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.”

When Davidson said those words, the normal hush of the courtroom was suddenly punctuated by the audible clattering of the keyboards of more than 60 journalists seated in the pew-like benches. Why? After all, prosecutors need not prove the alleged secret payment to Daniels actually swung the election, and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said as much in the DA’s opening statement: “We will never know.”

We’re beginning to get some reporting from the Hick’s testimony today.  This is from The Guardian. “‘We were all just following his lead’: Hope Hicks says Trump ‘very involved’ in campaign and media responses – live.”

Hope Hicks says she reported to Donald Trump directly in her role as press secretary during his campaign.

Asked how often she would speak to Trump during the campaign, Hicks says she spoke with Trump every day by telephone and in person.

The prosecution asked how involved Trump was involved in the media responses during his campaign. Hicks replies: “Very involved”. Asked how involved he was in the overall messaging during the campaign, Trump said:

“Mr Trump was responsible for it. He knew what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it and we were all just following his lead. He deserves the credit.”

Here’s a discussion between Eissen and CNN reporter Paula Newton

And here’s some more.

If you want to read a blow-by-blow of the questions and testimony follow  Inner City Press.

I’m sure more will be out this afternoon. I’ll try to keep posting down the thread.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

I was in a street car yesterday trying to get home when Mick and the guys rolled towards the JazzFest up the tracks going the other directions with NOPD motorcycles and a long line of limos and black SUVs.  I used to live to work sound at the fest but it’s just gotten out of hand. I don’t even go anymore. But here’s a treat with a cute anecdote reported by a friend of mine.  Our new governor is worse than DeSantis and Abbott and probably the Puppy Murderer too.

The fun thing about their performance they brought out New Orleans musicians to perform with them.  Their first hit, Time is on My Side, was first performed by New Orleans’s own Irma Thomas. Watch and listen!

 

 


Mostly Monday Reads: More of the Same (Sigh)

Fartman arrives at the Manhattan Courthouse for another week of heroics battling the Deep State. John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

What a rainy Monday this has become!  At least April is consistent, and we’re getting plenty of spring flowers here!  I hear the frogs and green anoles chirp.  Frogs are wonderful!  They can also whistle, croak, ribbit, peep, cluck, bark, and grunt. He has today off, but we will undoubtedly hear more weird sounds from Donald as he is once more confined to a cold courtroom with its hard chairs and people ruining his branding once again!

This is from Public Notice. The analysis is provided by Lisa Needham. “Trump’s criminal trial is off to a bad start for him. He’s low energy both inside and outside the courtroom.”  The Correspondent’s Dinner didn’t help his mood any either.  We’ll get to that.  I promise.

Thanks to New York’s relatively strict laws regarding media access to courtrooms, Trump’s trial has what is, for Trump, the precisely wrong level of exposure. New York doesn’t allow cameras or live audio, and it’s only because of the extraordinary nature of the proceedings that the court administration decided to make daily transcripts of the trial available for free on the court’s official website. Transcripts can run to thousands of dollars for a single day and are not usually turned around within 24 hours.

So, with the proceedings not entirely behind closed doors, Trump can’t outright lie about what transpired. But the lack of cameras and real-time coverage also means Trump can’t turn things into a circus by engaging in ridiculous behavior to distract media attention from the trial’s substance. When you combine this with the fact that the judge, not Trump, is wholly in control of the order of proceedings each day, this has to be one of the most maddening and humiliating experiences imaginable for him.

Trump can slake his thirst for attention and deploy his clumsy attempts to derail the narrative only a few times per day, when he is swarmed by media entering or exiting the courtroom. On those occasions, he goes on brief, highly repetitive rants that generate nothing but negative headlines for him.

Perhaps worst of all for Trump, even his most die-hard supporters don’t seem all that interested in trekking to Lower Manhattan. Trump is self-soothing over this, spinning an easily disprovable yarn that the courthouse is an “armed camp to keep people away” and that officials are turning around thousands of his supporters. Instead, CNN journalists attending the trial have said there have been days where the teeming number of MAGA faithful can be measured in single digits.

Needham says, “Trump is itching to get back on the campaign trail.”  I’m not sure he has enough energy for the golf course, even with his little cart. Maybe all that anger and outrage will get him off the sofa.  Chauncey Devega, writing for Salon, has this take on this day of peace and silence for everyone not on Truth Social. “The gag “trap” of Manhattan’s hush-money trial: “Trump will take the bait.” Will Donald Trump take the stand in his own defense? Experts weigh in on his first criminal trial”

In all, after only two weeks Donald Trump has, in short order, basically been reduced to being a mere mortal while in Judge Merchan’s courtroom. This reality is the opposite of the titan or God king messiah he presents himself as to his MAGA followers and the public more generally.

In an attempt to make better sense of the second week of Donald Trump’s hush-money trial, its implications for the 2024 Election and the larger democracy crisis, and what may happen next, I recently spoke with a range of experts.

I want to highlight this one.  There are more at the link.

Dr. John Gartner is a prominent psychologist and contributor to the bestselling book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

Trump’s trial in Manhattan is providing more evidence of his apparent cognitive decline. Trump fell asleep 4 out of 6 days of his own trial. Falling asleep is not in and of itself particularly specific to dementia. I fall asleep at dinner parties, because I’m old and work too hard. Bill Clinton was famous for it. But can you remember a criminal defendant repeatedly unable to stay awake at his own trial? I can’t. It’s obviously very rare. Most people are pumped full of adrenaline when they’re in the dock. Some have argued Trump’s just tired, or perhaps deprived of his stimulants. But lots of defendants are tired, and either on drugs, or missing their drugs, while in court, but they don’t repeatedly pass out at their own trials.

