Friday Talking Points -- It's The Cover-Up
As the ghost of Richard Nixon might have warned Donald Trump: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." While the political world was all breathlessly awaiting a new Trump indictment over the failed January 6th insurrection attempt, the special counsel surprised everyone by superseding his first indictment instead -- the one dealing with Trump's refusal to return national security documents which were not his. And it was a bombshell.
The 60-page indictment accuses Donald Trump in great detail of not only concealing boxes and boxes of documents from being searched (after he received a subpoena to return all the documents), but then trying to cover up this crime by having his henchmen go down to his Florida resort and delete all the video footage showing how the crime was carried out -- right after that video footage was also subpoenaed. Thankfully, the henchmen were not successful in this endeavor. But it now appears they have been caught red-handed trying to destroy evidence of a crime. Which, of course, is also a serious crime. Just ask Tricky Dick Nixon, he'll tell you. Well, he would if he were still alive, at any rate.
A new defendant was named in the new charges, and much like the first co-conspirator named with Trump, it is expected the prosecutors will be looking to "flip" him in exchange for leniency. If one of the two henchmen who were directly involved in all of these criminal actions agrees to testify for the prosecution, Trump's goose might be cooked. Or "cooked even more well done than it already appears to be," to be strictly accurate.
Trump, of course, still maintains it is all a witch-hunt. We were amused by one internet meme last week (which we forgot to link to and so cannot properly credit, mea culpa) which pointed out: "It's hard to call it a witch-hunt when all the evidence comes from your own flying monkeys." Trump also stated this week that he will still be running for president even if he's in a prison cell, which is looking like less and less of an impossibility as time goes on.
But while the new charges brought in the documents case were jaw-dropping, what we're all still waiting for is an indictment over Trump's actions after losing the 2020 election. As of this writing, it appears we'll all have to wait until next week (at the earliest) for any big indictment news on this front. What we got this week instead was a meeting between Trump's lawyers and the special counsel's team. This is a pro forma politeness from a prosecutor, where the target of the investigation is given a chance to (literally) make their case to the prosecutors why their client is pure as the driven snow and should not be indicted for any crime. It is a courtesy meeting, in other words. It is a procedural box that has now been checked. From all reports it wound up like virtually every other one of these types of meetings -- with the prosecution not impressed one tiny bit. Now that the meeting has happened, there appears to be nothing left to do but have the grand jury hand down the indictment.
Tangential news in the special counsel's investigation was that they will now get thousands of documents from former N.Y.P.D. police commissioner Bernie Kerik, who served as Trump's "on the ground investigator looking into eventually disproven conspiracy theories about ballot stuffing and fake voters." This quite likely adds to what appears to be a growing mountain of evidence that Trump was told so many times that there was no fraud and he had indeed lost a free and fair election that it must have penetrated even Trump's incurious brain.
Meanwhile, security barricades "were spotted going up Thursday outside the Fulton County courthouse" in Atlanta, Georgia late this week, which could indicate that state-level charges could be filed against Trump as early as next week. Perhaps we'll even get a "two-indictment week" out of it? One can only hope....
If it all gets hard to keep track of, the New York Times provided a handy quick guide to track all the progress on all of Trump's criminal cases, for those playing at home.
Trump henchlawyer Rudy Giuliani made a surprising move in a defamation case against him this week as well (as we move on to the subject of "bad legal news for those connected with Trump"). Rudy, showing his legal brilliance, admitted that everything the two elections workers in Georgia who are suing him has said is accurate. Yep, he lied about them. Yep, this was defamatory. Nope, he never had any evidence of what he accused them of publicly. He just made the whole thing up.
Rudy apparently had been having problems (as usual) coming up with the evidence that the two women's lawyers were demanding. To solve this problem, he decided to end the entire process by just offering up his unconditional surrender. He is now angling to make a very last-ditch effort to somehow claim all his calumny and lies directed at these two innocent elections workers did them no harm at all, and was somehow protected by "the First Amendment." Both women received "racist death threats" and had to leave their jobs and move after Rudy made his accusations, it is worth pointing out. So Rudy's hail-Mary legal defense seems pretty certain to fail.
Rudy's not the only lawyer who has worked for Trump (and who pushed the Big Lie that the election was somehow stolen) who is now beginning to face the legal music either. No wonder Trump's been having problems putting together a competent legal team to defend himself against all the criminal charges -- what top-notch lawyer in their right mind would want Trump for a client, at this point?
Out on the campaign trail, Ron DeSantis appears to be in full-meltdown mode. Or, at least, that's what the punditocracy has concluded -- but such prognostications from the horserace-watchers doesn't always turn out to be true, so we'll have to wait and see. DeSantis is still busy picking culture-war fights down in Florida (more on that in a bit), but so far this hasn't translated into increased support nationwide. And now the donors backing DeSantis appear to be having second thoughts about him.
Senator Mitt Romney had some advice for these GOP donors, and for the candidates vying to take on Donald Trump: drop out if you're not in second place, and drop out as early as possible. This seems like a commonsense plan on the face of it, but it could easily wind up being no more than too little, too late in the end.
On the other side of the political aisle, Joe Biden got more good economic news this week, which bolsters his strategy of running on "Bidenomics." Instead of a disappointing 1.5 percent, the American economy actually grew by a much-more-robust 2.4 percent last quarter. Even some Republicans are coming to the realization that: (1) there is more than a year to go before election season really heats up, and; (2) anything can happen in a year, but what seems most likely right now is that the economy will be doing great and therefore will not be a potent issue for Republicans in the 2024 race.
Biden also created (with his signature) a national monument in honor of Emmett Till and his mother this week, saying during the ceremony:
At a time when there are those who seek to ban books, bury history, we're making it clear -- crystal, crystal clear: While darkness and denialism can hide much, they erase nothing. Only with truth comes healing, justice, repair and another step forward toward forming a more perfect Union. We've got a hell of a long way to go.
Hunter Biden's legal problems got worse this week, as the plea deal he had worked out with the government was rejected by the judge. She was probably right to do so -- it seemed rather broad in describing what crimes Biden would never be charged with in the future -- so both sides are now going to go back to the drawing board. Republicans were delighted with this news, of course, but their own efforts to tear down both Hunter and his dad are still going precisely nowhere. Kevin McCarthy teased that the House Republicans would soon be starting an impeachment process in the House, but then had to quickly walk it back after members of his own party objected (since they have evidence of precisely zero "high crimes and misdemeanors" with which to charge the president). When the White House press secretary was asked if Joe Biden would consider pardoning his own son, she answered with one of the reasons why the American electorate put him in office rather than Donald Trump. Her answer was one word long: "No." Can anyone imagine Trump not pardoning a member of his family, if the political shoe were on the other foot right now?
On the other side of the Capitol, Mitch McConnell totally froze during a press conference. He drifted off in the middle of a sentence and just stood there in some sort of fugue state, staring off into space. Aides finally hustled him away (after 20 long seconds of silence), and he did return to the podium later and answered all questions, but the entire incident spurred some nervousness among other Senate Republicans (who all started wondering who would replace McConnell as their Senate leader, if he were forced to step down suddenly). McConnell's team pushed back against this speculation, but that horse is now already out of the barn.
What else? It is now officially the "Silly Season," as the Senate is now on vacation until September 5th, while the House of Representatives is going to need another week of relaxation at the beach and won't be back until September 12th. Your tax dollars (not) at work!
Congress, before they scarpered off to some sunny beach somewhere (on a lobbyists' dime, naturally), did manage to get one or two things done. The Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act with a bipartisan vote of 86-11, which will now have to be reconciled with the House version, which was larded up with all kinds of culture-war poison-pill amendments. In the Senate bill, during the week the Oppenheimer movie was released, they did manage to correct an oversight in an earlier program and made all the victims of the original Trinity atomic bomb test eligible for compensation and medical care (adding them to the victims of all the other nuclear tests America did over the years that followed).
It's not just the Defense bill, of course. The House is in a frenzy of piling on all the right-wing extremist issues they can onto all of the appropriations bills they've got to pass before October. This means two things: first, a battle royale within the House Republican caucus over all this stuff, as the moderate GOP members balk at voting on things which will not help them get re-elected, while the hardcore MAGA members demand 100 percent of everything on their wish list. They were trying to get a few of the 12 appropriations bills passed on the floor of the House this week, but the only one they managed to get through was the bill for veterans' funding. All the others will have to wait until September. And then after they all pass the House (assuming they do), all of the right-wing nonsense will have to be stripped out in conference committees with the Senate, who isn't going to approve any of it. Which just adds delay to the entire process, and which is looking like it'll almost guarantee a government shutdown. Republicans in disarray, once again -- it's becoming a permanent storyline, really. Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Democrats have completed passage of all 12 of the appropriations bills through the Appropriations Committee, "in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion."
But back to Silly Season. In silly news, the nation was consumed, at the start of this week, by one existential question: Oppenbarbie, or Barbenheimer? When you see both Barbie and Oppenheimer together as a theater double-bill, which do you see first? Lightness and fluff, then doom and gloom, or: "You've got to eat your dinner before dessert"? The debate rages on....
In tech news, Twitter is no more. It is now "X". No, seriously. Our reaction to this idiocy was to remember that Monty Python had predicted this very event, decades ago: "This... is an X parrot!"
(Ahem. You'll have to excuse us, we are merely trying to get in the true spirit of Silly Season.)
Let's end today's roundup with an anniversary: 76 years ago this month, something rather strange happened in Roswell, New Mexico. This week, a House committee held a hearing on unidentified aerial phenomena (U.A.P.s), which is the new tech-speak that replaced the old tech-speak term "unidentified flying objects" (U.F.O.s) -- but which anyone from 1947 would have just called "flying saucers." Some rather eyebrow-raising claims were made by one of the witnesses who testified, which we wrote about earlier this week. He claimed the Pentagon has a secret program for retrieving downed U.A.P.s and that they had discovered "non-human biologics" in these crash sites. Some congressmen are now beseeching Speaker Kevin McCarthy to create a select committee (with subpoena power) to further investigate what the government does and does not know (or possess, even) about alien craft or alien pilots. So we'll all have to stay tuned to this developing story....
We almost put this in the negative awards category (for the Trumpian-grade gutter language used), but upon reflection we had to give Eric Swalwell an Honorable Mention instead. He wasn't the first to use the term, after all, and he wasn't the one proposing some sort of "pistols at dawn" way of settling political differences. He was instead standing up and refusing to back down to a bully making physical threats, which is (we feel) an honorable thing to do.
Here's the whole story, from HuffPost (with a warning that it contains one very offensive term):
Rep. Eric Swalwell's (D-Calif.) claws came out during a pair of tense confrontations with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) last month.
Swalwell and McCarthy's dispute began with the House Republicans' vote to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on June 21 and reportedly ended with Swalwell calling McCarthy a "pussy" on the House floor a day later, according to The Daily Beast.
. . .
The conflict started when Swalwell led Democrats in protest after Schiff's censure, crying "shame" on Republicans after the censure vote.
While Swalwell stood near McCarthy's podium, he allegedly told him, "This is pathetic. You're weak. You're a weak man." (In C-SPAN footage from the session, you can briefly hear someone calling McCarthy weak, but it is unclear if the voice belonged to Swalwell.)