However, dementia patients frequently pass out during the day. And come to think of it, this may be the first criminal trial I’ve been aware of where the defendant appears, in my opinion, to have dementia. Is it a coincidence that it’s also the only one I’ve ever known where the defendant can’t remain awake most days? Trump appears to be losing control of his basic biological functions. One is sleep-wake. The other may be excretion. Twitter blew up when both Ben Meiselas and George Conway reported they had heard from multiple credible sources in the courtroom that Trump was loudly passing gas, and the smell was overpowering. This was judged by Snopes to be unconfirmed. But, personally, I happen to trust the people who reported it. I don’t believe they would make that up. There have been unconfirmed reports of Trump using adult diapers.

Normally, this would be a personal matter, but America really needs to know if Trump is incontinent. His apparent disease is progressing rapidly before our eyes and yet we’re being gaslit that this is “Trump being Trump.” That’s true, but it is also Trump appears to be dementing, and the mainstream media doesn’t seem to want to report on that story.

The trial is really a form of psychological torture for a malignant narcissist who needs to appear powerful. Instead, he appears small, confused, and helpless. Jenifer Rubin wrote in her Washington Post column: “Trump day by day has become smaller, more decrepit, and frankly, somewhat pathetic.” Thankfully, the Biden campaign is amplifying this winning message. Biden-Harris HQ, who describe themselves as “the official rapid response of the Biden-Harris campaign” on X/Twitter, wrote: “A feeble and tired Donald Trump once again falls asleep in court.” To fight back Trump must act out. He is defying Merchan’s gag order repeatedly, flagrantly and at a manic pace with no thought of the consequences—in lobby of the courthouse on a lunch break, on Newsmax in the evening, and then dozens of times at 3 AM on Truth Social.

Judge Juan Merchan will be unable to escape a show-down with Trump who will compulsively push him to the limit, and beyond, forcing an inevitable confrontation. Only one will emerge as dominant, and my money is on the judge, but that’s not a foregone conclusion. If Donald Trump is jailed, he’ll wear his incarceration like a martyr, like he’s Nelson Mandela or Alexei Navalny. While Fox News and his base will stoke right-wing outrage, I think sane people still like presidents who don’t get jailed.

There’s still much tea-reading on Donald’s case before the Supreme Court. This is from Business Insider. “A 15-year-old law review by Brett Kavanaugh offers a clue at how the Supreme Court Justice could rule in Trump’s immunity case.”  The analysis by Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert.

But one clue, hidden in a 2009 legal review written by Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh, could indicate how the conservative judge may decide in this case. And as Kavanaugh is relatively moderate compared to the court’s other right-leaning justices, his 15-year-old analysis may offer insight into how the other Republican-appointed justices are looking at the matter before them.

In his article, published in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009, when he was working as a US Circuit Judge,Kavanaugh argues that the public grossly underestimates the difficulty of the President’s job and that anyone elected to hold the office should “be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible.”

That includes criminal prosecution — at least while in office.

“The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office,” Kavanaugh wrote, arguing in favor of deferring criminal and civil prosecutions against sitting presidents accused of wrongdoing to ensure they can efficiently carry out the responsibilities of office.

One might contend that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking president, Kavanaugh acknowledges, but “the Constitution already provides that check.”

“If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress,” Kavanaugh wrote.”Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards.”

We hear this from retired Judge Lusttig speaking on MSNBC. “Judge Luttig blasts SCOTUS for avoiding ‘key question’ at the heart of Trump immunity case.”  This interview is with Ali Velshi.   You may watch the interview at the link.

Former federal Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Ali Velshi to discuss his takeaways from this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim, which many believe will lead to more delays in Trump’s federal criminal cases, and potentially impact the future of the presidency itself. “That this absurd argument is even being made before the Supreme Court is an embarrassment to the Constitution and to our country,” Judge Luttig says. Judge Luttig also criticizes the Supreme Court for avoiding the “straightforward, key question” about the case itself, and explains what decision he believes the justices are most likely to make.

We need to ensure discussions on the Supreme Court’s arguments for this case and the abortion case in Idaho do not go into the darkness with time. This group likes to drag their feet along with their knuckles.

 

Senator Fetterman changed his attire just a bit but glitzy isn’t his thing.

The Correspondent’s Dinner really got to the Donald, who was likely flinging ketchup and farting poo while watching.   This, however, was Biden’s night.  This is from The Hill, as reported by Cate Martel. “12:30 Report — Glitzy Correspondent’s Dinner highlights. Nerd prom weekend!”

“Saturday Night Live” (“SNL”) comedian Colin Jost hosted the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner over the weekend.

Jost’s reviews: On one hand, Variety wrote that “Colin Jost Wins Over Tough White House Correspondents Dinner Crowd With Praise for ‘Decent’ Biden.” But on the other hand, The New York Times wrote that “On This Saturday Night, Colin Jost’s Jokes Fell Flat.”

Watch the full dinner, via CSPAN

Meanwhile, here are a few clips out there on the X site.  There were several moments of protest also. Protestors unfurled a Palestinian flag out of the window of the Washington Hilton.  That was the location of the event. 

Joe Biden had some great jokes and delivery.  Example:  ““My wife Jill was worried how I’d do. I told her, ‘Don’t worry, it’s just like riding a bike.’ She said, ‘that’s what I’m worried about.’”  Talk about the ability to laugh at yourself.

My favorite joke by Josh was this one.  “”Can we just acknowledge how refreshing it is to see a President of the United States at an event that doesn’t begin with a bailiff saying, ‘All rise?'”

Please have a great week!!!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Funereal Friday Reads: Life as a Dank Meme

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

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Guess who John Prine wrote this about?