Two lawmakers who witnessed the spat told The Daily Beast that McCarthy ended the exchange with a cold, 10-second stare.
The next day, the California politicians continued to go at it, according to the lawmakers' accounts.
During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the capital, witnesses say they saw McCarthy confront Swalwell while the Democrat was making his way to the bathroom.
One politician remembers McCarthy telling his rival, "If you ever say something like that to me again, I'm gonna kick the shit out of you."
Swalwell was reportedly ready to take McCarthy up on his challenge, as another politician claims they heard him ask, "Are we really gonna do this?"
According to the sources, McCarthy bit back saying, "Call me a pussy again, and I'll kick your ass."
Both witnesses claim Swalwell responded with profane precision, telling McCarthy, "You. Are. A. Pussy."
A brief stare-down ensued before McCarthy finally let Swalwell pass, according to onlookers.
Nothing like the United States Congress regressing to the level of an elementary-school playground, is there? (Sigh.)
Anyway, we have a much more positive candidate for out main award, so we'll just move right along. One Democrat stood out this week, for strongly taking on the endless Republican culture wars. Vice president Kamala Harris headed down to Florida this week to heap some well-deserved shame on Governor Ron DeSantis and the state education board that published a new curricula on how teachers should handle the subject of slavery. Her speech was heartfelt and fiery, which is no surprise since the subject is entirely within Harris's wheelhouse. For championing the issue in a way Joe Biden couldn't, Harris is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.
Here is the story:
Vice President Harris, taking aim at Gov. Ron DeSantis's "war on woke" on Friday in his home state, blasted Florida politicians for making changes to the public school curriculum that she said amounted to little more than a "purposeful and intentional policy to mislead our children," especially when it comes to slavery.
Harris never mentioned DeSantis (R) by name, referring only to "extremists" and people who "want to be talked about as American leaders." But her fiery speech in Jacksonville focused squarely on the policies of the Florida governor and presidential candidate, as well as on the state's Board of Education and its Republican-controlled legislature.
Florida's new standards on Black history lay out numerous benchmarks, but one has especially caught critics' attention -- a statement that "slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit." Since the guidelines were approved on Wednesday, many civil rights leaders have denounced the notion that slavery benefited its victims in some ways.
"Come on -- adults know what slavery really involved," Harris said. "It involved rape. It involved torture. It involved taking a baby from their mother. It involved some of the worst examples of depriving people of humanity in our world."
She added, "How is it that anyone could suggest that in the midst of these atrocities, that there was any benefit to being subjected to this level of dehumanization?"
. . .
"Let's be clear -- I do believe this is not only about the state of Florida. There is a national agenda afoot," Harris said Friday. "Extremist so-called leaders for months have dared to ban books -- book bans in this year of our Lord 2023! Extremists here in Florida passed a law, 'don't say gay,' trying to instill fear in our teachers that they should not live their full life and love who they love. And now, on top of all of that, they want to replace history with lies."
Harris has shown the same level of passion and intensity when talking about abortion, over the past year, we should also mention. It seems she is finally having somewhat of a moment in the spotlight, as the Biden re-election campaign gets rolling. She has also been doing the circuit of fundraising, meeting with more and more Democratic donors. This fulfills two of the traditional vice-presidential duties in any campaign: being a surrogate when Biden can't show up, and being an attack dog against the opposition party (and, eventually, candidate), as the article goes on to point out:
[President Joe] Biden, for his part, has run an almost understated campaign for reelection, as his advisers have sought to cast him as an above-the-fray commander in chief focused on delivering results to the American people. While Republican candidates like Trump and DeSantis go after each other, Biden has sought to project the image of a leader who is removed from any back-and-forth with the Republicans trying to unseat him.
Harris, however, has dived headfirst into that political and cultural fray, something of a traditional role for a running mate. She has held weekly events about abortion access, met with Black legislators in Tennessee who were expelled after protesting gun violence on the statehouse floor, and now is taking the lead in offering a counterpoint to DeSantis's cultural onslaught.
Harris is not always a great orator, and even that's putting it politely. But on both abortion and now Black history, she has shown that when she is personally passionate about an issue, she becomes forceful and impressive in her speeches. Biden would do well to put her out in front of the public more and more as the campaign ramps up.
But for now, for taking on the state of Florida's idiocy, Kamala Harris is easily this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.
[Congratulate Vice President Kamala Harris on the official White House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]
This may be adding insult to injury, but since we do live in California, it is rather personal.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is 90 years old, got a little confused during a Senate committee meeting the other day. A vote was being called and while others were answering "Yea" or "Nay," Feinstein mistakenly thought it was still time to give speeches about which way everyone was going to vote. She launched into one and finally others in the room got her to realize that an actual vote was happening (including the cringeworthy voice telling Feinstein: "Just say 'Yea'"), and Feinstein finally did cast her vote in the affirmative.
But the whole episode (coming in a week where Mitch McConnell froze during a press conference) showed that people can indeed become too old to adequately serve their constituents. Feinstein's case is more egregious than McConnell's (to be fair), but it has been painfully obvious for quite some time that she is not mentally sharp enough to continue to represent almost 40 million people in the United States Senate.
Dianne Feinstein still has a year and a half to go before her term is up. She has (thankfully) said she will not run for re-election. But as we have urged her before (and will continue to do, right up until January of 2025 if necessary), there comes a time to pass the torch. That time, for Feinstein, has come. The longer she stays in the Senate, the more she will just tarnish her entire legacy as a senator. Which is why she is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week once again this week.
[Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein on her Senate contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]
Volume 716 (7/28/23)
A real mixed bag this week, with a few being borrowed from other sources (either in part or in full). After a couple positive ones for Team Biden, the rest are handy Democratic talking points to address the new legal woes Trump now faces, since that's what everyone is going to be asking about for the next few days (at the very least). Use responsibly, as always.
Growing the economy
The Washington Post had a rundown on how Democrats are attempting to deploy this talking point, so we thought we'd take a crack at it.
"Joe Biden is growing the American economy. When he took office, we were still trying to get out of the deep hole that COVID and Donald Trump put us in. Now, the economy is back on track and surprising even the experts with how robust it is. All the economists were predicting only 1.5 percent economic growth in the second quarter of the year. The number came out this week and it was a pleasant surprise -- the economy had actually grown 2.4 percent. Bidenomics is growing the American economy. The Fed isn't expecting a recession later this year any more because of this. The American economy is resilient and strong under Biden's leadership. Because Democrats know how to grow the economy, while Republicans have nothing to offer but constant financial crises and government shutdowns."
GOP taking food from hungry babies
We can't claim credit for this second one either, since it is an excerpt from an article whose title is a great talking point all on its own: "A Year After Dobbs, House GOP Proposes Taking Food From Hungry Babies."
A year ago, when the Supreme Court struck down the federal right to abortion access, Republican politicians pledged to support women facing unplanned pregnancies.
Today? Republican lawmakers are literally trying to take food away from disadvantaged new moms and their children.
. . .
The GOP-controlled House's fiscal 2024 agricultural bill would either eliminate or reduce benefits for 5.3 million kids and pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding adults, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.
. . .
Republicans portray their spending cuts as fiscally responsible. In reality, they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Deleting a server? Where have I heard that before?
The irony is thick, on this one.
"The Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, has been using the refrain: 'But what about her emails?' as an attack on Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents. In particular, they love to point out that Clinton destroyed the hard drive of a server she had set up in her own private home. But now we find out that Donald Trump ordered the destruction of a server at his Florida golf resort because it contained evidence of the criminal conspiracy he's now been charged with. He even had high praise for the guy working for Hillary 'who deleted all of her emails,' in an effort to get some of his own minions to delete some incriminating evidence for him. Deleting information on a server was the main reason Trump led his crowds in chants of 'Lock her up!' when he was running against Clinton. So now we'd like to return the favor, now that Trump's been caught red-handed trying to delete his own server: 'Lock him up!' Seems only fair...."
In Trump's own words
Being Trump, there's always a quote (or tweet, or "X"... or whatever we're supposed to call them now) for that.
"When he first campaigned for President and was making lots of political hay over Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents, Donald Trump certainly seemed like he knew how serious this stuff was. The new superseded indictment helpfully points a few of these quotes out. From August of 2016, Trump promised:"
In my administration I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.
"From September:"
We also need to fight this battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets.... We can't have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified.
"One day later, he was back at it again:"
[O]ne of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.
"Trump used to at least pretend to understand how serious this all was. But, of course, he was blatantly lying about it all. Because, as we all know, according to Trump no rules actually apply to him, just to his opponents."
Defending the indefensible
It's always interesting, the short period between damning evidence being revealed against Trump and when he and his followers settle on some ridiculous reason why everything is really hunky-dory, as they flail around trying one inane justification and then another.
"OK, when it came out that Trump had hundreds of highly-classified documents in his possession and had essentially zero security protecting them from the tens of thousands of people who streamed through his golf resort, Trump's answer was that he had somehow magically declassified them with the power of his mind. Since they were declassified, it was no big deal, in other words. Then when it was pointed out that it really didn't even matter what the classification was on the documents, since the laws he was charged under didn't even mention classification, Trump responded with the laughable assertion that the Presidential Records Act -- a law passed by Congress to make sure nobody could ever do what Richard Nixon attempted to do with his own damning evidence against him -- somehow says it is all up to the ex-president to determine which papers are personal and which are government property. The P.R.A. doesn't say that, of course, it actually says the exact opposite. So what are they saying now? I mean, where does the Presidential Records Act say it is OK to delete servers and destroy any evidence of crimes you feel like? Because I've read it and it definitely doesn't say anything like that."
"Incandescently stupid"
This one comes from Miles Taylor, who was Trump's own chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security. While being interviewed on a podcast, Taylor explained what the intelligence community had to do to get Trump to absorb even the most rudimentary information about the nation's security:
This fifty-page memo that we would normally give to any other president about what his options are is something Trump literally can't read. The man doesn't read. We've gotta boil this down into a one-pager in his voice. And so I had to write this incandescently stupid memo called something like, "Afghanistan, How to Put America First and Win." And then bullet by bullet, I summed up this highly classified memo into Trump's sort of bombastic language because it was the only way he was going to understand. I mean, I literally said in there, "You know, if we leave Afghanistan too fast, the terrorists will call us losers. But if we want to be seen as winners, we need to make sure the Afghan forces have the strength to push back against these criminals." I mean, it was that dumb and that's how you had to talk to him.
Want to know what a second Trump term would look like? Look at Israel.
Want to see a preview? Take a look at the international news.
"Anyone who wants to see what a second Trump term would look like should look at what is happening in Israel right now. They are in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis because one man has decided that he is above the law. The Israeli leader is currently facing court charges of corruption. So in a right-wing power grab, he is going to neuter the entire judiciary of Israel and make them powerless to stop not just him but anything their parliament decides to do. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis who care deeply about democracy have taken to the streets for months now, but they have not been able to prevent the leader from attempting to kneecap their supreme court. If you want to see what a right-wing strongman can do to destroy a democracy -- exactly what Democrats are warning could happen here if Trump is re-elected -- all you have to do is take a close look at what is happening in Israel right now. That could be America's future, folks."
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
CW
Trump, of course, still maintains it is all a witch-hunt.
It's actually a "snitch-hunt," and one needs only to read the superseding indictment to understand they've definitely found some who are likely to be really great witnesses because Trump (according to him) only hires the best people.
The prosecution doesn't even need to get Trump on the witness stand since he isn't intelligent enough to apply the "first rule of holes," and his mouth is ever busily shoveling in overdrive... roll audiotape, roll videotape. What is your defense when you cannot take the stand without committing perjury? Rhetorical question.
FYI the prosecution doesn’t have the power to get Trump on the witness stand. As memory serves, it has something about the 5th Amendment.
Just ask Tricky Dick Nixon, he'll tell you. Well, he would if he were still alive, at any rate.
I kinda think he’s here with us, in spirit so to speak. I came of age watching Watergate unfold and I am really enjoying 2023. I am stocking up on popcorn and I’ll savor every moment of the Trump Trials, hoping I don’t have to wait another half-century for a 3rd GOP implosion in my lifetime.
BTW, Chris I know you’d looove for this to be Silly Season but between our indictment-o-rama & social media clickbait the lights are gonna stay on this time around.
Can we just cut the pretense and rename these "Friday Trump obsession"? More than half of the talking points were once again about Trump.
I really don't understand who Chris thinks will be convinced to vote for a Democrat at this point because of something stupid/autocratic/egotistical that Trump said or did.
Re: MIDDOW.
I agree that Biden deserves at least an honorable mention for creating a perennial reminder for posterity the horrific lynching of Emmett Till.
While it's definitely not going to change any minds, I nominate Rep. Ted Lieu for adding portions of the trial transcript to the Congressional Record. Again, this is not for us, but for posterity.
https://crooksandliars.com/2023/07/he-raped-her-rep-ted-lieu-reads
FTP#1b - Speaking of the economy, just look at the last few decades of economic data. Republican administrations and the Republican cult of economic failure have a long and painful history of leaving economic messes - on the order of magnitude of the Augean Stables, no less - while Democratic administrations have a long history of cleaning them up!
Unless you are a billionaire or millionaire who only cares about your own economic well-being and not that of most of the American people, vote for the party that offers the best stewardship of the economy and country and put an end to the Republican cult of economic failure, once and for all!
FTP#1b - Speaking of the economy, just look at the last few decades of economic data. Republican administrations and the Republican cult of economic failure have a long and painful history of leaving economic messes - on the order of magnitude of the Augean Stables, no less - while Democratic administrations have a long history of cleaning them up!
Unless you are a billionaire or millionaire who only cares about your own economic well-being and not that of most of the American people, vote for the party that offers the best stewardship of the economy and country and put an end to the Republican cult of economic failure, once and for all!
Huh? Not sure how THAT happened but, it's a phrase that's worth repeating! :)
FPC UAP
1- the universe is too big for Earth to be the only place life exists (heck, life probably is or was elsewhere in our solar system!)
2- any government that recovered evidence of extraterrestrials would DEFINITELY hide it, including our government.
3- the universe is 14+ billion years old and that’s a lot of time for life and civilizations to rise and shine. So IMO it’s a question of timing — do they happen to show up while our relatively new civilization is here?
Elizabeth, of course it’s factually accurate to describe it that way. But respectfully, it’s not especially catchy.
Since Joe and the Dems are hyping Bidenomics (finally!) why not contrast Bidenomics to Reaganomics? Reaganomics is the root cause of the decline of my Murica,! Something I watched since I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first election. Saint Ronnie said he wanted to shrink government down until it’s small enough to drown in the bathtub and that’s EXACTLY what they’ve been trying to accomplish since.
Bidenomics v. Reaganomics
CW
He is now angling to make a very last-ditch effort to somehow claim all his calumny and lies directed at these two innocent elections workers did them no harm at all, and was somehow protected by "the First Amendment."
Rudy Giuliani should ask his friend Alex Jones how that worked out for him for repeatedly defaming the Sandy Hook families and their deceased children, causing his ring-wing nutjob conspiracy theory loons to commit all manner of harassment against them in the same manner the RWNJs did to Plaintiffs Moss and Freeman.
That idiotic "First Amendment" defense (in general) usually claims that a Defendant can say whatever they want because a "reasonable person" should not believe their conspiracy BS, and when it's a lawyer claiming that defense, they will generally claim they have a constitutional right to verbalize anything they choose about Plaintiff(s) because it is their "legal opinion" and therefore not defamation.
CW
According to the sources, McCarthy bit back saying, "Call me a pussy again, and I'll kick your ass."
"The sources" are wrong to claim McCarthy "bit back" because McCarthy is all bark and no bite. Also, Donald grabbed Kevin, and McCarthy let Trump do it, which definitely qualifies Kevin as one. Maybe it would have been nicer if Swalwell had referred to McCarthy as the "Weaker of the House," but Swalwell is nevertheless correct.
Both witnesses claim Swalwell responded with profane precision, telling McCarthy, "You. Are. A. Pussy."
Repeat after me: Weaker. Of. The. House.
A brief stare-down ensued before McCarthy finally let Swalwell pass, according to onlookers.
So then, no actual promised ass kicking ensued, and Kevin thereby proved Swalwell's dead on balls accurate assessment of him... although definitely not the first time Kevin proved himself to be as yellow as mustard:
*
The shoe definitely fits Kevin.
MtnCaddy
2
FYI the prosecution doesn’t have the power to get Trump on the witness stand. As memory serves, it has something about the 5th Amendment.
"
Yes, obviously one of the rights of the Fifth Amendment is that a person cannot be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," but the Defendant still has the fundamental right to testify in his/her own defense, which may not be waived solely through their attorney and may only be waived by the Defendant personally. The point of my comment was that the prosecution doesn't even "need" Trump himself on the witness stand since they've already got him multiple times (in multiple cases) incriminating himself on audiotape, videotape, and also in writing... and also that Trump himself could not exercise his right to defend himself without committing perjury. So what is his defense? He literally has no valid defense to multiple of the charges in the "documents case."
Or put another way, as I've said many times: Trump has the right to remain silent; he just doesn't have the ability. Trump's relevant statements wherein he confesses to taking the documents are admissible by the prosecutors... so what is Trump's defense in a court of law if he cannot take the stand to defend himself against his own admissions on audiotape, videotape, and in written form?
So, to recap: Trump cannot effectively testify in his own defense to rebut the overwhelming evidence against him that he's provided to the prosecution via his constant digging of holes and his utter inability to shut that hole in his face. The Trumptanic has met the iceberg.
Kick, you effing rock!
Weaker of the House is so clever that it should (or has) gone viral. And I truly wouldn’t be at all surprised that YOU came up with it.
Or put another way, as I've said many times: Trump has the right to remain silent; he just doesn't have the ability.
Sho’ nuff you’re right! I can see Trump taking the stand if the docs case goes unfavorably and (against Attorney advice) tries a Hail Mary to save himself.
in his/her own defense…
BTW,
I hereby propose that we (the English speaking world) adopt Hizzer (pron. “HIH•zehr”) to replace the current manner of communicating this concept. Because why not?
[12]That's called the "I'm full of shit" defense and was notably used by Tucker Carlson and Mike Tyson before him.
[14]
Wait. If a defendant lies on the stand about his personal culpability he risks a perjury charge on top of 187 years in supermax for the criminal acts that sh’he** denies?
**pron. Shuh’HEE
It seems that I’m in the mood to share my contribution to our ever evolving English/Murican language. No really it’s my pleasure. ;D y’all
…er, lies on the stand about hizzer personal culpability they risk a perjury charge?
Whatever. I don’t have a full understanding of pronoun etiquette nowadays but I’m down with the concept of erring on the side of overkill respect, said the 64-year old. I’ve two bros that are transitioning and tha other guy dresses up spectacularly. Plus I’m a Loud and Proud Libtard.
Kumbaya.
Re TP#1 the insanely long protests in Israel — for good reason I say, bleep Bibi — are what I’ve long suspected would happen here if Trump got to skate. This is why I got over my skepticism about rule of law and how long it’s taken for Trump to be held accountable.
Re: Kick [13]
This deserves to be on a bumper sticker!
" Donald grabbed Kevin ... which definitely qualifies Kevin as one. "
or more precisely, donald grabbed the GOP by its mccarthy.
Very nice!
Fine work, there Weigantia! Or fine play, there as it were.
Given the apparent paltry support for Joe Biden shown in an increasing number of non-partisan polls, it may be time for the Friday Talking Points columns to be directed more to the hypocrisy of the Biden administration on the file with existential implications, namely that of global boiling and impacts of climate change. If Team Biden is being hypocritical on the ultimate impactful issue, what else is he lying about, voters might be well-inclined to ponder.
"As we suffer through extreme heat in the US and across the globe, President Biden has been protecting fossil fuel profits instead of people. From the Willow project in Alaska to Gulf LNG exports, Biden props up dangerous oil and gas projects and the corporations that value their bottom line over our future. It has to stop.
"This year alone, Biden approved the Willow oil project and multiple LNG export facilities, and his administration put its support behind the Mountain Valley fracked gas pipeline, skipping important permitting processes meant to protect people and the environment, betraying communities and his voters.
"President Biden has even backed policies that gut bedrock environmental laws that protect communities from fossil fuel pollution."
There's that. Also, Biden seems quite content to support a stupid war for as long as it takes. For as long as it takes to do WHAT!? So, there's that on top of that. All of which explains a lot. :(
sigh
apparently, CW wasn't the only one to think of the X-Parrot this week.
also, biden has gotten better economic results in two and a half years than anybody predicted, and foreign policy is historically his wheelhouse. remember when we all thought covid relief and inflation reduction were dead in the water? i think even for those who might disapprove of his decisions in the here and now, the guy has earned a little forbearance.
in that vein, will the negative nancy who kidnapped liz please return her unharmed?
this piece is a year old, but it pretty thoroughly covers the weird convergence of the far right and far left on ukraine.
Joshua,
biden has gotten better economic results in two and a half years than anybody predicted...
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! And, that is why there is no better time than now to start changing the very, very, very longtime narrative that Republicans are the better stewards for the economy!!! Which I have been harping on about here since, well, since I've been here. Heh.
foreign policy is historically [Biden's] wheelhouse.
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! Indeed, it was my interest in US foreign policy - which began during the Iran/Contra hearings - that actually lead me to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman/ranking member in the first place, circa 1987.
I haven't ALWAYS agreed with Biden on his foreign policy stances but I have always learned a great deal from him in that regard. Which is why I am so disappointed in how he has handled the Ukraine file and not just since he became president.
Speaking of Ukraine ... I'm sensing a gradual drifting toward a political settlement ... and, it's about damn time!
As for your [29], I will read the piece.
But, my first reaction is to say that 'support for Ukraine' can take many forms but, endlessly providing just enough military and financial aid to prolong this war and transform Ukraine into a US client state ain't my idea of support!
i think even for those who might disapprove of his decisions in the here and now, the guy has earned a little forbearance.
I agree, wholeheartedly. But, alas, I'm not part of the electorate and that's where Biden's problem resides.
Liz [31]
Got anything to back that up? Looks to me like the US has given extraordinary amounts of aid compared to all US aid recipients pretty much since the Marshall Plan...
Bashi,
Got anything to back that up?
Seriously? Have you been following what's been going on there lately?
Bashi,
Got anything to back that up?
Seriously? Have you been following what's been going on there lately?
Yes I have. Question still remains...
Perhaps the F-16s will be the game-changer Ukraine needs! Of course, chances of THAT kind of support materializing anytime soon or into the future is pretty slim.
Bashi,
Let me try to answer your question with another one ...
What has Ukraine been able to accomplish - and what is your assessment of the current state of affairs on the battlefield - with all of the support they have been getting from, primarily, the US?
So...you can't back it up?
Again, I'm not questioning the amount of aid Ukraine is getting on a continuing basis ... just that it hasn't been enough to for them to make any headway. I'm also saying that, in the final analysis, this thing doesn't get resolved militarily.
BACK WHAT UP - now you are wasting my time!
Considering how many posts you post per day, is wasting your time even possible?
Your quote:
endlessly providing just enough military and financial aid to prolong this war and transform Ukraine into a US client state ain't my idea of support!
I personally think that is total bullshit and have provided back up that the US has backed Ukraine more than any other country in the last half century or more By a rather large margin.
What's up with the "client state"? Are all NATO/EU members client states? Sounds like some serious tit for tat grade A Russian propaganda right there...
Your turn.
I personally think that is total bullshit
So, you think Ukraine is anywhere near winning this war? Surely with the unprecedented and extraordinary military and financial support they have received and are receiving and will receive for as long as it takes from the US, primarily, and from other NATO countries, this war should be over by now, no?
Instead, Ukraine complains that they are not getting enough. Maybe they are beginning to understand what they won't be getting from the US/NATO AND that they won't be invited to join NATO in the near term nor long term nor ever if responsible heads prevail.
Of course, you have completely misconstrued my reference to client state. Which Ukraine will be, forevermore. So much for sovereignty.
Now, do I have to explain to you how I feel about Putin's actions in all of this?
Btw, Bashi, your fascination with number of posts and Russian propaganda is amusing.
How is a war supposed to go? Got a template? It was a lot of years of slogging before D-day and a lot of slow moving afterward.
Of course, you have completely misconstrued my reference to client state. Which Ukraine will be, forevermore. So much for sovereignty.
As you really haven't backed up anything, I have little to go on for your personal definition "client state" but the term has real meaning in geopolitics and I would need some real proof before I took you seriously on Ukraine being one to the US.
A lot of questions. Not much backing up...Are you moving into the late stage Michale school of Rhetoric?
I hope you are not equating WWII with what is happening in Ukraine. You think another long war and a stupid one at that is in anyone's interests?
And, this is a freakin' blog not a thesis paper. We are allowed to voice our opinions without providing a link to our every thought, you know. Geez Louise, Bashi!
I hope you are not equating WWII with what is happening in Ukraine.
No, I'm saying each war is unpredictable and unique and really doesn't care about anyone's interests or time tables.
And, this is a freakin' blog not a thesis paper. We are allowed to voice our opinions without providing a link to our every thought, you know. Geez Louise, Bashi!
Aren't you the one who often complains that there is a lack of serious discussion around here?
Interesting that...
Must I provide a link to back up my thoughts in order to have a serious discussion with you? Don't answer that!
I would say a link or an easily searchable fact is required only to support those points that are disputed. For example the assertion that the u.s. has supported Ukraine at least partially to transform it into a client state. Not all points require evidentiary support, but I believe that one does.
For example:
https://www.ponarseurasia.org/is-ukraine-a-client-state-of-the-united-states/
based at least on that article, as well as more recent ones at the same site, the US has been a somewhat reluctant patron to ukraine. it's not as if we've been dragged in holding our noses, but neither is it a situation where we've been nudging or manipulating them to create a deeper relationship. it seems to be mostly the ukranians themselves who want to be associated economically and politically with the US and western europe.
Joshua,
Thanks for posting that piece on what is meant by 'client state' in the context of the relationship between the US and Ukraine over the course of the last many decades.
But, my reference to Ukraine having become a "US client state" was meant ONLY in the context of the current Ukraine war and how completely dependent Ukraine is now on the US for both military AND financial support. This war has left the Ukrainian economy in tatters and it will only get worse the longer this unnecessary war rages on.
So, in my opinion, Ukraine will be a US client state in the classic definition of the term for a very, very, very long time to come.
And, I base that opinion not on any linkable article I have read over the course of the last couple of years but just on my acquired general knowledge of the situation as it pertains to the US and Ukraine.
You and others here are free to disagree with my assessment and/or to put forward your own analysis. There is no need on my part or on the part of anyone else here to provide a link to "back-up" an opinion. I will provide a link whenever I deem it appropriate to do so. :)
Heh. Y'all are cracking me up. :)
Elizabeth Miller
34
Seriously? Have you been following what's been going on there lately?
Cannot speak for Bashi, but I've been following it enormously closely, and you and your ignorant source are just incorrect. You're (sadly) still missing the big picture, and you seem to have been kidnapped by an uninformed imbecile.
BashiBazouk
39
So...you can't back it up?
Of course, she can't. Point to Bashi.
Elizabeth Miller
40
Again, I'm not questioning the amount of aid Ukraine is getting on a continuing basis ... just that it hasn't been enough to for them to make any headway.
They're still a sovereign nation not under the rule of Putin's Russia, are they not? Rhetorical question. That is "headway." Yes, I'm aware it's a counter-attack. Beats the hell out of being defeated by Russia in days, does it not? Again, rhetorical.
I'm also saying that, in the final analysis, this thing doesn't get resolved militarily.
Of course it gets "resolved militarily." Putin invaded Ukraine with the intent of "owning" them. Ukraine fought back "militarily" and is still a sovereign nation and still fighting back "militarily." Ukraine isn't making enough progress to please Elizabeth Miller of Canada? Cry me a river... tough shit.
The fact that "modern" warfare generally ends at a negotiating table doesn't mean it wasn't resolved "militarily." War is not an either/or situation; it's resolved by multiple means which definitely includes militarily.
Kick,
Let me try to be as clear for you as I can be ...
In my opinion, based on a general knowledge of the situation gained from a healthy variety of sources, Ukraine does not get back all of its disputed territory by way of battlefield victories. The sooner the West understands that, the better for Ukraine and its future.
Progress report:
Nowhere To Hide - The question troubling Ukrainian Troops
Elizabeth Miller
57
Let me try to be as clear for you as I can be ...
You're not ever unclear, Elizabeth, you're actually quite transparent. While you may not realize it, you've got this (obvious) "hangup" with time and timetables coupled with a penchant recently with "all or nothing" thinking, specifically in regards to Russia's latest aggression with yet another nation on its Western border.
In my opinion, based on a general knowledge of the situation gained from a healthy variety of sources, Ukraine does not get back all of its disputed territory by way of battlefield victories.
Big Picture: #SSDD and your "sweeping generalization" again duly noted, it sounds like the Russian/USSR invasion of Finland on their Western border circa 1939/40, but they're nevertheless still standing.
The sooner the West understands that, the better for Ukraine and its future.
Your hangup with time/timetables is again duly noted. The "West" already is obviously infinitely aware of that since this (obviously) isn't Russia's first invasion of a nation on their border, and I cannot fathom how anyone would make the asinine claim that the West isn't aware of this unless that person was seriously missing the forest for the trees... also known as failing to grasp the "big picture."
Ukraine is in a fight for their very existence against Putin/Russia's determination to "own" them. Their inability to retain and/or regain all of their nation does not in any way constitute a failure... See, e.g., Finland.
So, to recap: Big picture; you're still missing it.
Regardless how the "ending" of Russia's latest aggression against Ukraine plays out in the near future and whether or not they retain/regain their entire country or "only" a ginormous piece of it, their fight for their independence and Putin's assistance in unifying a massive chunk of the world in support of independence for Ukraine is a success.
Say... you don't suppose Russia might henceforth into the future invade another nation and hasten Ukraine's entry into NATO? Rhetorical question. I know idiots who actually insisted ad nauseam that Finland would never be part of NATO. How short-sighted were they?
Kick,
I reality, most the world is NOT aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine.
Elizabeth Miller
60
I reality, most the world is NOT aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine.
In actual reality, I said (and I quote myself) "Putin's assistance in unifying a massive chunk of the world in support of independence for Ukraine is a success." I'm not at all surprised how you'd incorrectly misconstrue my use of the term "massive chunk of the world" with your phrasing (and I quote you) "most the world."
Not even a "good try," Elizabeth.
So you made the claim, "most the world is NOT aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine," so now back it up.
Which nations are aligned with the West and which are aligned with Russia? For proof, you might want to start at the United Nations where they actually take a vote on these issues:
*
I would definitely call that "a massive chunk of the world." Let me know if you need "two-thirds majority" explained to you, and kindly stop redefining my comments. :)
Well, Kick, being aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine means much more than mere votes at the UN.
To find out where most of the world is on the issue of the war in Ukraine you will have to do some reading. I would suggest an expansive read through various media sources in order to get the fullest picture of what is going on - with respect to this issue and, certainly, with respect to any other issue surrounding this war.
I can list the ones I use if you think it would be helpful.
Elizabeth Miller
62
Well, Kick, being aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine means much more than mere votes at the UN.
No shit, Elizabeth; however, it would be a nice start wherein you could attempt to actually provide some kind of back up to your multiple repetitive asinine claims. You've got to start somewhere, might as well start with data. If everyone else can do it; you could at least give it a try versus the same repetitive BS with not a scintilla of any data at all to back up your claims.
To find out where most of the world is on the issue of the war in Ukraine you will have to do some reading.
Oh, this shit again!? As if no one else here could possibly be informed!? You seriously have no idea what you're prattling on about.
I would suggest an expansive read through various media sources in order to get the fullest picture of what is going on - with respect to this issue and, certainly, with respect to any other issue surrounding this war.
I would suggest you have no idea how closely your repetitive pathetic claptrap resembles the QAnon crazies who claim to be "well-informed insiders" who "know things" by reading their "media sources" and "Q drops."
I can list the ones I use if you think it would be helpful.
I'm not kidding when I respond that you sound like a QAnon conspiracy-nut crazy... attempting to convert people to the Right-Wing Cult of Intellectual Failure... if only we'd read what you're reading. *laughs*
Kick, this is futile and beyond hope, sadly.
While I refuse to be held responsible for informing anyone on this blog about anything as we simple must do our own research, here is an interesting piece explaining why Western sanctions on Russia are and destined always to be a policy failure on the part of the West.
Biden and team thought sanctions would cripple Russia, thereby bringing an end to the war in Ukraine. I hope they are finally working on plan B, now ... of course, I'm not holding my breath.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/countries-have-sanctioned-russia
Two-thirds of the world's population live in countries that have refused to condemn or sanction Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
Russia's pockets of support are growing in the developing world.
Which is more bad news for Biden's new world order initiative.
Kick,
In future, I will endeavour to provide the necessary "back-up" to my opinions presented here, in this blog, whenever I deem the effort to be appropriate.
I hope that will assist in your understanding!